Why do we lock up asylum seekers?

There are two answers to this question, and neither of them are nice.

1. We lock them up in mandatory detention as a deterrent to others.

2. For political reasons.

Why should we NOT lock them up?

It is a breach of human rights.
They have done nothing wrong.
Prolonged incarceration causes psychological damage
It is inhumane.
It is very expensive.
It portrays a very negative view of Australia.

In Australia, there is bipartisan support for mandatory detention between the Labor party and the Liberal/National coalition.  But they spend a lot of time scoring "political points" off each other on issues like how many boats are coming and how tough their respective policies are.

This is immoral and wrong.  It just should not be happending in a society that calls itself civilised.

Australia has had waves of immigration, both "legal" and refugees, including Greeks, Turks, Hong Kong Chinese, Italians, Vietnamese (many in boats) to name a few.

Claims that asylum seekers are a "border security issues" and are "terrorists" have emanated from some Australian politicians.  This polarises public opinion and slanders hapless asylum seekers, who of course have no right of reply from behind the razor wire.

We should simply allow asylum seekers to live within our society, assess their claims, and send the cheats home.  It is time our politicians stopped grandstanding and breaching human rights and international conventions.  

We need leadership on this issue, not gutter sniping and political trench warfare.

All Victorians must have equal protection from discrimination under Victorian Equal Opportunity laws

Below is an open letter I have sent to Robert Clark, my local member of parliament, about the Baillieu governments alarming intention to provide permanent exemptions that will allow some religious organisations to discriminate against Victorians.

You can sign and online petition about this, and send an email to your local MP from the Equal Rights Victoria website.

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

Dear Robert

I am contacting you to express my strong objection to the Liberal government’s intention to strengthen the rights of religious organisations and individuals to discriminate against and abuse others who don’t agree with them.

I fully endorse people’s right to freedom of religious thought, worship and practice. However this does not mean that religious individuals and organisations should therefore have the right to impose their beliefs on others who don’t agree with them - particularly when this occurs in non-religious/mainstream or secular settings.

It is appropriate that people with religious beliefs be able to say who can or cannot join their congregation or attend one of their religious ceremonies or be appointed as a priest/ pastor etc. However when a religious organisation or individual is engaged in the provision of things such as education, health, welfare or commercial/retail services, they should have to comply with the anti-discrimination laws in the same way that everyone does.

To give religious people and organisations additional legal privileges and protections over other groups in society is totally against notions of fairness and social justice. It also goes against all efforts to create and maintain a society in which citizens welcome diversity and understand that although we all have human rights, we also have responsibilities to respect the equal rights of others. It is absurd that a government would excuse or pardon one groups’ discrimination against others just because it was done of the basis of their particular spiritual beliefs.

By strengthening the exemptions in the Equal Opportunity Act, major harm will continue to be inflicted on the health and wellbeing of significant numbers of the population. For example, there would be some 500,000 individuals in Victoria that identify as same sex attracted and research clearly shows higher rates of depression, anxiety, self harm and suicide attempts amongst these citizens (especially young people). This is not the result of anything arising from their sexual orientation but the direct impact of isolation, discrimination and abuse they experience in the community. Religious belief is often used as the justification/explanation for such discrimination.

As my local member of parliament I urge you to take steps to stop the unequal and unfair endorsement of additional privileges and rights for religious individuals/organisations in this state’s human rights law.

Robert, I believe it is very important that all Victorians be treated equally and protected against discrimination.

Regards,

Peter Campbell

Fast Trains for Australia

Below is a letter I have sent to Victorian Senators Kim Carr (Labor), Stephen Conroy (Labor), Steve Fielding (Family First), Gavin Marshall (Labor) using this website: Fast Trains for Australia

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

It's time Australia invested in a high speed rail on the East Coast corridor (linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne).

The existing rail services between Australia's major cities are slow, infrequent, and can be more expensive than air travel!  They are also slower than bus services.

The aviation industry is responsible for 3.5% of anthropogenic cimate change (IPCC), while average passenger kilometres are increasing by 5% each year. We cannot afford for aviation to continue expanding. But we do want to travel between our cities!

Aside from the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, road congestion already costs Australia $10 billion a year. And Australia's population is expected to increase to 26.7 million by 2026 and 36 million by 2056.

Modelling indicates it would cost around $13 billion to build the corridor today, but if it's put off it the cost could balloon to $57 billion by 2030.

High-speed rail is being rolled out in countries across Europe, the US and Asia as a way to link up major cities, reduce congestion and battle pollution.

Please know that we Australians want to get with the program!

Yours sincerely,
Peter Campbell

Why did Julia Gillard rule out a carbon tax last year?

