Open letter to Labor Cabinet - reject the polluting destructive Adani coal mine.

TO: Labor Cabinet

The massive Adani Coal mine must not proceed.  It will contribute to the death of the Great Barrier Reef and the coal produce will contribute to climate change when it is exported and burnt.

When burned, the coal will generate greenhouse gases
equivalent to 4.49 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide.

The open cut mine will also destroy the Queensland environment in the region.  Very few full time equivalent jobs (1464) will be created, contrary to company claims.

Adani has been granted unlimited volumes of water for 60 years from the Great Artesian Basin, which will compromise other users of this water.  Around 200 small towns draw their water from the basin’s aquifers.

A significant portion of the remaining habitat of the endangered black-throated finch is within the bounds of the Carmichael mine site. The mine will remove the best remaining habitat, and fragment the good quality habitat that remains.

The vulnerable squatter pigeon’s habitat is much larger, but the entire Carmichael mine site is within its territory.

The yakka skink is another vulnerable species that was part of the court case that saw Adani’s mine approval briefly overturned in 2015. The mine and connecting rail are directly within its habitat.

Shipping the coal to the international market also requires a huge expansion of the Abbot Point Coal Terminal (which is also owned by Adani).  This means dredging 1.1 million cubic metres of the seabed and dumping it near the Caley Valley Wetlands.

Your decision on this will go down in Australian environmental history.

I will strongly consider voting for Labor in the next federal election if you withdraw support for the Adani coal mine.

Please reject this polluting and destructive coal mine.

Our future is in your hands.

Yours sincerely,
Peter Campbell

You can send your letter to the Labor Cabinet from a link here

A tale of two newspapers

Reza Barati, an Iranian asylum seeker incarcerated at the Manus Island "offshore processing centre" in Australia's care was murdered by security guards on Thursday 20 February. The Age (Melbourne) put this story on its front page with further information inside on page 2.

In the Herald Sun (Melbourne), the same story appears for the first time on page 15, with very little information provided.  A leggy model and a local murder is featured on its front page.

This is good example at the extreme bias of the Murdoch-owned Herald Sun towards the Abbott LNP Government.   Bad news stories about Labor are paraded on their front page, while bad news stories about the LNP are relegated much further back.

It is interesting that Herald Sun editorials and some journalist recently stridently attacked the ABC for "alleged bias against the LNP government" supporting claims to that effect made by Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

How do these people lie straight in bed?

The extremely biased Murdoch press and Tony Abbott attack the ABC when they report both sides of a story (such as allegations that Navy personally deliberately inflicted burns on asylum seekers in a boat they were turning back to Indonesia).

Mr Abbott, we need a Royal Commission into the Navy hand burning allegations, and into the Australian Navy's repeated incursions into Indonesian waters!

Sorry, I forgot, Royal Commissions are only held as witch hunts to score points against the Opposition (e.g. home insulation and union corruption).

These are dark days for Australia.  Our international reputation is being trashed by the Abbott government's human rights abuses against asylum seekers, and Abbott's often repeated lie that is "illegal to seek asylum in Australia" when it is not.

Leunig summed things up nicely.

Rest in Peace Reza Barati

External links

• Iranian asylum seeker killed on Manus Island named Reza Barati, The Age
• Petition | Allow journalists access to the Manus Island detention centre, Change.org : 

Bookies give election to Abbott

I just has a look at an online betting site (no free ads on my blog!).  Based on their odds Coalition 1.3 Labor 11.50, they seem certain that Tony Abbott will win the election.

Some other seats of interest in Victoria are:

Melbourne Ports: Labor 1.08 Coalition 6.50
Charles Danby retains the seat but the Coalition odds are lowish.

Melbourne: Labor 1.22 Green 3.75
The Greens incumbent Adam Bandt loses to Labor's Cath Bowtell

McEwen: Labor 1.53 Coalition 2.40

Indi: Coalition 1.25 Any other 3.50
Sophie Mirabella is being challenged by independent Cathy McGowan

Deakin: Coalition 1.05 Labor 8.00
A key marginal seat currently held by Labor

Corangamite: Coalition 1.05 Labor 8.00
A key marginal seat currently held by Labor

Batman: Labor 1.001 Any other 11.00
The Greens Alex Bhathal is running in this safe Labor seat.

Time will tell.

Why Labor will lose the election

Watching the Labor party tear themselves to bits over the last 3 years has not been a pretty sight.  Alarm bells sounded for me when I listened to Kevn Rudd's election night speech in 2007 - I thought he talked too much, didn't thank enough people and was too focused on himself.

In government he did OK for a while.  The apology to stolen generations of indigenous Australians was a high point.

However the Australia 2020 Summit became just another talkfest with all the usual suspects invited.

The Rudd government's action on climate change was at first encouraging, but the climate change white paper and green paper signalled a direction towards emissions trading.

But the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, pushed hard by Penny Wong, was fatally flawed.  It included several policies that the Garnaut Report had specifically advised against, including gifting free emissions permits to polluting industries.

All this time, Kevin Rudd refused to talk to the Greens.  Instead, he stitched up a deal with Malcolm Turnbull (then leader of the opposition) to pass the CPRS.  However, when Turnbull was rolled by Abbott, this bipartisan support evaporated and it was game on.

Rudd lost his nerve though and shelved his CPRS, an action he himself had previously castigated Brendan Nelson for.  Rudd's public support dropped.  When he wobbled on the Mining Tax after a barrage from the mining industry, his support dropped further.

This wasn't why he was deposed by Labor as Prime Minister though.  He was voted out of the job by the Labor Caucus because it had become apparent he was very difficult to work with and not capable of delegating to or even trusting his ministers.  He was operating as a cell within the Labor Party, surrounded and informed by a close advisers, but disconnected from the rest of the Party and presumably a lot of the Executive arm of government too.  Rudd is now running the election campaign in a similar manner.

Julia Gillard replaced him as Prime Minister and immediately did what Rudd could not - she formed a minority government by negotiating with the 4 independents (Katter, Oakeshott, Windsor and Wilkie) and Adam Bandt from the Greens.

The Gillard government was one of the most successful in Australia's history in terms of passing legislation through Parliament and much of it was good.  Putting a price on pollution provided incentives for Australian industry to reduce carbon emissions (which happened!) and also provided funds to invest in clean renewable energy.

But Gillard sound dull and wooden to the electorate.  She made a few big mistakes too, like "ruling out a carbon tax" during the 2010 federal election, drastically reducing payments to single parents and significantly cutting funding to Universities - a measure that Gonski had not recommended and in fact opposed.

Tony Abbott relentlessly criticised and attacked Gillard and had considerable success tarnishing her government's reputation and her personal integrity.  Tony Abbott turned the Australian Parliament into the Punch and Judy show.

Gillard was also undermined by Rudd and his supporters for her entire term of office.  She may have lost the next election without this undermining, but it certainly did not help matters.   Much of this played out in public, with open shows of disloyalty by ministers like Joel Fitzgibbon and Kim Carr, who were then demoted and went to the back bench.

The Australia Democrats had a similar period of brawling in public and they were decimated in the next election.

In the end, Labor's poor polling and continued destabilisation by Rudd resulted in the Labor caucus vote him back in as Prime Minister, and Julia Gillard out.

But Rudd is not the messiah, he is just a naughty boy.

Rudd's acolytes came in from the cold and were rewarded with ministries (e.g. Kim Carr, Chris Bowen and Joel Fitzgibbon).  But many of quality people have stood down from leadership roles including Greg Combet and Craig Emerson.

Rudd has won the booby prize - an election that cannot be won - with his previous destabilisation and leaks a major contributing factor to their now inevitable loss.

