Hi. OK, we’ve started to get into what this World Trade Organisation meeting in Homebush Bay, Sydney, next week is about – discussion of GATS, a proposed general agreement on trade in services.

In Explaining GATS: An attempt (smhNov5), Brian Bahnisch told us what the critics are on about. Lest it be thought that the critics are mere outsiders to power banging on with crazed conspiracy theories, the annual conference of the NSW Local Government Association passed a resolution of strong concern late last month. Local councils fear the GATs will see the privatisation of water and all sorts of other services. Marrickville Council, my local, passed a GATS unanimously before the conference endorsed it in substance (see below). The final wording should be up on the site of the Local Government Association (lgov) soon.

As far as I know State governments haven’t played a part in this debate so far. NSW Police Minister Michael Costa certainly hasn’t – his contribution has been to accuse people wanting to protest against GATS at Homebush – many of whom are unionists whose leaders will speak at the protest – of being terrorists, and to condemn any civil disobedience at the event (See Labor’s new crime: Civil disobedience, smhNov1).

As you’ll recall, Costa went troppo in Parliament early last week about a seminar to be hosted by the Greens MP Lee Rhiannon in NSW Parliament last Friday – authorised by Upper House president, Labor’s Meredith Burgmann – on the history and practice of civil disobedience in the lead-up to planned protests against the WTO meeting. Costa alleged the seminar was really about discussing violence at the WTO meeting. He had no evidence – in any event, it would be crazy to discuss violence at an open, public meeting – but that didn’t stop Michael Costa. After getting his message out through the Daily Telegraph, he took the police minister along to Homebush for more propaganda. This is reminiscent of Joh Bjelke-Petersen in the days when his police minister Terry Lewis did Sir Joh’s bidding.

I went along to the seminar for a little while on Friday, and, of course, no violence was discussed. Civil disobedience is, by definition, about non-violent protest. It is about breaking the law, peacefully, to make a political statement, and thus it’s about taking the risk of being arrested and fined for that activity.

My only personal experience of civil disobedience was in the late 1970s, when Sir Joh banned the right to march by telling police to refuse to issue any march permits. In response, I joined hundreds of others in King George Square outside City hall in the middle of Brisbane. We faced an ampitheatre – the street was surrounded by onlookers, and more than 700 police stood ready to defend the patch of street in front of the square. When we walked onto the street we were arrested and put in jail until someone – in my case my mother – arrived to bail us out. I was chucked into a tiny cell with about 20 others, where I worked out pretty quickly that this was not my scene. I also worked out that I had nothing but respect and admiration for people who could take all this to confront the system with its own injustice. Several ALP members who went on to become State government ministers were arrested in the right to march protests.

To see the NSW police minister playing Costa’s game fills me with dread and foreboding. I don’t know what Costa is up to, apart from creating hysteria, but I don’t like it.

At the seminar, rumours circulated that Costa’s police boys were refusing march permits for a couple of marches planned for Sydney city during the WTO talks. I couldn’t confirm these rumours, but the Australian on Saturday reported them, although the report was confusing. I hope like hell it isn’t true. If Costa wants a police state imposed before the State election, it’s a nasty turn of events from an increasingly nasty government. The effect of a ban on street marches would, of course, be to provoke confrontation and even violence. If that’s what Costa wants, he’s unfit for office.

The papers presented to the civil disobedience forum will be available soon at internationalactivism. In the meantime, Sydney University of Technology academic James Goodman, who organised the seminar, has complained to the Press Council about the Daily Telegraph’s coverage. The Press Council has accepted the complaint and written to the paper for a response.

Here’s the complaint:

A. Complainant Information

Name: Dr James Goodman

Address: Co-Convenor of the Research Initiative on International Activism, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences University of Technology Sydney PO Box 123 Broadway NSW 2048. Phone: 9514 2714, Fax: 9514 2332, Email: james.goodman@uts.ed=u.au

B. Publication Details

Daily Telegraph, 1. 1/11/02, Headline ‘In Your House’, front page.

C: Contact with Publication

Yes. In two ways:

(i) Face-to-face interview with the Daily Telegraph reporter who was writing the story. He had not at this stage submitted his story to the paper. The interview was held at the paper’s offices in NSW Parliament House, from approximately 7.30 pm to 8pm on October 31st.

The interview was conducted in the presence of Lee Rhiannon, Member of the Legislative Council of the NSW Parliament. At the end of the interview the reporter informed me that my comments could not be taken on board, and that he would have no influence on the headline for the piece.

On leaving I was told I should prepare for a difficult day tomorrow: it seemed to me that the paper was intending to publish an attack on the meeting, and was fully aware of the controversy it would be creating.

(ii) In view of this I returned to work on the evening of the 31st, and wrote up my rejoinder in the form of a lengthy email letter. This was sent at 2am, 1 November, when the article appeared on the Daily Telegraph’sWebsite with the headline ‘Anarchy in the House’.