During the "cut and thrust" of a close Australian federal election campaign in 2010, Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister said something remarkable.

The election was characterised by the usual claims and counter claims about a variety of the "usual issues" such as health, education, the economy, taxation and budget deficits.  There was also contention about some tentative Government policies designed to help us move to a low-carbon future such as the poorly implemented and managed home insulation scheme, green loans and solar panel rebates.

Climate change was the elephant in the room.  The Labor government's previous attempt to push through an Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS) had failed for two main reasons:

• The Liberals broke their bipartisan support for it when Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader.  Abbott's basic position was a mixture of denial that climate is happening and obscure objections to the proposed market-based mechanism for limiting carbon pollution.
• The Greens and other independents did not support the CPRS because they judged it was far to generous to the big polluters and would not have been effective in reducing carbon pollution.

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister at the time, lost his nerve and didn't call a double dissolution election on this issue.  Instead he back-flipped and delayed the introduction of the CPRS, an action that he had strongly criticised the Liberals for during the 2007 Federal election campaign.  The so-called "gang of four" - Julia Gillard (Deputy PM), Wayne Swan (Treasurer) and Linsday Tanner (Finance) along with Kevin Rudd collectively agreed to go soft on climate change.

Julia Gillard then rolled Kevin Rudd and became the prime minister in the run up to the election.  She was supported by some strong factional players, including Paul Howes (secretary of the Australian Workers Union), who has subsequently stated that "climate change policy must not cost a single worker's job".

Back to the question.  Tony Abbot was running (and still is) an effective misinformation campaign about climate change and carbon pricing that Labor party campaign people felt was getting significant traction with voters.  He was claiming that the CPRS was a "great big new tax" and that Labor would bring in a carbon tax.

With the failure of the CPRS (ETS), a carbon tax was the only quick and effective means of pricing carbon pollution left.  It was worthy of immediate consideration.  However, Julia Gillard specifically ruled it out in the closing weeks of the election campaign by stating "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".  

I thought at the time that this was an ill-considered statement designed to take the wind out of Tony Abbott's sails.  In short, political considerations during the election campaign ruled out a viable policy option that had been suggested and endorsed by Professor Ross Garnaut, the government's own advisor on climate change policy.

Fast forward to 2011.  To form a minority government, Julia Gillard had to gain the support of the Greens and two out of the three lower house independents.  Part of the deal was formation of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.  The Liberals and Nationals, still stuck in a degree of climate change denial,  "spat the dummy" and refused to participate.  The others on the committee, a mix of Labor, Greens and independent MPs, resolved during 2011 that a carbon tax was indeed a valid and effective mechanism for pricing carbon.

Julia Gillard is now been constantly and relentlessly criticised by the Liberal National coalition for breaking her promise about never introducing a carbon tax.   Yes, she made a stupid promise.  However, a price on carbon is one essential measure for reducing carbon emissions.  But it is only one of many needed.  

It is also subject to the same corruptive influence that fatally compromised the CPRS - industry groups lobbying for special consideration, financial assistance and low carbon tax price - which of course means they just keep polluting.  The fact that many large industry players are opposing the carbon tax is a good thing.  We need to curb excessive profits reaped from carbon pollution and transition to a lower carbon economy.

The proposed carbon pricing mechanism is not even actually a tax.  It is set price on carbon that is likely to only apply to the top 100 listed companies in Australia, which could face an annual carbon cost of $3.3 billion if the government imposes a $25 per tonne price on carbon.

Low income households are already suffering from large increases in their energy bills without a carbon price.  Part of the proceeds of the carbon price will be directed to compensating them for their energy costs so they will end up better off when the carbon price is in place.

Along the journey to carbon price, presumably in response to some agitation by industry and some right-wing unions such as the AWU, Julia Gillard also decided to criticise the Greens at the Gough Whitlam oration in April 2011 with the following statements: 

"The Greens wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy. The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country. 

"They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture - the people Labor strives to represent need work.

"And the Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation."

This is just more nasty, spiteful and divisive poll-driven politics. It demonstrates a basic failure of leadership by Julia Gillard and alienates a lot of people who voted for Labor either directly or via their preferences with the expectation they would deliver real action on climate change. 

The right wing media in Australia - most notable the Murdoch press including the Australian and the Herald Sun - jumped on these comments and have embarked on their own campaign to attack the Greens, Labor and any sort of price on carbon.  They are clearly in the thrall of large polluting industries who don't want to change, and are aligned with and supporting the Tony Abbott-lead conservative opposition in this regards.  This is not news - it is ill-informed opinion, and a public relations smear campaign.