Labor is now deeply divided and has lost of lot of good people.  It will be hard to see them bounce back after what is likely to be a large defeat.

Tony Abbot will repeal the carbon tax and slash funding for clean energy.  He will sack thousands of public servants so government services will suffer.  It is likely he will further reduce funding for government schools.  He will not "stop the boats", but he will continue to trash Australia's international reputation on human rights.

I think political parties have had their day.  No political party truly represents its own members, and their elected members don't even pretend to represent everyone in their electorate.  Democratic representation is a farce.  No independent candidate can match the resources or funding of party political candidates.

Things apparently have to get worse before they will get better.

Post script:
While the environment has not featured much in the election campaign so far, 61 per cent of Australians believe the Government should do more to tackle global warming.  Coalition Australians want more action on climate change, split along party lines 82% Greens, 71% Labor, 24% Coaltion.

Vote Compass: Australians want more action on climate change - ABC News

Rudd on the rampage and its all about him

Honesty in politics is a rare thing.  We don't get to hear about what happens in Cabinet, the Labor Caucus or the Liberal-National Party Room, or the Greens Party Room for that matter.

So it is refreshing that we are now hearing some honest and candidate stories from several Labor MPs and Ministers about what life was really like under Kevin Rudd when he was Prime Minister.

These include:

• Nicola Roxon, Attorney-General "said working with Mr Rudd as Prime Minister could be “a complete joke” [link]
• Craig Emerson, Minister for Trade  "There has been attack on the Prime Minister going back to the last election. There was destabilisation and leaking then; it's been going on since." "Well these things matter, don't they? I mean, whether you run an organised or a dysfunctional government." [link] [link]
• Wayne Swan, Treasurer.  "However for too long, Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the broader Labor movement and the country as a whole, and that needs to stop" "  "He sought to tear down the 2010 campaign, deliberately risking an Abbott Prime Ministership, and now he undermines the Government at every turn."  [link] [link]
• Julia Gillard, Prime Minister. "She said that while Mr Rudd had been an excellent campaigner in 2007, the government had descended into paralysis because of his “chaotic” and dysfunctional” work patterns." [link]
• Stephen Conroy, Communications Minister On poker machine reform: "Well let's be very clear about this. What's been revealed last night on television and over the weekend with Andrew Wilkie is a complete and utter fraud by Kevin Rudd." " He has been pretending that he supported the pre-commitment technology, pretending he supported reform in this area, but his key numbers man just happened to have two meetings and tell Clubs Australia that he would kill it."  [link]
• Stephen Smith, Defence Minister  "I'm articulating it to you from my perspective, and my perspective is that by the time we came to the end of Kevin's term as prime minister, the cabinet, the caucus, the overwhelming majority of the cabinet and caucus had lost confidence in the ability to work through difficult policy or political issues with him."  [link] [link]

On the other side, supporters of Kevin Rudd include:

• Kim Carr, Manufacturing Minister, who was demoted in a Cabinet reshuffle in December, says Mr Rudd is the victim of a "campaign of vilification" by senior members of the Government.  "It's my opinion that the man has a great breadth of vision and a commitment to the future of this country that stands us in good stead."  [link]
• Chris Bowen, Immigration Minister "There's no doubt there's a lot of support in the community for Mr Rudd" [link]
• Martin Ferguson, Resources Minister "Kevin Rudd is best placed to take on Tony Abbott and potentially best position us to win the next election,"   [link] [link] 
• Alan Griffin MP, "I think that should there be a change of leadership what we need to do is get over it and start working together. And that's what the people want, that's what the party wants and that's what we should be doing."  [link]
• Daryl Cheeseman, MP.  "Kevin Rudd is the most popular politician in Australia as opinion polls show. "Kevin is the right person to lead Australia. "I like Julia Gillard, I have a lot of respect for her, but that's the reality. It's important I reflect the views of my community." [link]
• Doug Cameron, Senator "We have to make sure that we stop running these character attacks on Kevin Rudd,'' ''Because it's unfair, it's unprincipled and its not deserved.'' [link]
• Maxine McKew, former MP for Bennelong, "Kevin Rudd is best placed to beat Tony Abbott," "He delivered a 23-seat majority and I think that should be noted," she said. "His appeal is broad and the breadth of his victory in 2007 shouldn't be overlooked." [link]
• Anthony Albanese "called Gillard and informed her I would be voting for Rudd and resigned as leader of the house" [link]

Kevin Rudd (and Doug Cameron) have claimed that the "faceless men" are after Rudd again, but both are  unwilling to say who they are.  So we have "faceless and nameless men" apparently running the country!

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Kim Carr and Alan Griffin were two of the "faceless men", along with Tim Gartrell, that did the preference deal with Family First that resulted in Steven Fielding being elected to the Senate in 2004 at the expense of the Greens. [link]

Some other interesting commentary has emerged, including:

• We need to talk about Kevin, "Kevin Rudd was ultimately responsible for his own downfall, writes his former speechwriter"
• Resurrection of Saint Kevin "No one does victimhood like Kevin Rudd. Forget the fact he's the bloke who calls the Prime Minister "the bitch" - or worse - behind her back, to senior figures in industry, to newspaper editors and to members of the Press Gallery" 
• Labor’s rotten core needs the leadership implosion " This is a party imploding. The word is used carefully: Labor’s internal weaknesses, its ideological drift, its lack of core values, the devolution of the factions in mechanisms for distributing patronage, its reluctance to publicly argue over important issues — the hollowing out of a once vibrant, reformist institution, is causing Labor to cave in on itself."
• Independent MP Tony Windsor "Should Mr Rudd become prime minister again, it would most likely lead to an early election.  And if Mr Rudd did try to command a majority on the floor of Parliament, he could not rely on Mr Windsor's support. "If the Labor Party suddenly want to change arrangements in the middle of the stream all bets are off," [link]

In conclusion

Julia Gillard as Prime Minister was able to from government after the 2010 federal election with support from three independent MPs and the Greens.  Her government has legislation for several import reforms such as the Clean Energy Bill (with a carbon price), the Mining Tax (albiet compromised) to name a few. 

However, she has been unable to garner much support from the Australian public with her wooden style of speaking and continued utterance of media lines.  She has also avoided direct questions about her exact role in the demotion of Kevin Rudd as PM.  Opinion polls indicate that Gillard is on track to lose the next federal election to Tony Abbott.

It has now become clear that Kevin Rudd has been actively destabilising the Gillard government over several months, so she has not been able to get "clean air" to get her message across and demonstrate leadership.

Gillard and her supporters have portrayed Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister who was almost impossible to work with.  He lost his mojo and backflipped on important initiatives such as the Mining Tax (Resources Super Profits Tax) and his much vaunted but highly compromised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Kevin Rudd and his supporters say that only he has the personal popularity with and support from the Australian public to beat Tony Abbott at the next election.  Polls indicate he has more support from the public than Julia Gillard (and Tony Abbott).  Rudd has also given assurances that he has "learned from his past mistakes" and is a "change person" with respect to his leadership style.

However, Rudd has also just flagged a review of the Clean Energy Bill, even though it has just been through and exhaustive process with the Multi Party Climate Change Committee and will be legislated in July this year. 

So the choice before the Labor Party is a capable PM who has Cabinet and party support, but looks like losing the next election due to her poor public profile, or perhaps winning the election and a return to Kevin Rudd's autocratic leadership.

It is also likely that Rudd will not be able to form a minority government if Labor doesn't win a majority of seats under his leadership (if he gets it).

Rudd might also spit the dummy completely and resign from his seat.  This would force a by election, and possibly then a general election.

If Rudd loses the leadership ballot, as appears likely, all indications are he will continue to destablise the government.

