Development West of the River

On Sunday I was invited to a concerned residents meeting regarding a proposal to subdivide some blocks of land near Kurrajong. You can read about it here in the Hawkesbury Gazette.

With me at this meeting was two Labor representatives and Greens Councillor Leigh WIlliams. What occured was that those people who were in favour of the development proposal turned up and took control of the meeting. Although I did not agree with their points of view, I was glad to have heard them; in a democracy it is important to at least here tho oppositions' point of view.

However, it is clear to me that the Hawkesbury community must draw a line in the sand regarding development in the area. John Aquilina mentioned at this meeting that this "line in the sand" is quite clearly the Hawkesbury river. Although I agree that inappropriate development west of the river must be curbed, we must also think very carefully about development in the Hawkesbury as a whole.

Indeed, as our population grows we must find ways to expand our residential stock. However, this does not mean we can allow inappropriate development to run a muck with little regard for the future of the Hawkesbury, it's people and it's environment. I will not stand idle as this wonderful community gets annexed by urban sprawl.

This is therefore a local and state issue. Planning is key, and planning needs vision. Hawkesbury City Council is set to draw up a new LEP. This is our time to decide what that vision for our community will be. In thinking about that vision ask yourself these questions:

• do you want the Hawkesbury to be subsumed into Sydney's urban sprawl?
• do you want the Hawkesbury to lose it's enormous social capital by losing that inherent community feeling?
• Should the Hawkesbury give in to economic development at the expense of the environment, or do we want remain as "Sydney's backyard"?

These are not difficult questions that as a community we must come to grips with.

Letter to Editors: Bells Line Super Highway

Editor,

The Greens vehemently oppose the super highway proposal by the Liberal Party. It is a ludicrous suggestion that will not only devastate the Kurrajong community but also devastate large tracks of vegetation through the Blue Mountains. This is unacceptable.

I find it rich that the major parties are so eager to jump on the environmental bandwagon when it comes to water and even climate change, only once they see a vote in it. Yet time and time again we see the major parties undermine their credibility with ridiculous proposals like the Bells Line super highway.

Throughout this debate, as with other transport debates in the Hawkesbury, the mindset continues to be focused on roads while public transport is once again neglected. I ask the major party candidates, what are you going to do about public transport for Western Sydney so we don’t have to rely on ridiculous proposals like a super highway?

The major parties have a long way to go to prove they have the community and the environment’s best interests at heart.

Joel MacRae
Greens candidate for Londonderry
http://joelsjibe.blogspot.com

Protest Hype

All over the news, even with breaking stories throughout the night, the media have gone nuts over the protests in Sydney last night and today. I have a number of comments to say about this whole fiasco.

First, there was not that many people at the protests. This is a shame as Cheney's visit is an opportunity for the community to express their displeasure over the Iraq disaster.

Second, there was not that many people at the protests. The handling by the police seemed to be over kill. It is indeed our democratic right to protest peacefully. Having the police demonstrate their show of force does not help the situation.

Third, there was not that many people at the protests. The media have hyped this up into something it is not. A couple of hundred people at a peaceful demonstration with an idiot or two who want to get on the TV does not make it a disaster or a lead story.

The problem is that conservative forces in this country (and I believe both major parties are included in this) have successfully created a culture of derision towards protests and protesters. In the future we will look back and think or our kids will say, "why didn't we do more to stop all the bad things we are doing in the world." My conscious will be clean, will yours?

Earth Hour

Today Malcolm Turnball announced that stricter energy standards would be introduced to save on greenhouse gas emissions. Although this sounds like a good idea, and it is, but it still doesn't address wastage of energy by corporations who leave their lights on in office towers around central business districts. It is is simply atrocious the amount of wastage that goes on and yet the Government is more concerned with targeting restrictions on consumer than on businesses. This shows the priorities of the government.

Instead, the Government should be encouraging and promoting Earth Hour. It is an initiative that demonstrates our capacity to save energy and help the environment by simply turning our lights off for 1 hour. This initiative is going to promote that everyone turn off their lights at 7.30pm on 31 March 2007. Visit the website for more information.

Major Party Debate on Stateline

Statelines debate with the leaders of the two major parties was aired last night. My initial thoughts after watching the event was that:
a) there should be more of these on a regular basis, irrespective of whether an election is on or not.
b) having just the two parties represented made it a farce. There needs to be more effort to include the minor parties and independents. Quentins excuse that, "it's all about executive power" just doesn't cut it in my book because it completely underestimates the power of minor parties and independents in this system.

What is also interesting is Morris Iemma's comments proceeding the debate. He felt disappointed with his performance and felt he didn't have enough time to express his views. Well Morris, no excuses now, you need to have more debates before the election.

As for their performance on television (not their policies), Debnam looked nervous in his opening speech but improved as the blood flowed. Morris seemed over rehearsed to the point it looked like a performance and not natural, while still carrying his odd maneurisms (eg holding his head at a strange angle). Morris also seemed to be trying to imitate Howard on some occasions too, "this elections is about who you can trust ..." for example.