A carbon price in excess of $50 per tonne is required to shift investment decisions towards renewable energy rather than natural gas.  A lower carbon price will result in a massive investment shift from coal-fired power to gas-fired power.  Unfortunately, while gas is more efficient than coal as an energy source, it will still produce huge quantities of carbon emissions.  I predict that the Gillard Government will announce a carbon price of $15 per tonne, which would be an abject failure.

So in summary, the broad policy measures we need to tackle climate change include:

• A carbon price on pollution in the range of $50 to $100 per tonne. 
• 7 star national building energy ratings.  Our current state standards are lame and a dog's breakfast.
• Mandatory energy efficiency standards for appliances in line with european standards
• A national feed-in tariff  to boost investment in large scale 100% renewable energy such as wind and concentrated solar
• Standard distributed local solar energy production plants of remote communities - possible based on the CSIRO parabolic solar dish system
• Major investment in low-carbon public transport systems in both city and rural areas.  This should be mostly rail systems powered by electricity
• Local low-carbon water storage and conservation measures such as rainwater tanks and urban storm water collection to avoid the construction and use of massive energy guzzling desalination plants.
• Protect Australia's remaining old growth forests to keep the carbon they store safe, and allow logged forests to regrow and sequester more carbon.  Shift all timber production to plantations.

Unfortunately, or political system and leaders seem to be mired is a sideshow prize fight about only one issue - a price on carbon.  

Gillard is bad, but Abbott is worse.  His plan to hand about billions of our money (yours and mine) to large corporates without any tangible or effective carbon emissions resulting is a complete sham.

Both Gillard and Abbott really need to lift their game.

Links

• Multi-Party Climate Change Committee - Think Change
• Carbon tax promise has Julia Gillard choking on her words | Herald Sun
• Carbon price compensation: businesses not like households | Crikey
• Gillard plans FY13 carbon price | News | Business Spectator
• Prime Minister Julia Gillard tells Gough Whitlam Oration Labor will never partner with Greens, news.com.au : 
• Bob Brown warns Julia Gillard's attacks on Greens are 'divisive' | Herald Sun 

Dramatic video from helicopter of tsunami in Japan

Tsunami in Japan



Effects of Tsunami in Hawaii



Links

• Amateur video captures Tsunami horror, Reuters

Oil price rises and natural calamities threaten the global economy

It is interesting to note the effect of oil price rises and natural disasters on the global economy, and Western economies in particular.

Three recent examples are:

• The 2011 Australian floods
• Increased oil prices due to unrest and regime change in the Middle East and North Africa, particularly the civil war in Libya
• The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011

Oil price rises put immediate pressure on items like:

• Retail expenditure - household disposable income drops when fuel prices rise and people stop spending
• Inflation - price rises effectively devalue the currency
• Increase transport costs - leading to an increase in business costs and price rises for many other good and products, including food.
• A negative impact on exporters

In summary, higher oil prices act as a brake on global economic growth.  This may not be a bad thing as unlimited growth is clearly not sustainable.

However, it seems that governments and policy makers are not dealing with the reality of peak oil, rising oil prices and transitioning to the low-oil and low-carbon economies we need to cope with depletion of fossil fuels and emission reductions to help combat climate change.

Petrol has reached around AUD $1.50 a litre in Australia.

What will the impacts be when it reaches $3.00, then $5.00, and eventually $10.00 a litre?  Very serious, it would appear.

Australia's oil and gas industry is worth $28 billion in the 2009-2010 year.  We would be better off spending a large proportion of this money on transitioning to sustainable transport and energy use.

The devastating Japanese earthquake of 11 March 2011 has caused jitters throughout the global economy.  While the earth quake is not associated with climate change, it demonstrates how disruptive natural calamities can be.

It is clear that we should reduce carbon emissions locally and globally to help reduce or prevent events linked by science to climate change such as floods, droughts and bushfires.

External links

• Petrol price just barrels along, The Age
• Japan quake causes market jitters , Herald Sun
• 2011 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia 
• The end of the world as we know it, Greenlivingpedia

Libya: No-Fly Zone

Dear United Nations Security Council delegates,

I call on you to take immediate steps to impose a no-fly zone under Chapter VII of the UN Charter to stop the aerial bombings of civilians in Libya and restore access for humanitarian flights to Libyan air space.

Only through robust international action and oversight can the bloodshed in Libya be stopped.

Sincerely,

Peter Campbell



You can send the United Nations a letter about this here: http://www.avaaz.org/en/libya_no_fly_zone_1/?cl=974061205&v=8575

Tropical cyclone Yasi - Australia's worst cyclone?