I don't envy them.

It looks like Tony Abbott will sail into office whatever happens now.

Rudd the wrecker will kill action on climate change and forests

Where there is smoke there is fire.

I have wondering about media reports over the last several months about "Kevin Rudd agitating to be Prime Minister again".  Initially I thought these were a beat up. There seems to nothing some sections of the media like more than political conspiracies and plots to oust political leaders.  It is s a form of virtual blood sport.

With recent reports and comments from Kevin Rudd, and now Daryl Cheeseman (MP for Corangamite) we can see there is some substance to all this speculation.

Rudd wants his old job as Prime Minister back, at any cost.  I think he also wants revenge on those who orchestrated his sacking.

He, assisted by a secret (small?) band of followers, has been systematically undermining Julia Gillard as PM. His "campaign" includes:

• Leaks at strategic times to derail the Gillard Goverment's momentum (including during the last election campaign)
• Making "Presidential" statements and assuming a high profile as Foreign Minister
• Not ruling out contesting for PM if there is a leadership ballot - even though he says he doesn't want on and there won't be one.
• Saying he has "learnt from his mistakes" and is "more humble etc" - when by his current actions clearly this is not true.

So the Labor is in a death spiral.  Gillard cannot lead effectively with all the attention on leadership intrigue. 

Look at the Gonsky report on education - a core issue for Australia.  There has been virtually no coverage of it.  Our public education system is being denied adequate funding and is being run down.  Middle and high income earners are deserting it in droves.  It appears there is more public money going to private and "independent" schools per student than there is going to public schools.  Yet this issue is hardly getting any attention.

I can only speculate on Rudd's motives.  It would seem revenge and ambition are outweighing all other considerations.  If there was a leadership spill and Rudd got to be PM again, all the bad publicity, and his past skeletons in the closet, would mean Labor would lose the election.

Those who think Rudd can be Labor's salvation have short memories. He lost his mojo just before he was deposed. There was the complete stuff up on pink batts - this should have been done by the States, not Peter Garrett. The Australia 2020 talkfest delivered virtually nothing. Then he abandoned his compromised CPRS and adopted Brendan Nelson's policy on climate change! 

Rudd was also operating as a cell within Labor (as Latham did 2004) - this was the real reason he was shafted. However, now some nervous Labor poll-watching MPs think he might win the next election. He won't as he is shitting in his own nest in public. 

The real issue is that 19C (Labor) and 20C (Liberals) institutions are not well equipped to handle the big challenges and transitions we face in 21C as we run out fossil fuel, forests, water and degrade agricultural land. Both parties have their own right and left and are floundering about what to do. Labor has stepped in the right direction under Gillard by supporting a transition to a clean energy economy but they are having trouble selling this (Rudd's antics are not helping) while the Liberals under Abbott have stepped back in time.

If Rudd was more sensible, smart and strategic he would let Gillard lose the next election (as current polls indicate she is on track to do, if you believe them) then sail back in as the "knight in shining armour" with no bad blood and a clean(er) slate.

If Rudd and his followers keep de-stabilising the government, then Gillard will lose the next election.  One of the few things John Howard said that I agree with was "division is death".   While I am not in favour of autocratic rule by an single political party, this axiom is quite true for the game as they play it.

Unfortunately, the consequence of the current Labor-Greens-Indepedant government falling is that Tony Abbott can just sit back, keep pointing out that Labor has lost the plot, is paralysed and can't be trusted, then sail into government.

Once in government he will ditch the price on carbon and just about every other reform and piece of legislation that the current government has achieved.  Abbot would also axe National Disability Insurance, plain packaging for cigarettes, the NBN, education reform, the mining tax (weak though it is).

The Gillard government might just finalise the Intergovernmental Agreement to protection another 400,000 hectares of Tasmania's government.  They might also recognise and act on the opportunity to protect the rest of Australia's native forests subject to logging and reduce Australia's emissions by a further 5%.  An Abbott government would certainly do neither.  

Game on Kevin.  Its a lose-lose scenario.

What is Labor up to with the NBN?

Labor's policy initiative for implementing a high speed National Broadband Network arguably was a decisive factor in them forming minority government after the hung 2010 Australian federal election.

Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor both stated that the delivery of fast internet access to rural regions in Australia was a key consideration in their decision to support the minority Gillard government.

So far so good.  Many of Australia's regional areas - even close to major cities - have very slow Internet access.  This hampers local businesses and makes it difficult for them to compete with city-based businesses, particularly when websites need updating and eCommerce transactions are conducted.

Spending money - say $20b - on providing fast broadband Internet access to rural areas would go a long way to providing services and opportunities to rural areas.  This could have the following benefits

• Companies could conduct business relying on Internet services at any location, not just major cities
• Regional employment opportunities could increase, attracting people to live in regional areas rather than continue to go to cities such as Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane that are becoming crowded and congested
• Innovative health services using video conference and remote surgery could be provided in regional areas, and mean that people living there don't always have to travel to Melbourne for complex or specialist medical treatment
• Young people in rural areas would have the same sort of access to online media and social network that their city counterparts have.

I think all this is good.

However, the notion of providing fibre to every household in major cities is questionable.  The vast majority of  people who currently have ADSL2+ are happy with their speed of access and download volumes.  Our household manages well with 15GB per month and two fairly heavy Internet users find the speed more than acceptable.

Friends with teenage children downloading lots of media operate on plans up to 150GB per month and find this meets their needs.

The notion that extremely high speed (and expensive) optical fibre is required to every home is simply not true.  The notion that "it will be needed in the future" is highly questionable too.  Given the rate of innovation and change in computing and the Internet, when the future arrives it will be different, and more often than not cheaper.  

Politicians like Stephen Conroy know virtually nothing about technology and networks, yet they are presiding over major decisions like the scope and technology solution(s) for the National Broadband Network.

Most of these decisions are happening behind a veil of secrecy, with "commercial in confidence" being trotted out as the excuse for this.   This is just not good enough.   There has been no community consultation regarding the NBN requirements that I am aware of.

There has been no open industry consultation about it either.

Now Stephen Conroy and Julia Gillard are sitting on the "business case".  Why?  It is because it doesn't stack up?   Do the significant costs of providing optical fibre to every home not have any tangible benefits?

Right there are more questions than answers.  

I support proceeding with a rural high-speed Internet solution (say $20b) but think we should delay any expenditure on implementing optical fibre to the homes in our cities.

Optical fibre is already in use within the "Internet backbone" and further investment in this would be appropriate and cost effective.

Liberal, Nationals and Labor converge to shut out Greens

When political parties lodge their "group voting tickets" with the Electoral Commission, their distribution of preferences reveals deals that have been done between them.  These "group voting tickets" number all candidates in order and determine the order of voter's preferences for those who vote "above  the line" by putting a "1" in a single party's box.

Looking at the "group voting tickets" lodged for the 2010 Victorian State election, the following preference deals are evident:

Labor and the Country Alliance
Labor has a directed preferences to the Country Alliance in Northern Victoria and Eastern Victoria regions - which could result in a right wing candidates getting elected who would oppose new National Parks, support native forest logging and support duck shooting and hunting.

Labor and the Sex Party
Labor has directed preferences to the Sex Party in Northern Metropolitian ahead of the Greens.  This is likely to have no effect as the Greens are most likely to win a seat on first preferences.  In exchange, the Sex Party is directing lower house preferences in some seats such as Melbourne to Labor ahead of the Greens.

Liberals and the Sex Party
A deal has been done between the Sex Party and the Liberals, making them strange bedfellows. The Liberals have given the Sex Party second preferences in Northern Metropolitan. The Sex Party give immediate preferences to the Greens in South Metropolitan, but as the Greens are likely to have a full quota, the next preference to be effective is to the Liberals ahead of Labor, defeating Labor's Jennifer Huppert and electing Liberal Georgie Crozier (source: Antony Green).