Response received: No mention of the interview nor correction of the story. No response to email letter as of 5 November 2002.

D. Principles Breached

Breach of Principle 1 and Breach of Principle 5, in particular, the requirement of “not misrepresenting or suppressing relevant facts”.

E. Specific Reasons for the Complaint

Personal association: I have a direct association with the matter raised in the complaint. The Research Initiative, of which I am a part, is the organiser of the meeting that was referred by the Daily Telegraph in their front-page article of the 1 November. The Initiative was specifically mentioned in the article and was maligned and discredited by the article.

The paper had spoken with me and knew its story to be a misrepresentation, yet it went ahead and printed the accusation of the Initiative having organised a ‘training session’ for ‘violence’, as fact. The Daily Telegraphreport has been widely condemned by other media outlets. An ABC reporter, Jean Kennedy, for instance, stated on ABC Radio 702 on the afternoon of the 1 November that the Telegraph’s story had been “dubbed ‘the beat up of the year’ by members of the press gallery”. That “beat-up” has had a significant negative impact on the reputation of the Research Initiative.

Complaint details: The paper was informed by the organiser of the meeting (myself) that it was not a ‘training’ session to ‘create violent situations’, as had been claimed by the NSW Minister for Police. Yet the paper went ahead and quoted his accusations as fact: The paper’s headline states ‘Guess where the people who protest like this are holding their next training session…’. This headline appeared alongside a photograph of police on horses at a demonstration in May 2001. The Daily Telegraph knew this to be a misrepresentation of the facts, as he had been told as much by me before the story was submitted. In view of this I believe theDaily Telegraph wilfully misrepresented the facts. It printed information in the form of a front-page headline, that it knew to be false.

***

I’ve expressed strong views on the Press Council process in the past, and repeat them here. I’ve been up before the Council once, about a story I wrote about a Senate Privileges Committee report into alleged interference with a witness to the Wik inquiry, the head of the Australian Law Reform Commission, by Attorney-General Daryl Williams and his Department.

A member of the public complained that my report was inaccurate and biased. Invariably a bureaucrat of the media company concerned fronts up and runs an abstract sort of case, but I insisted on turning up myself to argue my own case. I felt this was important as the reader who complained could do so to the reporter direct, and hear her case in reply, rather than be faced with a corporate suit who knows nothing of the background to or context of the story. It was a long hearing, the reader and I went toe to toe on several points, and I was able to explain the language ‘codes’ Senate committees use when they’re criticising fellow members of the club. At the end of it we shook hands and the reader said he was satisfied he’d got a fair hearing. I won – just.

There is another reason for the reporter turning up. When the media representative is a suit, the Press Council doesn’t find out what went on in the processing of the story,and instead gets a bland justification. I have no inside knowledge of what happened in this case, but I would be unsurprised if the reporter was powerless to stop the story being distorted out of existence by an editor. If the reporter turns up, the truth can come out, and the blame – if there is any – put on the person who is at fault.

I’d also like the hearing of Press Council complaints to be in public, not in private as at present. It’s about time the media started being at least a little bit accountable. At the moment, our self-righteous claim that we are here to ensure accountability is so screamingly hypocritical it’s our credibility that’s shot to pieces.

Today, the Marrickville Council resolution on GATS, Karen Jackson in Gympie, who started the GATS ball rolling in Green idiocy (smhNov4), suggests ways to get GATS into the mainstream media. Brian Bahnischgives details of protest activities next week in Sydney to coincide with the WTO meeting – Michael Costa might care to note the unions involved – and James Woodcock recommends more sites for more info.

Max Phillips is ready to put his energy where his heart is: “Bravo Brian! I was questioning whether I’d bother to try and get off work to protest the WTO – now there is no question, I’m already there! Thanks!”

***

Unanimous resolution of Marrickville Council

That Council:

1. believes public policy regarding the regulation, funding and provision of essential services should be made democratically by governments at the national, state and local level;

2. calls on the Federal Government to fully consult with state and local government about the implications of the GATS negotiations for local government services and regulation;

3. calls on the Federal Government to make public the specific requests it made to other governments in the GATS negotiations which were due on 30 June 2002;

4. calls on the Federal Government to make public its specific responses to requests from other governments which are due on 30 March 2003;

5. calls on the Federal Government to support the clear exclusion of public services from the GATS, including local government community services and water services;

6. calls on the Federal Government to oppose any proposals which would open up the funding of such public services to privatisation;

7. calls on the Federal Government to oppose any proposals which would reduce the right of local government to regulate services, including the application of a “least trade restrictive” test to regulation;

8. writes to the Minister for Trade concerning the above; and

9. submits the above motions for adoption by the Local Government Association of New South Wales at its 2002 Annual Conference with an additional motion that they be submitted for adoption by the Australian Local Government Association at its 2002 Annual Conference.

