phill Parsons
Then, just as we have seen in Tasmania the difference between Labor and Liberal disappear in the interests of some undefined and unguaranteed greater good, local communities and forests being sacrificed for it. An issue for such impact on people’s lives and livelihoods divides communities and many individuals and groups end up sacrificed to the anger generated, burnt out or isolated from former friends and perhaps family.
Will the proposed pulp mill in the Tamar Valley determine the date of the federal election in an attempt to wedge the Labor party on the environment and Tasmanian seats?
The shadow spokesperson on the environment and former doyen of the environment movement has come out to clearly state that to achieve value adding for Tasmania’s forests and address the Australian pulp deficit and thus the balance of payments is a world class, best environment standards pulp mill for the Tamar Valley.
One wonders if the forests would, were they able to express a desire, want to be value added.
This makes both the old parties appear supportive of the Tamar pulp mill proposal provided it meets certain standards to be determined by the CSIRO medal winner and former plant scientist, Jim Peacock, in his current role as the nation’s Chief Scientist.
For the Liberals the mill will have to conform with the EPBC Act and for Labor it has to conform with the requirments of a section of the CFMEU and meets some ill defined world class, best environment standard.
The reality is that the mill outcome has to meet the expectations of the voters likely to be directly affected and of the voters in the electorates where the Greens can expect to have some influence and thus exchange preferences with some party or other or not.
The election date will not be set before the afterglow of the APEC conference in Sydney has been fully basked in by the Howard government and it is very rare for a campaign to commence before the football Grand Final weekend.
Will it be a short 3 week campaign or longer?
Well, who knows, but if the date of the Chief Scientist’s decision is known to the PM he has the chance of involving Labor in the decision by having it fall within the election period, thus obliging the government , in its caretaker role, to consult with Labor.
Then, just as we have seen in Tasmania the difference between Labor and Liberal disappear in the interests of some undefined and unguaranteed greater good, local communities and forests being sacrificed for it.
An issue for such impact on people’s lives and livelihoods divides communities and many individuals and groups end up sacrificed to the anger generated, burnt out or isolated from former friends and perhaps family.
With an election one group sacrificed is likely to be the candidates supporting the outcome viewed by that community as unfavourable.
Here one, and possibly four of the Tasmanian seats are open to a backlash vote that sees between one and all candidates impacted depending on whether a heroic one or groups can be identified by the voters or you get a very large informal vote because none of the ‘barstards’ [sic] are seen as worth it. I discount Franklin as unlikely to contain enough voters who feel impacted by this isssue.
The Greens are now finding themselves in the invidious position of real politics, where principle and pragmatism meet somewhere in the zone of compromise. They are preferencing Labor in NSW because of the closeness of Labor to Green policies on Iraq and Industrial Relations in the hope the Labor policies are implemented and that Nettle is returned to the Senate to continue to be one, regardless of who fills the seats of the treasury benches and the greenhouse unfriendly limo’s, including the shadowy Garrett.
This applies no pressure to Turnbull and the Liberals, it’s all done and dusted and the decision will be determined on the law, or at least the government’s interpretation of it.
And with Labor supporting an ill defined world class, best environment standard pulpmill in the Tamar how many more of the same standard will come to a forest in Australia, especially one with a nearby plantation resource to address the balance of payments and downstream processing policy of the Labor party?.
How many mills impacting on the forest estate are the Greens going to be wedged with, by a confluence of old party policies, until they receive the electoral coup de grace of the Australian democrats. Here the choice comes down to whether thinking globally and acting locally is more important than the backroom power plays of preference negotiations.
Letting voters decide for themselves which is the better of the old parties is what should occur anyway. Parties allocating preferences, that will be determined by the voter anyway, distorts the reality of politics and generates huge tickets with nonsense parties filling the ballot.
But if the Greens feel they must allocate preferences for the flow on benefits, until the electoral law is changed to exclude above the line allocations, then let them do it for outstanding quality candidates who are most likely to represent green values in parliament, and for the rest trust the good sense of the voters to see which best represents them.
The decision by Gunns to attempt to build a pulpmill has put the forests, especially the Tasmanian ones, back on the agenda, with the mill being built placing the forests there for at least another decade, when the RFA runs it’s course and climate chaos will be clear for a majority to demand real action.
If the Tamar pulpmill determines an election date it confirms the environment as a leading issue in the nation and the Tasmanian forests remaining as an icon of that. That means the decision falling in the caretaker period.
Finally, were the people of Bass to return a Green candidate to the lower house and another Green Senator to support Brown in the Senate, issues of a direct impact on people’s living space across the nation, and especially through industrial pollution would be taken much more seriously by all parties, with a chance that better than world’s best practice would become the norm for more than just pulp mills.
The Greens should change their position on preferences and thus show their power. It may be illusory but if indeed their claims to representing values are not to be subsumed by the political process they will act across the nation to stand up for the environment, people’s lives and livelihoods.