The Sex Party may have even put the Greens last everywhere. The are looking like "the porn and pimps party" run by the big money of the adult industry and are supporting Labor.

Labor and the Greens
Labor has directed second preferences to the Greens in five of the eight upper house seats.  In exchange, the Greens have directed preferences to Labor in 11 of Labor's 13 most marginal seats (Mount Waverley 0.3%, Gembrook 0.7%, Forest Hill 0.8%, Mitcham 2.0%, South Barwon 2.3%, Frankston 3.2%, Mordialloc 3.5%, Prahran 3.6%, Burwood 3.7%, Ripon 4.3%, Bendigo East 5.4%, Bentleigh 6.3%, Ballarat West 6.5%)

Labor has also directed preferences to the Greens in 79 of 88 lower house seats, but this is of no real benefit to the Greens as the only seats where they are likely to get elected are direct contests between Labor and the Greens, which means Labor preferences will not be distributed.

The Greens appear to have withdrawn preferences in two of the 13 (possibly Gembrook and one other) in retaliation for Labor directing preferences to the Country Alliance in the upper house.  The Greens have stated that they did not direct preferences to Labor in lower house seats in regions where Labor preferenced the County Alliance.

Liberals and the Greens - no deal
The Liberals announced their decision to put the Greens last in all lower house seats across the state. This breaks with their practice in past elections of putting the Greens ahead of Labor on their how to vote cards.

There appears to be four possible reasons for this.  The first reason is that the Greens were apparently not offering the Liberals anything they wanted - such as more open tickets (no preference direction) in key Labor marginal seats.

The second reason appears to be ideology. John Howard stated that the Coalition had nothing to gain by helping the Greens take seats from Labor. This was due to perceptions that the Greens would always support Labor and their agenda was more extreme. "I think my side of politics has got to be very careful about giving preferences to the Greens. In my view the Greens are worse than Labor". "The Greens are fundamentally anti free enterprise. They have terrible  foreign policy attitudes and they have a lot of social policy attitudes that a lot of Labor people would find abhorrent."  Senator Helen Kroger expressed similar views.

It is interesting to note however that both Howard and Kroger participated in previous decisions to preference the Greens ahead of Labor.

However, there was a split within the Liberal party on this.  Ex-Treasurer Peter Costello stated that it made good political sense for the Coalition to direction preferences to the Greens in the four inner city seats of Melbourne, Richmond, Northcote and Brunswick as Labor losing these seats would make it easier for the Coalition to win government, and because Labor would be directed campaign resources on two fronts - the inner city contest with the Greens and the other Labor marginals mostly in the outer Eastern Suburbs.

Ex Liberal Premier Jeff Kennett weighed in with an attack on Helen Kroger, stating the Liberals should direct preferences to Labor in the inner city seats, but then later backed Ted Baillieu's decision not to.

Premier John Brumby also made an extraordinary direct appeal when he begged for Liberal voters preferences for Labor ahead of the Greens, stating that Liberal voters should realise a Labor government would be better placed to tackle the big policy challenges than a minority government with the Greens holding the balance of power. ''For the Liberal Party to de facto elect Greens members of parliament is quite anathema to the Liberal Party,'' Brumby said.

The third reason is that it seems there were perceptions within the Liberals that the Greens would not form a minority government with them in the event of a hung parliament, which would have been likely if the Greens won four inner city seats.   The Liberals were possibly thinking "if we have got nothing, we have got nothing to lose", or they may prefer staying in opposition to the prospect of entering a minority government with the Greens.

The fourth reason, probably the most likely, is that Labor got onto its big business mates and used them to persuade the Liberals to put Labor ahead of the Greens.

So the Liberals announced their decision to direct preferences to Labor in the four inner city seats, and attempted to claim the high moral ground by claiming "voters now have a clear choice" and that "a Labor majority government is better than a Greens-Labor minority government.  Brian Walters, the Greens candidate for Melbourne stated that in doing so, "The Liberals and Labor seem to have formed a grand conservative coalition to shut out the Greens".

Mandatory preferences are not good for democracy
The electoral requirement for parties and candidates to specify "preference flows" for Upper House voting in Victoria (and the Australian Senate) opens up the playing field for parties and candidates to do all manor of "preference deals", which sometimes results in candidates being elected from a tiny percentage of the vote as Stephen Fielding (Family First) and Peter Kavanagh (DLP) were from Labor preference deals.

This is anti-democratic as voters are not involved in or even aware of such deals, yet their votes go where the party apparatchiks have decided.

A solution is to give voters the right to decide NOT to distribute the any or all of their preferences.  For above the line voting this would mean that a "1 Liberal" vote would go only to the Liberal candidates and not "flow on" to others.  For voters who do wish to allocate their preferences they could go 1, 2, 3, 4 etc above the line, or number any desired squares below the line in sequence - stopping when they want to.

In the lower house, how-to-vote cards favour political parties who have the resources to (people and/or money) to have them printed and handed out.  This provides a heavy bias against any independent candidates who don't have the resources to do this.

A solution would be ban handing out of how to vote cards, and provide fixed printed versions in every polling booth.   This would have the added benefit of eliminating the massive waste of paper from the hundreds of thousands how-to-vote cards printed and mostly discarded.

In conclusion
The Liberal-National coaltion's decision to direct preferences to Labor has certainly have impacted the Greens chances in all four inner city seats, but a lot still depends on the voters, many of whom may not follow their party's how to vote cards and choose where their preference goes.

If Liberal voters in these seats follow the Liberal how to vote card, then a vote for the Liberals will be a vote for Labor. 

If you live in the seat of Melbourne, Richmond, Brunswick or Northcote (or any other seat for that matter) you would do well to allocate your own preferences and not follow any how to vote card.

It is also possible that  Labor preferences may elect the Country Alliance to the Upper House, and that they may hold the balance of power in the upper house.  Yet another right wing group could hold the government to ransom.

Links
Note that some of the articles below would have been written by party apparatchiks and fed to the media, and may bear no semblance to the truth!

• Antony Green's Election Blog: Legislative Council Preference Tickets 
• Kennett Attacks Kroger Over Green Preferences | AustralianPolitics.com : 
• John Howard urgers Liberals not to give preferences to Greens : 
• Liberals In Conflict Over Preference Deals :
• Preferencing Greens may be Libs' best option | The Australian : 
• Victorian Liberals Put Greens Last On How To Vote Cards The Age
• How-to-vote cards awaken the rebel in inner-city voter The Age 
• Coalition Puts Greens Last | Greens On The Outer : The Age
• Deal founders on Greens' arrogance | The Australian : 
• Greens cling to lower house hopes :
• Of course the Liberals prefer the right-wing Labor party to the progressive Greens | An Onymous Lefty : 
• Greens still positive despite preference deals - iPRIME Albury : 
• Antony Green's Election Blog: Implications of the Liberals putting the Greens last in the Lower House : 
• Preference snub renders Greens 'a lost cause' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) : 
• Labor’s Greens obsession on show over preference deals | Crikey : 
• Liberals split on Greens preference snub | The Australian : 
• Lateline - 15/11/2010: Greens lose Coalition preferences : 

An opportunity for a new form of government

The 2010 Australian Federal election results are not yet finalised, but it appears that no party has enough seats (76) to form government on its own.  This situation has not occurred in Australia since 1940.

The Greens have won their first ever lower house seat at a general election (Adam Bandt in Melbourne).