Tropical cyclone Yasi is bearing down on far north Queensland.  The forecast predictions are for conditions that may be the worst (strongest) ever cyclone to impact Australia.  The cyclone has been upgraded to Level 5  - the  highest.

My thoughts are with FNQ friends.  Stay safe folks.

Cyclone Yasi details:

• 500km wide
• 200km eye
• 7m storm surge expected
• 1000m rainfall expected
• Landfall just south or Cairns expected, 1am on Thursday 3 Feb 11

Here is the wind forecast, as at 10am Wed 2 Feb 2011

• Maximum winds to 115 knots near the centre.
• Winds above 64 knots within  30 nautical miles in northern semi-circle and within 50 nautical miles in southern semi-circle with phenomenal seas.
• Winds above 48 knots within 90 nautical miles in northern semi-circle and within 130 nautical miles in southern semi-circle with very rough to high seas and heavy swell
• Winds above 34 knots within 190 nautical miles in northern semi-circle and within 280 nautical miles in southern semi-circle with rough to very rough seas and moderate to heavy swell.

Here are some selected forecast diagrams and charts, all derived from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology unless otherwise credited.

Pressure chart - 0800 Wed 2 Feb 11

Pressure chart - 0200 Thursday 3 Feb 11

Sea Level pressure chart prognosis

National weather radar as at 01/02/11 21:40

Satellite photo - NASA Modis Rapid Response

Enhanced satellite image.  Source www.goes.noaa.gove

This is another example of an extreme weather event - of which scientists such as Graeme Pearman (ex CSIRO), Barrie Pittock (ex CSIRO) and David Karoly (University of Melbourne) have been warning will increase in both frequency and severity, due to climate change.

This is more evidence that we need a fund for addressing the catastrophic effects of climate change - such as floods, bushfires and cyclones, rather than just a one year "flood levy" just announced by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

External links

• Cyclone Yasi - Greenlivingpedia
• Cyclone Yasi Evacuations: 'Don't Bother To Pack Bags': Bligh, Brisbane times 
• Tropical cyclones explained - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) 
• Video of Tropical Cyclone Yasi - Satellite & Radar Timelapse 

Grand Prix support continued by Baillieu Liberal government

Melbourne has hosted the Australian Grand Prix car race since 1996.  The race moved to Melbourne from Adelaide under the then Kennett Liberal government.  At the time, there was much controversy about the financial benefits of the race at the time, and the environmental and social impacts of holding it on a street circuit around Melbourne's Albert Park lake.

Subsequent Bracks and Brumby Labor governments continued to provide unconditional support for the race.  The Victorian government has consistently refused to disclose the amount of public money provided to race organisers and promoters.  It is in the range of tens of millions of dollars.

Successive governments have also claimed that the benefits to Melbourne and Victoria outweigh the costs, but have provide no evidence of this.

This is public money, so the public has the right to know how it is spent, and on what basis.  Hiding this expenditure is simply not acceptable.

It is therefore very disappointing that the recently elected Baillieu government has chosen to continue funding the Grand Prix, holding it on the Albert Park circuit, and to also withhold the information on public money spent on the race.

This is after Ted Baillieu's claim to provide "transparent and good government".

Successive governments have simply failed to assess public opinion on this issue.  Majority community opinion remains untested, and our democratic system has failing to provide and opportunity for anyone to vote on this matter.

We need a plebiscite on this issue now.

125 scientists condemn basis for "alpine grazing trial"

A letter to Robert Clark (MP), Ted Baillieu (Premier), Ryan Smith (Minister for Environment and Climate Change), Peter Walsh (Minister for Agriculture and Food Security)


Robert, Ryan, Peter and Ted,

I note that 125 scientists have now stated that your the "trials of alpine grazing to test bushfire mitigation" lack scientific integrity.   This includes 11 professors and nine associate professors.

Link: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/top-scientists-urge-halt-to-alpine-grazing-trial-20110129-1a938.html

The also state, correctly, that government has potentially broken federal environment (EPBC) law.

As per my previous correspondence, this pre-emptive and ill-considered move is bad for everyone other than a few select families (about 12 I think).

It is also quite obvious to all that cattle don't eat eucalyptus trees or leaf litter, and any "trampling effect" is negligible.

Your government should act for the people, and base decisions on good practice and good process.  Re-introducing cattle to National Parks under a sham pretext fails on all these counts.

I urge you to reconsider this action immediately.

Regards, Peter

See also: Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable, previous post

Strategies for dealing with Queensland and Victorian floods

Here is a post I put on Facebook recently, and the comments  it attracted.   It is interesting to note divergent opinions on the responsibilities of state governments and developers.