Background

The current negotiations on the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) being conducted by the Australian Government and other governments in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) could have serious repercussions for Australian local government.

GATS rules are binding on all levels of government but there has been little if any consultation with local government about the negotiations and their implications.

A recent study by the Canadian Environmental Law Association (found at www.policyalternatives=.ca) identified areas of local government services and regulation which could be affected by the GATS negotiations. The services identified included:

* Water and sewerage services

* Waste management

* Road building

* Land use planning

* Library services.

Changes to GATS rules on regulation of services could mean that local councils could face complaints about their regulation through the WTO complaints system. Governments can complain about the laws or regulations of other governments to a panel of trade law experts. The winner can ask that laws or regulations be changed and can ban or tax the exports of the loser.

Governments are being asked to increase the range of services included in the GATS agreement. Requests in the negotiations from the European Union, for example, include water services, which in rural areas are often local government services. There are also proposals in the negotiations to change GATS rules to reduce the right of governments to regulate by declaring that some regulation of services should be “least trade restrictive.” There are also proposals to define funding of government services in GATS rules as “subsidies” to which transnational corporations should have access, resulting in privatisation.

***

Karen Jackson in Gympie, Queensland

Disclosure: Karen is a member of the Democrats

Thanks for publishing my little piece on GATS. Since the Dems went haywire I’ve been apathetic about politics; it felt as though my desire to help change the world had been torn to shreds by a small Machiavellian suicide squad and it wasn’t worth bothering anymore. But I knew the GATS meeting was coming up, and it’s too important to just sit back and watch it happen.

Brian Bahnisch’s piece was excellent, but I think it also answers my question about why GATS rarely gets a look in – it takes time and effort to understand what’s going on. What we really need is some quick, snappy Daily Telegraph headlines to generate interest.

Such as…

China’s standards good enough for our police: New NSW Police CEO

Coca-Cola takes 51% stake in Sydney Water

Domestic water tanks banned(Subheading: Sydney Water CEO claims they are undermining earnings and anti-competitive)

Building industry welcomes new international standards (Subheading: Cost of occupational health and safety halved)

Post to Bourke, Broken Hill end December 31 (First para: Australia Post spokesperson says competition with the cheaper US Postal Service means funds need to be freed up for advertising.)

Perhaps I’m being a little facetious with these, and they may be a little over the top, but this sort of thing gets attention. Alan Jones’ river plan may have been ridiculous but it nonetheless succeeded in stimulating debate about how we use our water resources.

In any case, I hope that the debate in Webdiary is the start of a larger tide of media attention on this issue.

***

Brian Bahnisch in Brisbane

Here’s the AFTINET (Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network) PR material for next week: If I had the money I’d come to Sydney!

STAND UP FOR GLOBAL JUSTICE

STOP THE WTO AGENDA

PEACEFUL RALLY

Thursday 14 NOV 2002 12 Noon

HYDE PARK FOUNTAIN

COG performing live

Speakers include Allen Madden, Metropolitan Land Council; Doug Cameron, National Secretary, Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union; Joy Chavez, Focus on the Global South, Philippines; Father Brian Gore, Jubilee Drop the Debt Campaign; Shane Rattenbury Greenpeace; John Robertson, Secretary, NSW Labour Council; The Rev Dr Ann Wansbrough, Uniting Church Minister.

FAIR TRADE NOT FREE TRADE: A BETTER WORLD IS POSSIBLE

Today 2 billion people live on less than US$2 per day with little access to health, education and water services, and continued destruction of the environment.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) sets the global rules for trade, is dominated by the most economically powerful governments, and is heavily influenced by corporations. The Australian government has invited only 25 of the 144 WTO Members to a meeting in Sydney November 14-15, 2002. The meeting is designed to pressure developing countries to support an agenda which includes:

* treating essential services like health, education and water as commercial goods, opening them to privatisation

* reducing governments’ right to regulate trade and investment in the public interest, and to support local jobs and development

* further tariff cuts regardless of their impact on job losses and economic insecurity

We oppose this agenda and support fair trade regulation through open and democratic processes:

* Trade agreements should support, not undermine, human rights, labour rights and protection of the environment.

* Essential public services should not be included in trade agreements.

* Governments should retain full rights to regulate for social and environmental reasons, and to have industry policies to support local jobs and development.

* Corporations must conform to United Nations standards on human rights, labour rights and the environment.