The three previous (incumbent) independents have been returned to office.  These are:

• Tony Windsor, New England (rural NSW)
• Bob Katter, Kennedy (rural QLD)
• Rob Oakeshott, Lyne (rural NSW)

In addition, it is quite likely that Andrew Wilkie may win the seat of Denison in Tasmania as an independent.

Negotiations are in progress between the three confirmed independents and both the Labor party and the Coalition as to how a minority government might be formed.

I think this is a good outcome for democracy.  All those elected (all parties and independents) have been selected via the current electoral process by the people of Australia.  It is incumbent on them to form a stable and effective government.

These three confirmed independents have stated that a new form of government will be required to provide the stability required, and that traditional party politics should be shelved to make this happen.  I agree.

If either major party forms government in their own right they tend to run their own agenda along their party line rather than respecting the best interests and wishes of the Australian people.  They are basically accountable to nobody until the next election.

We saw this with the Rudd Labor government ignoring the recommendations of the extensive Garnaut Review of Climate Change and concocting a fatally compromised Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS), that was initially supported by the Coalition opposition, then opposed.  It failed because it was no good.

The Henry Tax Review finished early in 2010 was eventually released by the Rudd Labor government, who then chose to implement only 2 of the 137 recommendations (the mining tax being one of them) in the midst of an election campaign for political reasons.

Rob Oakeshott made the point on the 7:30 Report (special election edition 22/8) that a lot of time, money and effort has gone into these and other similar reports, which could be considered by the next government with more care and attention than the previous one.   In short, the next government should use this type of information to formulate policies for the future covering energy, carbon pollution, taxation and water utilisation and conservation, rather than just playing short term political games about these important issues.

It seems that the old political parties have become part of the problem contributing to lack of action on climate change and inadequate planning and investment in infrastructure for the 21st century.  They are stuck in old paradigms of winning, losing, being "in government" or "in opposition".

Why should 51% of our elected representatives be given the right to "govern" in an autocratic manner with the other 49% consigned to "opposition" where they spend most of their efforts whining, criticising, attacking and just opposing for the sake of it?

If Malcolm Turnbull would be a better treasurer than Wayne Swan, why shouldn't he get the job?   Our current political system totally precludes this (for this example with a Labor Government in office).

The Labor, Liberal and National parties are out of touch and out of date.  The Greens need to be very careful they don't end up in the same state.

Tony Abbott seems to think he has won the election and Labor has lost, apparently oblivious to the reality that the Australian people have given him no mandate to govern.

Julia Gillard seems to be adopting a better negotiation approach to possibly forming a minority government with the support of the independents and the single Greens lower house member.

I think we need a form of government where all 150 lower house MPs are accountable for delivering stability, innovation, good management of the executive arm of government and planning for a prosperous and sustainable future.  Bring it on please.

External links

• Parties tussle to form government, The Age
• Greens hedge their bets, The Age
• Labor leads race for minority government, The Age
• Hung parliament looms, as voters punish Gillard, The Age
• We deserve to lead, says Abbott, Heraldsun
• Politics abhors a vacuum, ABC

The Labor government should introduce an effective feed in tariff to take real action on climate change

An open letter to:

• Labor Government Cabinet Members
  
• Eastern Metropolitan Region Labor party members
  

I find it very disappointing that the Energy Minister Peter Batchelor is refusing to represent the best interests of the Victorian public by threatening to kill the solar feed-in tariff in parliament.

Peter Batchelor has proposed a crippled feed-in tariff that favours the big end of town. Some energy companies have even been promoting his proposed net feed in tariff several months before it has even been legislated.

The net tariff proposed by Peter Batchelor will not encourage the uptake of solar power by households and community groups.

The Greens have put amendments to provide a gross tariff that has been proven to be effective in other countries and is in line with those in the ACT and Western Australia.

Peter Batchelor cannot even get his sums right. After claiming a real feed-in tariff would cost $100 per household per year, he now claims it will cost $40. He apparently has not bothered to read his own consultant's report that found it would cost about $8 per year.
In addition, low-income households can easily be protected from increased prices by granting them a concession.

A simple gross feed-in tariff should have been a easy and effective way for the Labor Government to provide real incentives for households and community groups to increase renewable energy generation and transition off coal-fired power.

Unfortunately, the Labor party is playing politics and looking after vested industry interests rather than listening to the community and taking real action to address climate change.

If the Labor party kills the solar feed-in tariff, you will kill the only real action on climate change you have on the table. I implore you to see sense and support an effective gross feed-in tariff.

Peter Campbell

Links

• Household solar power laws at risk, state warns, Adam Morton, The Age, June 2, 2009
• Feed in tariff, Greenlivingpedia
  

Greens win Fremantle polling over 44% for a new paradigm

Today, Adele Carles, the Greens candidate for the Fremantle byelection, won the seat. This is an event that represents a turning point in Australian politics.

It is the first time a Greens candidate has polled over 44% of the primary vote. The previous record was 38.96% in the 2005 Marrickville by-election.

It is only the second time that that the Greens have come first on primary votes, the first being when the Greens outpolled Labor's primary vote in the NSW state district of Vaucluse in the 2007 election.

Adele Carles defeated the Labor candidate, who polled around 38% of the primary vote. The Liberals did not field a candidate.

This represents a paradigm shift in Australia's political landscape. With both major parties found wanting on critical issues such as climate change and water policy, the Greens platform of reshaping Australia to a sustainable and climate friendly economy has been endorsed by a clear majority of Fremantle voters.

If this is replicated across several other House of Representatives seats in the upcoming 2010 federal election as appears likely, the Greens could well hold the balance of power and enter into a coalition government with one of the major parties.

This would mean pathetic policy such as Labor's 5% emission reduction commitment would be "greened up" to within the 25% to 40% range scientists say we need.

And the 3+ billion gifted to the polluting coal industry by Kevin Rudd would instead be redirected to zero emissions clean energy alternatives.

There is now considerable hope Australia can seriously address the climate emergency that we are confronted with, and contribute to an effective global agreement on reducing emissions and tackling climate change.

Exernal links

• 2009 Fremantle By-election - ABC Elections (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Post script
This is the second time the greens have won a single-member lower house seat in Australia - the first time being when Michael Organ won the federal House of Representatives seat of Cunningham in a 2002 by-election, when the Liberals also did not field a candidate. On that occasion, Organ received 23% of the primary vote and was elected by the preferences of other candidates (as was Adele).

Will Labor stop logging Melbourne's water catchments?

I understand the Victorian Labor (ALP) State Conference this weekend considered the following motion:

Preamble

Climate change is already well under way and consequently Victoria’s water supply is very seriously endangered in both rural and urban regions.

Despite this, logging continues unabated in what remains of our mountain ash forests and in the areas supposedly set aside as water catchment.

This is permitted to occur because of contracts with logging companies that have export commitments for wood chips that are sold to millers at ridiculously low prices (in the order of $8.50 per ton) i.e. the State is subsidizing the millers at the expense of our water supply.

Given that Victoria now has plantation timber available to fulfil all our requirements for construction and for paper, it is clear that continuing to destroy the source of our water supply is an unsustainable practice.

Conference therefore resolves that it request the State Government to:

1. Immediately ban logging in all water catchment areas
2. Review forest management practice overall with the intent of transferring all logging activity to plantation timber.

Proposed by Upper Yarra branch October 2008

As I have mentioned in previous postings, it is past time that logging in Melbourne's water catchments must stop, because every drop counts.

I wait with interest and hope that the Brumby Labor government here in Victoria displays some real leadership on protecting our water supplies and our forests.

UPDATE

Still waiting for some "official information" on the outcome.