It is however very clear that a lot of homes have been built on areas known to be subject to regular flooding, with little or no effective measures to protect the.


What about marking the highest water levels of recent floods then elevating houses on posts above this where possible (e.g. up to say 4-5m max height above ground level) and consider carefully what to do about the rest. Perhaps they should be rezoned as high flood risk and residents assisted to relocate to higher ground?

15 Jan 2011

Glenn It seems that developers have the final say on what land is to be developed. They are in the business of making money. If they can get away with building houses on flood prone land then they will. They call it capitalism. I call it greed.

Kieran When it comes to developers, everyone calls it GREED.

Peter Campbell Yes, its greed. But what is the cost? At around $10b+ for the Queensland floods, this money would be better spent preventing future flood impacts and another $10b+ costs for the next flood(s). Governments should regulate this.

Heather What has happened in Aust, Brazil, Sri lanka,Bangladesh etc is tragic -but now wait for class actions in negligence against developers and those issuing planning and building permits,particularly by those with insurance probs.The one positive to come out of this situation is that finally authorities are realising that the statistics haven't lied-what all of us have known for 20 years-climate change is happening and proactive preparations need to be undertaken to ensure that societies are protected as best they can be.Smart developers will realise this and develop accordingly.

Simon Developers fault? Developers greed? What? It is a failure of regulation and politicians...the developers can only do what they are allowed to so to blame them is simply ignoring (or absolving) the real issue that it is a failure of government. And after our recent decade long experience in Victoria it also isnt a simple political 'left' or 'right' wing issue either...it comes down to the morals and values of those who set policy.

Harriett Many Brisbane residents were offered buy-backs of their property by the council and they refused.

Danny Developers aren't passive victims of government regulations. Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments and get zoning regulations overridden or modified to suit them. Half the problem with the "morals and values of those who set policy" comes from corruption, in which property developers have a starring role.

Simon ‎" Developers in Australia regularly suborn local and state governments " No, they may 'attempt' to but if they succeed it is due to those that allow it to happen!! The kind of thinking that says it is all the ‘big bad property developer’ is the real problem as we are not making the policy and regulation makers responsible for their actions!! All vested interest groups try and influence and sway policy, the greens certainly do, as do the pro lifers etc. etc. So the issue is with the policy makers and regulators and it is they who need to be held accountable…to do otherwise (and/or blame the vested interest group trying to sway them) is to absolve them of the very responsibility they should be held to account for.

Danny Problems with the political process can't be separated from the rest of society. It's not a coincidence that the most corrupt and least transparent countries in the world also have massive levels of wealth and income inequality. We need to regulate corruption at _both_ ends, by coming down on the people who pay bribes as well as those who take them.

Tom Wrong Simon. 4 years at Waverley Council says you are wrong, wrong, wrong and talking through your hat as well. The donors control the govt who monster the local councils, and the NSW EP&A Act - you could drive a B double through it - and take over planning controls when it doesn't work. Latest example is state govt sell out of Wagga Wagga planning to smear campaign of the developers.

Michael "Transparent Ted" is a property developer by trade isn't he. Maybe he'll make everyone relocate to Dinner Plain, with all the cattle?

Peter Campbell I thought the "other John Howard" in Sea Change was an accurate simile of real life. He wdas busy flogging off Porpoise Spit to Japanese Developers (pre Japan's recession), and ramming through developments regardless of local and environmental impact. In our society, money buys votes, and developers pressure councils and even get their candidates onto them. I agree with Danny, about taking action against bribe takers and givers. Lets see if the anti-corruption commission deals with this.

Simon I agree with Danny too...as the politicians set the process then so to they need to set the standard, leaders set the standards not society. Every time a person says no to being lobbied, coerced or worse they set a higher standard and challenge the (sad) theories of the like who say it is all the nasty developers/donors and nobody else has any power...bollocks, if the NSW govt. grew some stones, if the local govt. wouldn’t be bullied then the issues of Tom's concern wouldn’t occur. That they do is an indictment on those who allowed it. Leadership starts from the top down. If we follow the logic of the power is all with the donor/developer etc. then the Greens are now at the behest of their political donor?? I would like to think not...

Simon Agree Peter, we do need adequate oversight and appropriate bodies to control these sorts of dubious and even fraudulent activities…but it will still come down to those who set the terms of reference and those who actually act/are appointed to those bodies to be moral centered. Sorry to bang on about it ;)

Heather Like Simon I have extremely strong views about the need for an anti-corruption commission which can deal with local govt and govt departments. Yes, I have had an unpleasant experience and all that I can say is thank goodness for the independence of VCAT!