As for their policy statement, well all I can say is "shame". It is a real shame that a Green does not have an opportunity to express their views in a forum such as that debate because it would have been made glaringly obvious how ill-equipped the major parties are in fighting our water crisis and climate change disaster. The fact that the bulk of the talk on climate change focused on "clean coal technology" and not renewable energy made it a complete farce.

When will a Green be invited to debate the major parties?

The sell-out fails again

Well, it came even sooner than I expected. Garrett's sell out is now glaringly obvious to even the most uninterested observer. However, I didn't expect it on this issue (I thought uranium mining was to be the sticking issue).

I miss the old Garrett that wasn't afraid to stand up for controversial issues like opposition to US "imperialism".

Once again it is left to the Greens to state the glaringly obvious:

Australians are now even more deeply enmeshed in United States military endeavours, whether we agree with them or not. It is a classic John Howard capitulation to US military interests.

And the ALP are no better when Joel Fitzgibbon, shadow Defense Minister, and now Garrett simply toe the line.

I call on the Labor Party to make its position clear on the proliferation of US military facilities in Australia. Will Kevin Rudd simply fall in behind John Howard as previous Labor leaders have done?

Well I guess they have.

Media: Greens Water Policy

Greens release 2007 election urban water policy: working with the community
in a dry climate

Greens candidate Joel MacRae standing for Londonderry says that the Greens water strategy is a far better alternative than the expensive, energy guzzling de-salination plant.

"The major parties have failed to read the community mood. There has been a welcome shift in support for water recycling, but we must not lose sight of the enormous capacity of the public to save water and use it more efficiently," Joel MacRae said.

"The major parties are scared that NSW residents will punish them at the ballot box if they don't promise big ticket engineering solutions, like desalination.

"The Greens plan for NSW centres on rainwater tanks, local grey water treatment, stormwater harvesting, wastewater recycling, improved efficiency and stronger restrictions.

"By abandoning plans to pre-emptively construct a desalination plant, the Greens' strategy potentially saves $1.9 billion, at least half of which can be invested in these measures.

"Times have changed, and the government needs to work on a permanent shift in how we manage water.

"Our policy will see NSW through this and subsequent water crises and avoid the need to spend money on expensive white elephants like desalination and aquifer pumping," Joel MacRae said.

"The Coalition’s plan to boost Sydney's water supply with recycled sewerage is definitely an improvement on a desalination plant.

"However, the solution to future water crises lies with a combination of water restrictions, water tanks, on site grey water treatment and reuse, and demand management.

“Opposition leader Peter Debnam's drought plan for Sydney has failed to adopt the most environmentally friendly and least expensive option to deal with the current water crisis.

"The Iemma government and the opposition have completely underestimated the enormous water savings potential locked up in the community's willingness to change habits and use less water.” Joel MacRae said.

NSW State Election Debate

I have just heard that Morris Iemma and Peter Debnam will be participating in NSW's first (?) televised State election debate. This will be at 7:30pm Friday the 16th of February on ABC's Stateline programme.

Wow if only Lee Rhiannon was involved...

Must see event.

"Correlation is not causation"

For anyone interested, Ross Gittens has a good piece for those who are slightly interested in economics and, in particular, the unemployment rate (good too for economics teachers...). It is argued by Gittens that the efforts by the Government, namely the Treasurer, to lay the cause of the past years' improvement on the implementation of Work Choices (Howard's rotten IR laws) are somewhat false. What is more likely is that the resources boom is still running full steam ahead and can account for the employment growth, which importantly has nothing to do with Work Choices.

Sometimes I think Economics should be compulsory subject at school, at least then most people would see through some of the comments made by our Government representatives.

PM Howard v President Obama: A battle Howard can't and won't win

The ridiculous comments from Howard on the weekend with regard to Iraq and Obama's stance should and have been lambasted by Australian and US politicians (for a good summary with links see here). The issue is not whether Howard can say it or not, of course he is allowed pass comment on international affairs. What is at issue is the fundamental flaw in Howard's stance on Iraq and his close ties with the Bush Administration. He won't win this fight, world opinion is against Bush and his Iraq policy. History will prove President Obama correct.

A couple more brief observations on these issues: a) Howard once again is willing to use the tactic of fear to bully his way through the issue; b) giving Obama the attention of Howard's criticisms has probably further cemented his position on the US Democratic presidential ticket, which is a very good thing.

Dam rises but does hope sink?

The rain has come and thankfully it is finally falling in our catchment areas. Read about it here.

However, will this rain dampen the current pressure placed on governments, particularly in NSW with the upcoming election, to find better solutions to our water crisis? It won't I hope and some anecdotal evidence may confirm it. A number of times in the past year, or at least on the few occasions it has rained, instead of the usual comment, "wow its good it's actually raining!" from acquaintances, the comment has now become, "wow look at all that water we are wasting that could be recycled."

Concern with how we use our natural resources has entered the public consciousness and won't be removed until it is dealt with appropriately. I fear for the major parties if they tried to sweep this under the carpet.