However, on the grapevine, I have heard that:

• Labor factional heavyweights combined forces minutes before the motion went up and departed en masse, despite the fact Jennings was going to speak on the motion, so they were short on quorum. They did this to avoid voting on the motion - so much for "democracy" inside the ALP.
  
• Joe Helper has apparently instigated some sort of investigation (a witch hunt?) into why the Upper Yarra ALP branch put this motion up. Seems like an attempt to silence any discussion on this very important issue.
• Rob Mitchell is apparently undertaking the "investigation" even though he was so 'proudly green' in the last federal election, embracing of climate change and the necessary directives.

Looks like more "dirty deeds done dirt cheap".

By coincidence I was speaking with the Yarra Ranges Shire Mayor Tim Heenan today. He said that local sawmillers are getting virtually none of the timber from the logged catchments - it is all being sent for woodchips to the Paperlynx mill in Gippsland, and that there is a total of only 92 jobs associated with this catchment logging in the shire. So there is no longer local support for this logging in Warbuton.

In addition, this summer the Department of Sustainability and Environment plans to allow more logging in the picturesque Cement Creek catchment above Warbuton, which also contains the rainforest aerial walkway among ancient Myrtle Beech and old growth Mountain Ash forest.

Shame Brumby, shame. Every drop of water counts, with Melbourne's reservoirs now 70% empty near the start of Summer.

Perhaps DSE should be renamed to the Department of Clearfelling, Logging and Water Loss?

Another letter to Minister Batchelor on his clayton's feed-in tariff

Here is a letter I have just sent to Peter Batchelor cc to Victorian Ministers and some other MPs on feed-in tariff legislation.

Feel free to use any or all of the content if you would like to write them an email (or letter) too.

It seems this legislation is about to go through the Victorian parliament!

Melissa Fyfe sums up the situation well in this article: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/solar-hopes-up-in-smoke-20081004-4twd.html?page=-1


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

Dear Minister Batchelor,

I have received a letter from the Department of Primary Industries (your ref: ME003562) in response to my three recent queries to you regarding the Brumby Government's proposed feed-in tariff legislation. Unfortunately, the letter does not answer any of the queries I have raised with you. It provides me with a summary of the proposed legislation and a "fact sheet" on it. I was not requesting further general information on this ill-considered legislation, my queries relate to specific issues concerning it, none of which have been addressed in the letter I received.

To reiterate, my previous questions, to which I still request answers from you, are listed below in bold.

1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?
2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?
3. What is the purpose of the 2kW array size cap?
4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?
5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?
6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?

My further questions to you are numbered in the text below:

I also note that the national RENEWABLE ENERGY (ELECTRICITY) AMENDMENT (FEED-IN-TARIFF) BILL 2008 being considered by the Australian Senate is framed around a gross metered tariff, in accordance with world best practice.

I also note that the Labor ACT feed-in tariff legislation pays on gross metering (the full production amount) and has a generous 10kW cap on array sizE.

7. Why is the Brumby government proceeding with a feed in tariff for Victoria that will be completely ineffective and conflicting with the proposed national legislation?

8. What is the Brumby government's target for domestic solar panel installation (in MW) for 2009 and 2010?

If your proposed feed-in tariff legislation proceeds it will simply not deliver any of the benefits you claim. The 2kW cap on array size means that residences will not be able to install a big enough array (e.g. 3 to 4 kW) to generate a significant net output so nobody will actually be paid the premium rate. In addition, all power generated should be paid the gross tariff as it is reducing the power that would otherwise be sourced from the coal-fired electricity on the grid.

It is not clear to me how you have constructed such abrogated legislation, hence my questions seeking clarification. If this legislation proceeds in its current form, it will soon be regarded as an enduring bad legacy of your government, and a missed opportunity for the people of Victoria.

By contrast, and gross feed in tariff with say a 10kW cap on array size would greatly boost installation of solar panels and green jobs associated with this, both of which will greatly benefit Victoria.

I am seeking an urgent response from you to my eight questions.

Peter Campbell
http://greenlivingpedia.org
0409 417 504

My previous emails:

• Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2008 18:58:48 +1000
• Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:38:12 +1000
• Subject: Re: Solar Feed-in Tariff Date: Thu, 08 May 2008 22:29:08 +1000
• Subject: LETTER: Please introduce a feed in tariff Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:26:37 +1100

Labor's feed-in tariff can still be fixed

Below is the third letter I have sent to Peter Batchelor; so far he has not bothered to answer my first two. I don't think he will bother to answer this one either. So much for accountable government "for the people".

I have also sent copies to all members of John Brumby's Cabinet, as they participated in the decision to implement a Clayton's feed-in tariff in Victoria.


Dear Minister Batchelor,

I am disappointed to have still received no response from your office to my suggestions and questions regarding the government's proposed feed-in tariff legislation (included below).

It should now be apparent to you and the rest of Cabinet that your proposed legislation has had a very detrimental effect on the uptake of solar panels and therefore comprised Victoria's opportunity to become a leader in the installation and even manufacturing of solar panels. This in turn compromises Victoria's ability to meet both State VRET and Federal MRET requirements.

The 100K household income means test on the solar rebate introduced by Peter Garrett has further exacerbated this situation, to the point where solar installations have plummeted when the very opposite should be occurring.

Your stated concerns about impacts on low income households can be addressed by providing them with an appropriate concession.

Also please note that net metering in fact favours high income households where nobody is home consuming power during the day (when a net output can be generated) and actually discriminates against working families where a parent is at home with children using appliances such as washing machines, lighting and cooking - which prevents them generating net output.

In the interests of transparent and accountable government, could you please answer the following questions?

1. When will your feed-in tariff legislation be introduced?

2. When can a copy of it be sent to me?

3. What is the purpose of the 2kw array size cap?

4. Why are you not able to model the tariff for gross metering similar to successful tariffs in place in Germany and elsewhere?

5. Why you have chosen to keep the economic modelling that you say your decisions were based on secret?

6. When can I meet with you to discuss these concerns?

Garrett guts solar rebate because it was too successful

It is World environment day on the 6 June.

I couldn’t believe my ears when I saw and heard Garrett on the ABC TV news and 7:30 report tonight say in parliament today that he had to bring in the 100K household means test on solar panels because it was too successful.

Yes, that’s right. Too many people were installing too many clean green renewable energy panels. So they brought in the 100k means test to snuff this out.

Garrett’s metamorphosis is complete. He is now just another politician. The best he can offer on World Environment day is a voluntary (read ineffective) energy labelling scheme for TVs. This is totally lame.

If you would like to send an email to Peter Garrett about this you can use this form the ACF has provided on their website.

Rudd can’t stop subsidising the Australian car industry that continues to build petrol guzzling V6 and V8s and throws more money at them to build hybrids. Why not redirect existing subsidies to this? Freiburg in Germany has shown what can be really done to reduce the reliance on cars.

How many more coal fired power stations will be built under the Rudd government, when we need to decommission 1 per year to meet emission reduction targets?

It didn’t take long for Labor’s “green spots” to fall off after the election.

Here is a copy of the email I sent to Garrett on the means test for the solar subsidy:

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

Dear Mr Garrett

I'm very disappointed that the Government has announced new restrictions on the solar panel rebate program - at a time when Australia should be ramping up its efforts to tackle climate change.

The new $100,000 per annum household means test is going to stop thousands of Australian families from going solar, and put a big dent in our growing solar industry.

I'm calling on you to be our solar champion - and increase the means test to $250,000 per annum - the same level as the household energy and water efficiency 'green loans' program.

I also know the biggest decision your Government will make this year will be setting Australia's 2020 target for reducing our greenhouse pollution.