Supported by: Action for World Development, AID/WATCH, APHEDA-Union Aid Abroad, Action in Solidarity with Asia and the Pacific, Association for the Taxation of Financial Transactions for the Aid of Citizens, Australia Tibet Council, Australian Catholic Social Justice Council, Australian Coalition for Economic Justice, Australian Council of Social Service, Australian Council for Overseas Aid, Australian Council of Trade Unions, Australian Democrats (NSW), Australian Education Union, Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network, Australian Greens, Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union, Australian Nursing Federation, Australian Services Union, NSW Services Branch, Bougainville Freedom Movement, Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace, Community and Public Sector Union (PSU Group), Construction Forestry Mining and Energy Union, Economic Reform Australia, Fire Brigade Employees Union, Flight Attendants’ Association of Australia- International Division, Friends of the Earth Australia, Greenpeace, Indigenous Social Justice Association, Jubilee Australia, Labor Council of NSW, Labor For Refugees, Mercy Foundation, National Tertiary Education Union, National Union of Students, Northern Territory Environment Centre, Now We the People, NSW Retired Teachers’ Association, NSW Teachers Federation, Politics in the Pub, Progressive Labour Party, Rail Tram and Bus Union, Research Initiative on International Activism, The Grail, Search Foundation, Socialist Alliance, Stop MAI (WA), Tear Australia, Victorian Trades Hall Council, UnitingCare NSW.ACT, Women’s Electoral Lobby (WA) Inc, Workers’ Health Centre, WTO Watch Canberra.

***

James Woodcock

Disclosure: James is a member of the ALP

I recommend the New Internationalist online, particularly the back issue newint, Inside Business, on how transnationals work and their role with GATS.

Also go to newint and download about 4 megs of leaked GATS documents for interesting reading.

The current “hard” issue (not online yet) has a great article on how the US is privatising its “public” education system. Entitled Oh no you don’t it shows how corporate pressure can override public opposition, and this is obviously the type of “public-private partnership” that GATS wants to see in all countries.

I recommend the New Internationalist as a great alternative to the mainstream media. While its main purpose is to highlight the imbalances between rich and poor nations (It was originally sponsored by Oxfam/Freedom from Hunger), the NI reports on virtually everything of global concern.

They were talking about the MAI (the now dumped Multilateral Agreement on Investment, of which GATS is the successor) ages before Pauline Hanson or the Greens raised it. It is a great educational tool as it explains these complex global issues and has lots of useful charts and graphs that demonstrate the stark differences between the rich and poor.

Best of all the NI shows being concerned about globalization is not the exclusive jurisdiction of some perceived violent looney fringe.

Hi. I had a go at pulling together the record of the NSW Labor Government on development in the Herald today – my thesis is that Carr could be the architect of his own downfall. As a political journalist, I’ve learned cynicism the hard way, but delving into the Carr government’s record on development since Cunningham has been a disheartening, sickening, and shocking experience.

Whether he’ll be called to account by the people in March remains to be seen, but the signs are there that Opposition leader John Brogden is ready to offer voters genuine choice on development policy in Sydney and on the coast for the first time in a long time.

Today my piece, a brilliant 1997 speech by Liberal MP for Hawkesbury, Kevin Rizzoli opposing Labor’s legislative ode to developers, and a fascinating 1999 piece from the archives which shows why Brogden is on the money on this issue and how Labor abuses voter concerns to manipulate their votes then betray them without qualm.

To end, another archive piece, Driving a Carr through the environment, which details Carr’s betrayal of the public interest, local communities, homebuyers and the environment in development policy and the resulting hegemony of developer interests in our State. The developer bias is so extreme that even when conditions are put on developments to accommodate community concerns, they are not monitored and are breached at will with impunity.

Disempowered, frustrated communities watching their quality of life being ripped apart by a government which condones effectively lawless developer behaviour will, in the end, be forced to do unthinkable things to be heard. Enter Cunningham. And it won’t end there.

NSW Labor’s self-destruct button moved to Victoria today, when the safe inner urban seat of Melbourne today became even harder for Labor to hold. Melbourne is the Greens’ most winnable seat due to voter outrage at Labor’s Kennettesque decision to build the Commonwealth Games athletes village on the Royal Park site rather than return it to the people for open space. An ALP councillor has just resigned to stand as an independent. Shades of Cunningham, again. I’m beginning to think we really are witnessing the beginnings of a split in the ALP. It will be fascinating to see how the Libs respond – will they not run an official candidate and put up an independent Lib to preference the Greens, as they did in Cunningham? I’d love comment from readers in the seat.

ALP Defect

By Susan Murdoch

MELBOURNE, Nov 7 AAP: Labor’s chance of holding the key seat of Melbourne has been dealt a blow with high-profile city councillor Kevin Chamberlin announcing today he would contest the seat as an independent.

Cr Chamberlin said he would quit the ALP and stand against Community Services Minister Bronwyn Pike for Melbourne.

Preferences could be crucial in Labor’s campaign to hold onto the seat –

currently held by a 12.4 per cent margin but considered vulnerable to a

protest vote to the Greens.

Cr Chamberlin said inner-Melbourne residents had been let down by the major parties. Labor had become riddled by factional warfare and was no longer concerned with representing the people, Cr Chamberlin said.