Campaign up and running

The Hawkesbury candidate, Jocelyn Howden, and myself publicly announced our running in the state election for the NSW Greens this week with an article in the Hawkesbury Gazette. This well written article by Gail Knox gave us a good run in both this weeks Hawkesbury Gazette and last weeks Hawkesbury Courier.

The official Londonderry website is now up and running.

Howard the skeptic?

Yesterday in parliament the Prime Minister stated that "the jury was still out" over the link between climate change and human produced gas emissions (source). He later corrected himself saying he thought that the question was referring to the link between climate change and drought. There was no mention of drought whatsoever in Rudd's question.

This reveals one of two things. Either Howard is losing it (in concentration, skill and capacity to handle tough questions) or he truly is a climate change skeptic. Although I believe that Howard is not the same as he was perhaps 5 or 6 years ago, I do not believe he is disintegrating that much. With his lateline interview on Monday (no link), it seemed that Howard was very uncomfortable when dealing with the environmental issues.

I believe he is overwhelmed by the attention the public now has for these environmental issues and is handling them poorly. This is partly because his attention to these issues are insincere and is being forced to come up with policy he doesn't want to run or deal with.

Any Liberal Government cannot be trusted to maintain our societies future prosperity if they are not serious about climate change.

Greens Preferences in the NSW State Election

A poll came out today suggesting that the ALP will win in the upcoming NSW state election. However, the poll also showed a drop in the ALP's primary vote. This means that the ALP are even more so reliant on the Greens (and independents) to maintain the position in Government. Indeed, the title of the SMH article is, "Preferences key to ALP election win".

As far as I am concerned the ALP has a lot to do to win Greens preferences around the state.

Now before someone starts saying that its a foregone conclusion that the ALP will get the Greens preferences, I would like to remind you that the NSW State election has an optional preferential system of voting. This means that electors voting in the Legislative Assembly must place a 1 in the box for the most preferred candidate and then it is optional whether you place any more numbers.* Thus, any voter can decide not to distribute their vote past their first preference. For example, a voter who may be disgusted with both Labor and Liberals may decide to place a 1 next to the Greens on the Legislative Assembly ballot and thats it. Read more from the SEO.

The Hawkesbury Greens local group has the power to decide the Greens preference strategy in the Londonderry and Hawkesbury electorates. It is likely that the Greens preference strategy will be the deciding factor in both electorates.

The Hawkesbury Greens has yet to make its decision on preferences for either Londonderry or Hawkesbury. So this is a clear message to those candidates in these electorates: the Hawkesbury Greens will be keeping an eye on the performance of all of the candidates and party policies. In particular, we will pay particular attention to you and your party's stances on climate change, water and public services.


* I would like to emphasise that what was explained only applied to the Legislative Assembly. The Legislative Council is different. To read how Legislative Council voting works read here.

Donations: Democracy's Addiction

Australian Democracy is addicted to that one enormous crack in the sytem: political donations. Yesterday the Australian Electoral Commission revealed its annual account of political donations of the previous financial year. Each year the public is appalled at the level of donations received by the major political parties, which leads many people asking the question how can they get away with it?

Is this a subversion of democracy? Are wealthy individuals or corporations able to get undue influence? These are the questions many people are asking.

According to the AEC Almost $75m went to political parties this past year (this is down substantially, i am guessing because there few big elections?). So who are donating? Look at these stats:

• The top twelve donar developers gave over $1m to the Liberals and Labor. (source)
  
• Westfield Capital Corp. Ltd alone gave $330,000 to the Labor and Liberal Parties. (source)
  
• "Labor received more than $3.6 million from party-controlled entities such as Labor Holdings Pty Ltd, John Curtin House Ltd and the Progressive Business Association." (source)
  
• "The Liberal Party raked in $1.4 million from organisations like the Cormack Foundation and The 500 Club, while almost $320,000 flowed to the Nationals from a variety of trusts and foundations." (source)

Absolutely disgusting!!! Do you want to know what is even worse? The company Tristar are in a degrading battle with its employees over entitlements (read more about it here) and yet the ALP, who are using the Tristar battle as an example against Howard's IR laws, received over $100,000 in donations from Tristar. NSW Greens Upperhouse Representative Lee Rhiannon has called on the ALP to put that money into a trust fund for the embattled workers.

The NSW greens have a very strict policy when it comes to donation. You can read it here but the main thrust is:

• prohibiting political donations from corporations;
• adequate, fair and transparent public funding of all elections;
• prompt and transparent disclosure of all donations on a public website maintained by the electoral office;
• capping political donations at $10,000 per individual per year; and
• introducing legislation to prevent retiring members of parliament entering employment for two years with any private organisation that could obtain an unfair advantage.

Indeed, this issue has been a campaign focal point for the Greens. For example, the NSW greens through Lee Rhiannon's office has developed the website democracy4sale.org that is a nice easy portal to quickly find who donated what to which party (the above image came from there too). It is a must bookmark website.

This addiction to donations has to end, but it won't end while the addicted Liberals and Labor parties are in complete control of government. They must hit rock bottom before they will get any better. Voting Green in the next election will help ensure that they are made accountable for their actions.