The target will set the scene for Australia's overall effort on climate change - and for our shift to solar, wind and other forms of renewable energy. That's why, in addition to increasing the means test for the solar rebate, I also urge you to commit to a strong greenhouse pollution reduction target of at least 30% by 2020, and ensure a cleaner, safer future for Australia.

Solar panel rebates are not middle income welfare. Solar electricity production is one of the important measures we need to take to address climate change. The $100,000 means test effectively knocks the rebate out for the vast majority of people who would have installed panels and claimed it. I personally know of five people in this situation.

Please increase the means test to $250,000 per annum.

Regards, Peter Campbell

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

Brumby government delivers a useless feed in tariff

What on earth is going on in the Victorian Cabinet?

After visiting the Bali convention on climate change and using their generous travel allowances to see how a good feed in tariff can promote emission reductions and jobs from solar power in countries like Germany, our Victorian Government has delivered a feed in tariff that is crippled and worthless.

It really is cynical greenwash, and follows the trend of them taking no real action to address climate change.

Who in the big end of town has guided them to such a poor outcome? They can't really be that stupid can they? Once again, politics delivers a very poor and non-transparent policy and legislation for the people, who expect so much more.

Read the letter below I sent to Cabinet for more details. And watch this video.





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

Dear Mr Batchelor,

Thanks for your late advice about the introduction of the new Feed in Tariff in Victoria further to my correspondence with your office on this matter on 19/3/08.

Unfortunately, I believe that the Government has made serious mistakes in the structure of this tariff, which almost completely negate the positive effects a well structured tariff would have.

My concerns are:

1. The Feed in Tariff is only paid on net metering.

The total electricity generated by panels should be subject to the tariff, as all the clean electricity generated has zero emissions which directly substitutes for coal-fired power and therefore reduces emissions accordingly.

In Germany and other locations where they pay the tariff on gross metering, there has been a dramatic rise in installation of solar power. Germany now has 400 times the solar output of Australia despite having about half our sunshine.

You have missed the opportunity to provide similar encouragement to a new economy and local industry (and jobs) based on increased installation of panels on available roof space.

2. The Feed in Tariff has a maximum ceiling of 2kW

This is nonsense. The more solar zero emissions power we generate as a nation the better. This is a critical measure for reducing our emissions to combat climate change. The 2kW array size limit for getting the Feed in Tariff is simply crippling the financial motivation for people to install solar panels, and crippling their payback if they choose to install a bigger array.

We currently have a 1.5kW array that has been running for 6 years and intend to expand it to 3kW. Your Feed In Tariff will provide us with no benefits.

Most five star standard households currently consume about 20 to 25kwH of electricity per day. A 1kW array produces about 5kwH per day, while a 2kW array produces about 10 kwH per day. Such systems will therefore export negligible net energy to the grid, particularly if a 2kW air conditioner is run on hot sunny days.

There is no rational reason to apply such a tariff ceiling; it should be removed.

3. No certainty for investment is provided

The complexities and restrictions of your feed in tariff resulting from net metering combined with the 2kW ceiling provide no certainty or guarantee for investment in a solar array, unlike gross metering with no ceiling which does. This is evident in countries like Germany where there has been significant investment in solar power - now the equivalent of two coal fired power stations, but with zero emissions.

The resultant lack of certainty for investment will greatly impede the uptake of solar power in Victoria.

4. Your Feed in Tariff is discriminatory.

The very few who may be lucky enough to benefit from your tariff will be those who can afford a 6 star house, relatively expensive efficient appliances and a 2kW array. By contrast, lower income less efficient households with a 1kW array and less efficient appliances will get no benefit. This is discriminatory.

In summary

Your assertion that the FIT "could pay off the cost of installation in less than 10 years" is incorrect. The combination of the 2kW ceiling and paying on net metering means very few, if any, will get any financial benefits from the tariff so it will be impossible for it to pay off the residual cost of solar panel installation after the rebate.

This scheme effectively does not deliver on Labor's 2006 election promise to introduce a workable feed in tariff due to its crippled nature.

Your tariff will not provide any incentive for leadership in Victoria in uptake of solar power or renewable energy initiatives.

Your tariff is not strategic and does not improve affordability of sustainable solar power. It will not empower Victorian households to take action on climate change.

I attended the rally at parliament today with 400 others to protest about the problems with your feed in tariff. I spoke to some of the many ETU members present who had expectations that the Brumby government would provide a feed in tariff that would stimulate local employment in clean energy energy industries. They feel you have let them down. I agree with them on this.

Your tariff has also not met the expectations of many local community groups who are very keen to see real government action on climate change. As such, it is a great disappointment.

I strongly urge you to adjust the tariff to remove the 2kW ceiling and use gross metering, so that Victoria can mirror the proven success of such tariffs where they have been implemented elsewhere and I understand will be implemented in the ACT.

As a reference, http://www.greenlivingpedia.org has many examples and much information about successful and implemented renewable energy policies, initiatives, and sustainable housing.

I would like to meet with you to discuss my concerns about this further.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Campbell

CC: Cabinet members and other MPs

Brumby goes for "green coal" and subverts real action on climate change

Just when I thought government rhetoric and funding (using taxpayer's money) on pretending that the coal industry can somehow be made "green", "clean" and even "carbon neutral" had reached ridiculous levels, Peter Batchelor comes out with this:

"But Mr Batchelor said coal must be used in a more environmentally friendly way and clean coal technologies, such as burying carbon emissions underground and drying coal, offered the potential for zero emissions from coal-fired power stations."

"The future of coal relies on it becoming greener," he said.

Mr Batchelor said that capturing carbon, by returning and storing it underground in a safe and environmentally friendly way, "mimicked nature".

The question here is whether he actually believes this nonsense.

Zero emissions coal fired power stations? Green coal? That's funny, I thought it was brown or black.

Mimicking nature? Oh, we dig it up (using fossil fuel energy), process it, burn, capture CO2 from the chimneys (using more than 30% more energy and coal in doing so), liquefy it (using more energy), pump it a considerable distance (using more energy), squirt it under the ground - if we can find cavities vast enough to accommodate it - then cross our fingers and hope it stays there.

So how exactly does this mimic nature?

Next week's state budget will contain $110 million for an industrial-scale project investigating the capture and storage of carbon produced by power plants.

The Government will also fund a new body, Clean Coal Victoria, based in the Latrobe Valley, and commit $5 million to search for carbon storage sites, such as used oil and gas reservoirs in Bass Strait. So they don't even know yet whether they will be able to store it.

No public money should be spent on this risky venture, which even if it can be made to work, won't be viable until 2020 or later. We need emission reductions now.

So why are they doing this?

Well, there are marginal Labor state seats in the Latrobe Valley and an upcoming by-election in Gippsland which Labor wants to win. Looks like politics wins and real action on climate change looses. Or maybe they do believe their own nonsense.

Link: State puts greenhouse money on clean coal The Age

Labor, Liberals and Family First oppose Senate motion on climate change

It is interesting to observe the serious lack of real political commitment from Labor, Liberal and Family First parties to seriously address climate change.

On 10 May 2007, Senator Christine Milne (Greens Senator for Tasmania) moved that the Senate:

(a) notes that most industrialised nations now accept the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to 2 degrees or less to avoid catastrophic climate change; and

(b) agrees that the imperative of constraining global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels should underpin government policy responses to global warming.

7 Senators (Greens and Democrats) voted for the motion, while 44 voted against it.

Labor, the Liberals and Family First all voted against it.

The pre industrial average global temperature was about 16 degrees. The average global temperature has already increased by 0.8 degrees to 16.8 degrees. It is past time for urgent action to address climate change.