External links

• 2010 Australian floods - Greenlivingpedia, a wiki on green living, building and energy

Cattle grazing in Victoria's alpine areas is not acceptable

A letter to Robert Clark MP, copied to Premier Ted Bailleu.

===========

Dear Robert

Congratulations on winning government.

I am however not pleased to be writing to you as my local member about the Baillieu government's ill-considered actions in allowing cattle to return to graze in Victoria's Alpine National Park.

Cattle have no place in sensitive alpine environments. They cause far too much damage trampling sensitive streams and bogs and their excrement pollutes the environment and water supplies. I have seen this destruction at first hand in the Victorian Alps.

I assisted a PhD student in 1984 whose thesis researched and measured the impacts of alpine grazing. Unsurprisingly, his published results stated that cattle grazing had major impacts on sensitive alpine ecosystems.

This action by the Baillieu government is not supported by a majority of Victorians. It benefits very few people. Our Alpine National Park should be protected from cattle grazing, as the adjacent Kosciusko National Park in NSW has been for decades.

This action will compromise Victoria's alpine environments and jeopardise their World Heritage listing.

I strongly urge you to reverse this decision and provide our Alpine National Park the protection from cattle grazing that science has confirmed in requires. Can you please table my concerns in both your party room and the Victorian parliament about this on my behalf?

Regards, Peter Campbell

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

External links

• Alpine grazing resumes - Weekly Times Now 
• Grazing returns to high country - The Age

Australia must lead on forests at Cancun

Dear Minister Combet,

I’m writing to urge you and your government to avoid giving the timber industries special conditions by creating massive loopholes on forestry in a global climate treaty.

Developed countries such as ours need to play a bold leadership role to get the talks back on track. It’s time for us to lead, please ensure that Australia supports honest and complete accounting of emissions from forestry and land use at the current UN climate negotiations in Cancun, Mexico.

The world can’t afford accounting tricks -- what is needed is real, science-based climate action.

I believe that protecting forests is a very important action we can take as one measure for tackling climate change.

Sincerely,

Peter Campbell
Home address supplied
=============

Send your own letter via Avaaz.org: Trees not Tricks

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 : 

Has Melbourne's property bubble burst?

After a long sustained period of dramatically rising house prices in Melbourne, and across Victoria, the market seems to have flattened out at last.  Many house prices in metropolitan Melbourne have doubled over the last 10 years.

I think the major factors contributing to this are:

1. Tax free status of the place of residence. Home owners pay no capital gains tax when they sell their house.  This is one of the last easy ways to avoid tax.
2. Negative gearing for investors. Investor can write off interest on loans for investment properties as a tax deduction.  This is also easy tax avoidance.
3. First Home Buyers Scheme grants puts money in the pockets of first home buyers which allows them to pay more for a house
4. Ongoing volatility in the share market creates doubts about shares being a good investment

The first three factors are all dependent on and associated closely with continually rising house prices. Nobody wants to take out a big loan, buy a house, then see its value decline.  As soon as there is a perception that house prices are flat (or even worse falling), we risk entering a negative feedback loop of the kind seen recently in the United Kingdom and the United States.

We could end up with a rush to sell houses to avoid losing capital value, which in turn floods the market and would drive the price down.  In addition, if unemployment rises and/or interest rates keep increasing, some people can no longer make their home loan repayments so they would be forced to sell their house.

Money borrowed to buy houses at inflated prices only benefits the banks and other lenders who reap a windfall in interest payments over a long time period. This money would be better spent on improving the energy efficiency of our housing stop so the we use less energy and save money on bills.

Factors one, two and three are "sacred cows" where no politician will go.  Unfortunately, I fear these factors  have combined to create a huge bubble in house prices which is based on peoples perceptions about wealth without having any real basis.

The other big problem is affordability and provision of housing for people and families on low incomes.  Many are simply priced out of the market.  They cannot afford to buy a house, or pay inflated rents that landlords charge to offset their large loans.  This is not good for the long term cohesion of our society.

By coincidence, the Australian has also published a prominent article on this topic.

Update 24/1/11
Apparently Melbourne's house price bubble is no longer growing.  I wonder if it will burst?

In the last two decades, we have gone from affordable housing for most to the world's most expensive housing for the wealthy elite, under the gaze of our politicians.

See also

• 5 star rated houses in Victoria, Australia - Greenlivingpedia
• Sustainable house design features checklist - Greenlivingpedia
• Treasury warning on home price 'bubble' - The Australian
• Will ninjas burst the Great Australian Housing Bubble? - Prosper Australia
• Melbourne housing now 'severely unaffordable', The Age
• House prices to flatline this year: ANZ, The Age 

A better solution for water

Here is a copy of our domestic water bill for 2 February 2010.