The former Lord Mayor said he would direct preferences to other candidates before Labor and the Liberals but had not decided if they would go to Greens candidate Richard di Natale. “I’ll be the underdog, but at least we’re providing an alternative,” he said. “Even if we make Melbourne marginal, it’s going to make them sit up and listen.”

Cr Chamberlin said one of the key reasons behind his departure was the Bracks government’s decision to build the Commonwealth Games village at the Royal Park Psychiatric Hospital site, which he says should be returned to parkland.

Melbourne is one of a number of inner-city ALP strongholds targeted by the Greens.

***

Labor’s too little, too late on development

Previous actions make proposed reforms seem about as genuine as the emperor’s new clothes, writes Margo Kingston.

The Cunningham by-election revealed that Bob Carr is naked on the crucial state election issue of city and coastal development. The result: palpable panic in the ALP. The Planning Minister, Andrew Refshauge, is throwing backdowns, reforms and new policy to bitter voters like confetti.

The Premier – who endorsed the Sydney Lord Mayor, Frank Sartor, for Rockdale – admitted Labor corruption on Rockdale council meant “the electorate would have eaten us alive” if Labor had put up the local branch pick, the Rockdale mayor. Sartor is a trenchant critic of Labor development policy.

Carr has rejected passionate advice from Paul Keating to clean up Labor’s act on development. “I think we would be better off if developers were forbidden from donating election funds to municipal candidates and to political parties,” Keating said last year. Sartor agreed: “They donate to both sides and I think it’s a pity. I think it makes it very difficult.”

Public interest and the community have been forgotten or frozen out in today’s developer-driven NSW ALP. Rockdale opened the can of worms, and yesterday the ICAC began hearings into the Oasis development at Liverpool. The ALP minister Eddie Obeid and the Labor mayor of Liverpool, George Paciullo, will be key witnesses.

Refshauge’s bag of post-Cunningham tricks include a moratorium on the Sandon Point development after Labor’s refusal to act helped deliver Cunningham to the Greensand reversing Labor’s sell-off of part of Callan Park in Sydney’s inner-west for development.

He also acted on coastal development after eight years of inaction. In 1995, Carr promised the Greens he’d commission an in-depth scientific study of our coastline as a precursor to a comprehensive coastal protection plan. He’s since presided over an invasion of Gold Coast development from the north as planning ministers sat on their powers to call in sensitive developments. Refshauge said that, from last Friday, all such developments would be called in automatically, and that Labor would begin a three-year study of our coastline. But the policy isn’t ready. Refshauge’s department will be inundated with development applications, yet only three new people will be employed to cope. The criteria for regional offices – where staff numbers have been slashed to the bone – to send applications up the line or return them to councils for decision are not decided. The taxpayer, not the developer, will foot the bill for State Government supervision because Refshauge hasn’t decided whether to make them pay.

Refshauge’s core post-Cunningham announcement nails Labor’s disastrous performance on planning and environmental protection – a sleeper issue uniting Liberal and Labor voters which the Opposition leader, John Brogden, picked and ran with long before Labor realised it had no clothes. He’ll keep running, with the centrepiece – the Coalition’s first-ever coastal protection policy – ready to go when the time is right.

In 1997, then planning minister Craig Knowles ignored warnings from Sartor, greenies, surveyors, local councils and many Liberal MPs to pass without amendment a pro-developer revolution in planning and environment law which has triggered an angry voter backlash.

Knowles cut developers loose from many planning controls by stripping local communities of input and stripping home buyers of government protection against shonky builders. He allowed private operators – paid by the developer – to certify building and safety standards, ignoring warnings from the ICAC that this raised “new opportunities for corruption to occur”. The then deputy opposition leader, Ron Phillips, offered support for amendments, saying the Opposition “shares local government and community concern that private certifiers employed directly by developers could have their capacity for independent decisions compromised.” Knowles said no. The developer lobby cheered.

After the Herald exposed the tip of an iceberg that will give NSW homeowners nightmares for decades and has triggered class actions by distraught apartment owners living in fire traps, the Upper House forced Labor into an inquiry.

Post-Cunningham, Refshauge trumpeted “tough new measures to stamp out shonky building certifiers” to help “prevent improper relationships between developers and certifiers where the person supposedly acting as watchdog agrees to turn a blind eye in return for a regular flow of work”.

Not a shred of shame. Not a whiff of an apology, let alone financial help for the legal bills of citizens whose trust Labor so deliberately betrayed. And Knowles? Asked if he’d learnt any lessons, or had any regrets, his spokesman said: “He hasn’t been involved since 1999 [when he stopped being planning minister] and he hasn’t followed it since then.”

Any other potential NSW Labor premiers learnt anything?

***

NSW parliamentary debate on the Environmental and Planning Assessment Amendment Bill, 1997

Kevin Rozzoli (Liberal, Hawkesbury,November 14, 1997)

I take a somewhat different view from that expressed by my colleagues. I do not support the legislation. In fact, I think it is a fairly appalling document which does not advance the cause of environmental planning and assessment in New South Wales. I suspect that, over time, it will fall even further behind.