The science is clear, and the catastrophic results are increasingly apparent, with yet another Government report about to be released with shocking findings, including major risks to some of our most basic services and necessities - including water, electricity, transport, telecommunications and buildings. Melbourne has just experienced its driest ever year, getting only half its yearly average rainfall as of 15 May 2007.

Unfortunately, most of our politicians are prepared to play games and fiddle while Australia burns.

Links
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds100507.pdf Senate Hansard, 10 May 2007
Climate change: shock findings for Victorians , The Age, 16 May 2007
Melbourne records driest 12 months, The Age, 16 May 2007

Election strategy, political football and climate change

I bumped into Bob Hawke in Melbourne airport just after the 2004 federal election, and asked him what on earth happened with Mark Latham and Labor's strategy for the election. He replied that Latham had earlier sought advice from him and he told him that

“you need to take a lead position on your key strengths and you need to cover the key issues that your opponents will use against you”.

I consider this sage advice.

In 2004, Labor arguably ran on education (e.g. school funding) and health (e.g. Medicare Gold). The Howard governed countered them on education by running a scare campaign on funding for non-government schools being reduced (as per their “hit list”).

The environment has been a differentiator between Labor and the Liberals, but in 2004 Latham played a game of cat and mouse on forests with John Howard. Instead of taking a leadership position on forest protection and taking it up to Howard, Latham was lured into a trap which was deftly sprung when John Howard visited Tasmania and famously hugged members of the CFMEU in Hobart. Labor's Tony O'Connor of the CFMEU denounced Labor's forest policy in favour of John Howard's. While this did not actually cost Labor the election, it certainly did not help them much.

Interestingly, Hawke also pointed out that one of Howard's former key strengths – national security – was effectively neutralised as a campaign issue for him when the “43 eminent people” including retired defence chiefs, diplomats and former senior bureaucrats strongly criticised Howard for deceiving the Australian people over the Iraq war and pointing out that Australia had not become a safer place as a result of the war. However, Labor was not able to capitalise on this, although they did ask a series of questions in Parliament on this topic. See PM shrugs off foreign policy attack for more information on this.

Howard also effectively attacked Labor's economic credentials by running a scare campaign that interest rates would rise under Labor, which Latham was not really able to counter in the public mind despite signing a dubious guarantee that interest rates would not rise under a Labor government .

Latham's earlier wins on policy issues like books for children in schools and reducing parliamentarians superannuation disappeared in the cut and thrust of the campaign and the ensuing media storm.

So what will the strategies for the major parties be for the 2007 Federal election? Here is my take on it.

Labor will run on:

Education

• Increase funding and boost the ailing public education system.
• Position Labor as the “education experts”
• Point out that investing in education is an investment in the future
• In Rudd's budget reply, he has announced significant funding for new technical education, which could enjoy popular support.

Workplace relations

• Campaign on the issue that worker entitlements have been lost via Australian Workplace Agreements and the Howard Government's Work Choices reforms.
• Labor has committed to removing AWAs

Climate change and the environment

• Position themselves as better than Howard on climate change by ratifying the Kyoto agreement and setting targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions.
• Keep the CFMEU and coal miners happy by committing to grubby coal funding.
• Tread carefully on Tasmanian, Victorian and NSW forest protection to avoid a repeat performance of 2004. Tony O'Connor and Tasmanian Premier Paul Lennon have already fired warning shots on this issue.

Infrastructure and long term planning

• Rudd has announced a policy for improving extending the speed and coverage of broadband across Australia to boost Australia's capabilities to use the Internet for competitive advantage.

Labor will seek to mitigate Liberal attacks on:

• Economic management credentials, including keeping interest rates low and running a budget surplus
• Being controlled by the unions and compromising Australia's productivity
• Endangering the economy and our standard of living by reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• Rudd's inexperience compared to Howard

The Liberals will run on:

The economy

• Claim credit for Australia enjoying prosperous times, low unemployment and a healthy economy (even though the minerals boom has been a major contributing factor to this)
• Continuing to run a budget surplus
• Reduce taxation to keep the electorate happy with more money in their pocket
• Position themselves as the only party capable of continuing to run a healthy economy

Education

• Howard has already taken it up to Rudd with the announcement a funding boost for universities with a new $5 billion Higher Education Endowment Fund, which will initially produce $300 million to $400 million annually for capital works and research facilities.

The environment

• Climate change. $741 million over five years on climate change has been announced, including funding for solar panel rebates, and deductions for the cost of establishing carbon sink forests. There is speculation that Howard will introduce an emissions trading scheme closer to the election date to strengthen their position on climate change
• Water tanks - $200 million over six years to support installing water tanks and other water-saving devices by schools and community organisations.
• Nuclear power and grubby coal. Howard is positioning both nuclear power and grubby coal (referred to by him with the oxymoron of “clean coal”) as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. He is on dangerous ground here as neither will address long term energy sustainability, and neither will not be available in time for the immediate reductions we require.

Other items significant for the election in Costello's budget include:

• The aged. Immediate bonuses for about 85 per cent of people over 65, bonuses for carers
• Low -income earners. An extra $1.1 billion paid into the superannuation accounts of low-income earners.
• Child care. Changes include increasing the child-care benefit and fast-tracking the child-care tax rebate
• Defence. An additional $2.1 billion over 10 years to improve recruitment and retention of personnel.
• Road and rail. New budget funding for roads and rail of $22.3 billion over five years.

The Liberals will seek to mitigate Labor attacks on:

• Howard's ongoing commitment to the failed Iraq war, and his reluctance to reveal an exit strategy
• Recent interest rates rises
• A reduction in the growth of productivity
• Australian workers not getting “a fair go” due to Howard's workplaces reforms and AWAs
• The Howard government's lack of real action on climate change, despite growing public concern on this issue. Australia also appears as a pariah nation on climate change, constantly seeking to avoid commitments to setting emission reduction targets, criticising the Kyoto Agreement and failing to ratify it.
• The increased cost of housing – pushing affordabilty beyond the means of most first home buyers

Where I think both major parties will fail:

• Setting the aggressive targets and policies to address climate change. In particular, both major parties will avoid setting strong immediate targets and strong targets for 2020. Both will attempt to buy time on this, and maintain that they are taking appropriate action.
  

• Protection of remain high conservation value forests, including old growth forests not currently protected. The Liberals favour large companies continuing to plunder our forest, even though forest destruction contributes to climate change and loss of water. Labor is locked into a militant CFMEU (Union) position of logging jobs rather than forest protection - even though the logging jobs will go once the remaining forests are destroyed.
  

• Funding for a national high speed rail network similar to that operating in Europe in Japan. This is in the "too hard basket" for both Labor and Liberal who support spending vast amounts of money on the road system instead. This is in spite of the Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee report of February 2007 that states trains use about one third the fuel of trucks per net tonne kilometre.
  

• Funding for cycling transport infrastructure to make it safer and more convenient in both urban and rural areas. Again, this is in the "too hard basket" as multi billion dollar toll roads such as Melbourne's Eastlink are being constructed.
  

• Putting in place effective policies for reducing power consumption and the reducing the requirement for base load electricity.

• Setting an exit strategy for coal burning and exports. The Liberals are addicted to the revenue for coal exports, and Labor is protecting coal miners jobs. But we got of whaling didn't we?
  

So what about the Greens?

This is topic for a separate posting. Some of the above points where major parties may fail could be addressed by them. They will be under strident attack from both Labor and The Liberals who are not keen to lose any votes to newcomers or to share the balance of power with other parties.

Will the Greens be able to counter attacks by the major parties and consolidate growing public support for many of their core policies which have now become mainstream? Or will they be marginalised and characterised again as “extreme”? Will Labor and Liberal really take action on climate change, or will they succeed in just greenwashing themselves?

Stay tuned.