We have 23,000 litres of water tanks in Surrey Hills and are almost completely self-sufficient for water - as you can see by the information on this bill, including:

• 4 litres per person per day for November to Jan 2010 (compared with the government target of 155)
• 0 liters per person per day over the periods may to October 2009.

Yet the Victorian Minister Tim Holding has stated that "water tanks are not an effective solution" and Premier John Brumby as stated that "water tanks would have higher carbon emissions than the desalination plant".  

Neither have responded to my letters informing them that they are wrong on both counts - despite me providing evidence that proves my point.

The Brumby government panicked during 2008-2009 when the drought was severe, and threw 10 years of water strategy and community consultation focused on recycling water and conserving it in the bin.

Instead the Brumby government has:

• Built the north-south pipeline at considerable cost that takes water from the deprived Murray Darling basin.
• Commissioned the world's largest desalination plant which will cost around $5 billion to build, and residents will have to pay the private consortium "returns" even if they don't produce water

There was no community consultation about either project and the huge environmental impacts of both have been basically ignored. "Parliamentary rule" from Spring Street is not democracy - its dodgy business deals that deliver really bad outcomes that we all have to end up paying for decades to come.

If the government had commissioned recycling and storm water capture instead, we could have avoided the expense and environmental impacts of both these projects.

Links

• Melbourne water usage

Agreement to exit native forest logging in Tasmania

An historic deal that will end logging of Tasmania's native forests was reported today.

Following lengthy talks between industry, union and environment groups, an agreement between them has just been struck, and a joint statement of principles issued, that includes:

• Recognising the need to protect high conservation value forests and end ''industrial forestry'' of them in a timeframe to be agreed
• Restricting the burning of timber as biomass fuel to material sourced from plantations only
• Moving to ''a strong and sustainable industry based on a range of plantation-based industries including a pulp mill"
• The logging of some specialty timbers from these forests for purposes such as craftwood is allowed.

This is great news for Tasmania's remaining native forests, and potentially ends decades of conflict over the logging of native forests.

It is interesting to note that no politicians were involved in brokering the agreement.  Forests have been a "political football" for some time, with both Labor and Liberal governments supporting their ongoing destruction for decades and ignoring the wishes of over 80% of the Australian population that want them protected.

There are many factors that have contributed to this outcome, including:

• Continued job losses within the native forest logging industry, despite ongoing access to native forests
• Gunns Corporation exiting native forest logging due to the unwillingness of Japanese buyers to purchase woodchips that are not subject to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified forestry practices
• The rising strength of the Australian dollar making export of woodchips unprofitable.
• Declining availability of native forests has forced governments to move loggers into highly contentious forest areas, which has provoked serious ongoing conflicts.
• A realisation that plantations can provide a much more reliable supply of wood with greatly reduced environmental impact - but only if they are appropriately managed.
• There is enough hardwood and softwood plantation resource currently available to enable industry transition out of native forests.

This follows the end of industrial-scale native forest logging in Queensland and Western Australia in the late 90s.  

This agreement clearly sets a precedent for exiting native forest logging in Victoria and New South Wales too, where factors very similar to those in Tasmania are also relevant.

It is to be hoped that industry, union and environment groups in New South Wales and Victoria can achieve a similar excellent outcome after years of similar conflict and declining jobs in the native forest logging sector. 

Forest protection is big issue in the upcoming 2010 Victorian State election.  The Brumby government protected around 41,000 hectares of forest in September 2010, but this included many areas that were not high conservation-value forests (only around 11,000 hectare were old growth forests), and left many other high quality forest areas such as Brown Mountain unprotected from logging.

A compromised political outcome that only protects Melbourne's water catchments (less than 2% of Victoria's native forests logged annually) - will not be good enough.

Links

• Era of protest ends in a principled peace, Sydney Morning Herald
• Historic deal on forests, The Age
• Forest Letter Watch
• Historic agreement to protect Tasmania's ancient forests, The Wilderness Society

Water and the Murray Darling river system

We have recently seen the Murray Darling river system - Australia's greatest river system - drastically affected by reduced water flow due to the combined effects of climate change and irrigation from the river.

For several years the Murray River stopped flowing into the sea.  Barrages (like dams) are in place to stop seawater  moving backup through the lower lakes and river systems, including the wonderful Coorong.  If saltwater were to do this, the freshwater ecology of these parts of the system would be greatly damaged.

The drought that lasted over 10 years exceeded all wort-case estimates by climatologists and weather experts.  It has been broken in 2010, but the underlying causes for it have not gone away, and this cycle could be repeated within the next decade.