I have been a member of this House long enough to have seen the original legislation; it is a subject in which I have taken a close interest. In the time that I have been a member of Parliament I have been closely associated with the development of the original legislation. Although I was in opposition at the time, I worked closely with the then Minister and with his chief advisers, Sir Neal Bignold, who is now a justice in the Land and Environment Court, and John Whitehouse, who was then working for Minister Landa.

I have great respect for the original legislation. It has its faults and it probably needs amendment after all these years, but it is interesting, well-constructed legislation that was well thought through. That is about the last appellation I can put on this mishmash of material which has been placed before us today.

Various members have waxed lyrical about the fact that this legislation will speed up the small development process. It may or it may not. It will not deliver better results for the community. It may well speed up the process, but there are so many loopholes that I fear for the communities that will be subject to the process that it will inflict on them.

This legislation, despite its 226 pages and its explanatory notes, is simplistic; it has no depth or substance and it tells us very little. It is process driven and in no way, shape or form has any grounding in environmental planning concepts. That may be excused by the fact that it still carries with it a number of the provisions and concepts of the original legislation, but it sets aside the potential efficacy of a lot of the provisions in the original legislation and I suspect that it will not solve the problems that have been identified by other speakers in this debate. I think it will result in a lot of unhappy adjacent landowners throughout the community.

What has gone wrong with the planning process since the introduction of the original Act in 1979? One must look beyond the legislation to the councils and to the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning to determine why planning in this State has gone awry.

The State planning department has gone through a multitude of names and a multitude of superficial changes, but of all the government departments it has stayed truer to its original philosophy and bureaucratic structure than any other department. No matter what is done to it, it always survives and comes out looking the same in the long run. It is probably trite to say – but for those who know me it is a well-known one-liner of mine – that one thing the department of planning has never done is plan the State. It has failed in its fundamental charter to set in place the parameters by which New South Wales can develop. Without those basic parameters for the smaller elements of the State, whether they be regions, local council areas or other small areas, the rest of the planning system cannot be expected to fall into place.

The department of planning has failed miserably in relation to the structure of State and regional environmental planning policies, as identified in the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. After five years of excruciating pain, last Friday the second amendment was made to Sydney regional environmental plan No. 20. I happen to have had a close association with that process, which is quite a benchmark in the development of regional environmental plans. It is a tragedy that it has taken too long to produce that plan and subsequent REPs, which have been developed with some of the principles embodied in them. It is a tragedy that it has taken that long for the department of planning to come to terms with regional environmental plans. State environmental planning policies are mostly worthless documents. I do not think they fulfil the original charter which was in the minds of those who conceived the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act in the late 1970s.

On top of the department’s failure to address a fundamental charter and its obsession in and involvement with the minutiae of State planning are the general malaise, incompetencies and other problems associated with a council’s implementation of its LEPs. I know that I am talking in strong terms but I have to; I want to put forward another angle to the ones that have been suggested by other honourable members. That is not to say that every council and the department of planning have failed. I pay tribute to the many officers in the department of planning at a regional level for whom I have the highest respect. I respect their integrity and their competence. I am not talking of people in the department today; I am talking about people who have worked in the department over many years. They have often spoken to me of their frustrations about a system that has not allowed them to do what they wanted to do.

By the same token many councils and planners on councils have done some good work over the years; but, by and large, they have failed to develop their full potential under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. The initiatives that were there to achieve better and more prescriptive results for planning have been ignored. This bill does nothing to advance fundamental principles that will guide sound and proper development in the future. As I said earlier, this legislation is process driven. It is all about process; it is not about environmental planning. It gives us no guidance for what might be the outcomes of the legislation. We could include in the title Environmental Planning and Assessment Amendment Bill the word “Pro-development” because the bill facilitates development.

If one assumed that all development was good development, that would be a good thing but, unfortunately, I have come from the community side of the track. I have been a community advocate all my parliamentary career and I believe in the fundamental wisdom of community opinion of what is good for an area. It is no wonder that environmental and community groups have concerns about this legislation. It is not that the legislation does not embody the problem; it is that it does not address the problems. It does not give any clear guidance, as did the original Act, to the community on the outcomes. In this debate honourable members have talked about long delays in the processing of development applications. This legislation confirms the original philosophy of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act that if consent to the development application did not issue after 40 days it was assumed that the development application was rejected.

That may sound like an appropriate principle because a council should not approve an application if it is not satisfied with the development. But if the intention of this legislation is to try to facilitate speed of process in terms of small development, and I strongly emphasise small development, it may have been better to reverse the onus and state that if the development application was not dealt with within 40 days, the development was deemed to be approved. That would put the onus on the council to determine small applications within a 40-day period.

If it was deemed that 40 days was an unrealistic time frame, it might be appropriate to extend that time. Another 10 or 20 days may not be harmful if an applicant knows that at the end of that period and in the event of the council not making a decision the application would be consented to in the terms applied for. If that onus were put on the council, the council would make sure, as it is perfectly capable of doing, that it dealt with minor developments within 40 days, or whatever period was deemed necessary.

This legislation endeavours to bring together a number of issues which it is considered superficially will speed up process and facilitate the consideration of certain matters. I agree with the intention to expedite process and to make it more streamlined, but there are better ways to do it than those addressed in this legislation. For example, there is a considerable concern about the provisions relating to integrated development. I have looked at this question in some depth and I have great concern for developers who have to not only obtain development consent from a council, a process which is appealable to the Land and Environment Court, but may also have to make an application under the current water, mining or other Acts or obtain a licence under the environmental protection legislation.

It is poor process to have a system in which each of those elements is interwoven but separately and independently appealable. Some time ago I looked at ways and means under the water Act to bring together the provisions of licensing approvals for developments which required consent under the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act. There was the absurd situation of having two separate processes, both appealable to the Land and Environment Court and under different time frames and different circumstances. That was very frustrating for developers.

There certainly is a need to integrate that development. But this legislation gives no indication that the process will be brought together efficiently or will be in the interests of the developer and other members of the community. The processes that are spelled out in the legislation do not give the guarantees that the community seeks, that is, that the assessment of the separate matters which have been deemed by the community and confirmed by this legislation to be matters of individual consideration is carried out in a way that allows community input to the expert body that is issuing the approval, whether it is the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning or the Minister. If the expert body makes a determination, an objector should have a chance to test the veracity of the decision before it is lumped into the full process of consideration.

The legislation provides that the Minister or the council, depending on the classification of the development, must seek approval from the various bodies. If that approval is not forthcoming, consent cannot issue. The developer may be concerned because the approval may have been withheld by the expert body on unreasonable grounds. Conversely, if approval is granted, in the community’s view the approval may have been granted on unreasonable grounds. Apart from challenging the matter in an in globo fashion well down the track, there does not appear to be a process by which the elements of individual approvals can be tested in a way in which the community would have confidence.

That is not to say that sometimes consent will not be right; of course sometimes it will be right. But this type of legislation is concerned with the protection of the rights of the community. It might be said that under section 123 of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act there is a fundamental principle that any person in New South Wales can apply to the Land and Environment Court about a breach of environmental law. However, that is a momentous procedure to go through because the process has failed to provide an opportunity for examination much closer to the circumstances that are being determined. I have no objection to the appeal process ultimately being rolled into one and there being one hearing of a matter before the Land and Environment Court. But it is absolutely important with integrated development that those other areas of concern which are being brought into this process are clearly set out in the legislation.

The legislation fails to achieve that particular element, as it also fails with complying development. Virtually all we are told is that complying development is development that complies. There are other suggested parameters for the determination within a local government area of what is complying development, but that is a one-hit operation. There is one opportunity to make submissions to the process by which the complying development is identified. However, many people do not focus on these issues until they are affected personally. No-one can look into a crystal ball and determine problems that will emerge later. In fact, a district may evolve in such a way that problems appear that did not previously exist.

Whilst the intention of the concept of complying development is probably noble and honourable, the form in which it is presented in this legislation is grossly flawed. My advice to the Minister is to take the legislation out of the Chamber now, go back to the drawing board, construct and develop the legislation in a way that makes more sense – certainly more sense to the community – and come up with something more transparently accountable, more honest and more responsible. At the end of the line the people who are basically concerned with environmental planning outcomes are members of the general community. The developer does his development and takes his money and runs, and moves on to the next development. The poor people in the community who live next door to the development are there suffering long after the developer has gone. The legislation is very poor and should be thrown out.

***

Development backlash

By Linda Morris, SMH, 5.10.99

Urban density has emerged as a big issue in suburban Sydney, but it remains to be seen whether the politicians have got the message, writes Linda Morris.

IN SOUTHERN Sydney, the Empress Gardens is seen to represent the worst excesses of overdevelopment. Approved by Kogarah Council in 1994, it rises six storeys above the Hurstville CBD – 150 one- bedroom apartments with undercover parking beneath Woniora Gardens.

Disparagingly known as the “pink towers” for its salmon pink paintwork, it has become a rallying point for local residents against overdevelopment.

Such was the controversy that the Liberal-controlled Kogarah Council resolved three months before the State election to put up a billboard distancing itself from the development.

It also commissioned a full-page advertisement in the influential St George and Sutherland Leader, pointing to six developments refused by council but subsequently approved by the Land and Environment Court.

The message, which tried to deflect blame for overdevelopment on the State Government’s urban consolidation policy, however, did little to boost the prospects of the Liberals’ State candidate, Sam Witheridge, in the marginal seat of Kogarah, and backfired on the Liberals in Miranda and Menai, which all fell to Labor on March 27.