The drought drastically reduced water flows.  Many farmers with water allocations ("rights") along the river simply could not get their water.  Orchards, vineyards and dairies relying on water from the river had to shut down or close, and many commercial trees and agricultural crops died.

There is no point having water rights if there is no water.

The Wentworth Group of Scientists warned of this scenario over a decade ago, but their warnings and recommendations were ignored by governments and policy makers.  There has been much talk about "doing something" to restore desperately needed environmental flows to the river system, but very little effective action to date.

The Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) has now commenced community engagement about actions and recommendations to restore environmental flows the river system.  They have released the a Guide to the Basin Plan document.

Some of the proposal and information on the guide include:

• Proposed basin-wide cuts to water extraction of 27 to 37 per cent.
• $9 billion has been allocated to buy back water allocations
• No one will be forced to sell water
• In many river valleys a lot of the reductions in water allocations has already occurred
• Two-thirds of the minimum 3000-gigalitre reduction will be achieved by 2014 through programs already in train.
• The amount of additional surface water needed for the environment is between 3,000 GL/y and 7,600 GL/y (longterm average).
• The current average volume of water provided to the environment is about 19,100 GL/y, so this range of additional water would mean that the long-term average volume of water provided to the environment would be between 22,100 GL/y and 26,700 GL/y.

The guide details possible water reductions required in numerous regions within the basin.  This has generated major concern within rural communities within many regions, who fear that reduced water allocations will have drastic financial impacts on agricultural producers and the local economy and towns they support.

This will certainly be the case - but similar impacts have occurred, and will occur again, when water in the river system becomes scarce again.

There have been loud and irrational outbursts at public consultation and meeting and directed and the Federal Government , the Water Minister and numerous other members of parliament.

It is worth noting that so far only a guide to the plan has been release, not any binding plan or commitments.  This is being misrepresented by emotive claims by some rural commentators - and federal politicians such as Senator Barnaby Joyce - that "this plan (sic) will lead to the decimation of rural agriculture and country towns".  This is not consultation or a debate - this is a beat up.

Cotton, rice and vineyards all produce crops and products that require vast amounts of water (more information).  Ditto for dairies. I think it is clear that this type of production should happen in regions that have sufficient available rainfall, rather than chronically depleting a river system.

It is not hard to see why there has been no effective action on restoring environmental flows in this river system to date.  Any attempts to do so are met with a barrage of emotion and accusations, which in the past have  lead to major water reforms being shelved.

It is to be hoped that the current water reform process doesn't suffer the same fate.  Otherwise the next severe drought will cause decimation of rural agriculture and country towns along with like death of much of the ecology of the river system.

The new parliamentary committee for regional Australia, chaired by independent MP Tony Windsor whose electorate will be affected by the plan, appears  likely head up a parliamentary inquiry into the social and economic effects of the proposed cuts.  Let's hope he acts in the best interests of all Australians in doing so.

External links

• Basin plan, Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA)
• Guide to the Basin Plan, Murray–Darling Basin Authority (MDBA) 
• Angry crowd gives basin consultants a taste of things to come, The Age, 13 October 2010
• Irrigators vent fury at proposed water cuts, The Age, 14 October 2010
• Gillard needs to move quickly to stem rural anger, The Age, October 15, 2010
• Welcome back to a long-lost friend,  The Age, April 12, 2010
• Gillard buckles on water cuts, The Age, October 15, 2010
• Water needed to produce food, Greenlivingpedia
• Windsor warns Parliament won't back plan, The Age, October 15, 2010
• Don't think you can keep on neglecting me, Darling, The Age, October 13, 2010
• Murray Darling Basin

This post is part of Blog Action Day: blogactionday.change.org

Petitions by Change.org|Start a Petition »

John Brumby approves a new coal fired power station

Premier John Brumby and the Victorian Labor government has just approved a new coal fired power station to be build by a Chinese company in the Latrobe Valley.

More carbon emissions will obviously result - despite claims that it is somehow "clean".

We should only be building solar thermal power stations with molten salt energy storage, and wind farms.

Update 17 September 2010
Marius Kloppers, the CEO of BHP, today called for Australia to bring in a carbon tax to put a price on carbon and to plan for a transition off coal [link]

In California, the world's largest solar power station has just been given approval to proceed.  It will cost US$6b  and provide 1000 MW of power. [link]

Links

• Coal station deal raises eyebrows, Adam Morton, The Age, September 13, 2010
• Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan
• Move on climate, BHP Billiton urges
• Calif. solar plant, to be world's largest, wins key approval