In council elections in southern Sydney last month, ratepayers recorded an even stronger protest, sweeping to power the ALP and an array of Independents who had campaigned on a platform of grassroots representation, controlled development and the preservation of neighbourhood amenity.

The anti-development pattern was repeated across Sydney during the local elections, with many areas recording protest votes against the major parties.

In Sutherland, the Liberal Party lost control of the council to a rejuvenated ALP and a group of Shire Watch Independents in a campaign which focused almost entirely on issues of overdevelopment and the quality of development.

In middle-class Ku-ring-gai, the Ku-ring-gai Preservation Trust won seven seats on the council, and captured the mayoralty, in a campaign which made a virtue of community opposition to the State Government’s targets of urban consolidation.

In Willoughby, where on the eve of the local council elections the council had rejected the advice of its own planning officers and applied to relax foreshore development controls, three Independents were elected.

Urban consolidation is a name given to the planning policy designed to halt the suburban sprawl to Sydney’s south, north and west and encourage the building of new homes in ready-made communities closer to the CBD.

Two years ago, the Government told all councils to identify areas that could take higher densities by using the State Environment Planning Policy (SEPP) 53 to force change.

While the principle has been sound, Dr Glen Searle, a senior lecturer in planning at the University of Technology, Sydney, says the practice has been less than ideal.

In effect, urban consolidation has meant concentrated development of apartment blocks, townhouses and villas in streets where the quarter-acre block has long held sway. This has exacerbated problems of traffic congestion, putting pressure on open space and led to complaints of overshadowing and loss of privacy.

“There have been some good examples of urban consolidation and some bad,” says Searle. “It’s been a fairly patchy picture.”

The Government maintains that SEPP 53 has slowed the urban sprawl, with new development in fringe areas now accounting for only 30 per cent of new homes, compared with 40 per cent five years ago.

But the medium-density housing push has been concentrated in the council areas of Kogarah, Hurstville and Sutherland, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, with more than 5,000 townhouse, villas and multi-storey developments approved by southern councils, the highest number in the metropolitan area.

By contrast, the northern councils of Ku-ring-gai, Hornsby, Pittwater and Lane Cove have escaped the worst of the development pressures.

The wave of anti-development sentiment comes as no surprise to the major parties, which had furiously sparred over the issue in the State election. In southern Sydney, discontent over the pace of such development reflected in the poor showing of the Coalition in the State seats of Miranda, Georges River and Menai.

In the weeks before the State election, issues of urban quality were identified as a significant issue in qualitative polling prepared by the Liberal pollster Mark Textor for southern Sydney seats.

Textor’s research showed that crime was of greatest concern to 23 per cent of voters. A further 18 per cent considered the local environment an issue and 16 per cent specifically identified overdevelopment. Combined, the urban environment was a voting issue for one in three voters, far more than law and order.

Says one Liberal: “The Textor research showed people were ballistic about it. But it was never identified as an issue and then incorporated in the general campaign. We didn’t drive home what was emerging from the focus groups. It was a particularly Sydney problem, but it was never understood.”

As in the council elections, Labor’s key campaign tactic sought to turn resentment about overdevelopment back onto the Liberal-controlled councils of Kogarah and Sutherland and to blur the lines of responsibility.

Said one Labor campaigner: “The unrestricted growth of high rise had been a big issue in Hurstville and Kogarah. It was an open invitation for the Labor Party. It said, ‘Here’s my jaw, stick it out and let them hit it.’ And we did.”

In hindsight, the defeated Liberal MP Ron Phillips says that while overdevelopment was not the main reason he lost his seat of Miranda, it was the only local issue to move votes: “It came down to the ability of the Labor Party to make overdevelopment its own issue, even though it was an issue of their own making.”

The strength of the political backlash at local and State level is now forcing a policy rethink for the NSW Opposition. At the start of the State election campaign, the Coalition promised to repeal the SEPP 53 legislation, but it was a badly timed announcement and received only postage-stamp treatment in the media.

Reflecting on the State and local election results, the Opposition’s urban affairs and planning spokesman, John Brogden, says councils have been unfairly blamed for implementing State Government policy: “It is ironic that one of the issues the Labor Party campaigned on in 1995 was dual occupancy and here we are with a planning strategy with much worse consequences.

“We’ve got to look at the whole role of urban planning over the next few years, but the Opposition has huge sympathy for residents where there is an increase in density and not a concurrent increase in infrastructure.”

To date, the Minister for Urban Affairs and Planning, Andrew Refshauge, has been unmoved by the council election results, proposing little more than consultation and resisting calls for substantive amendments to the Government’s urban consolidation policy.

The former Liberal Sutherland mayor, Kevin Schreiber, says that sooner or later, ratepayers will realise that it’s State planning policy, not councils, that’s driving development.

Notably, the first priority of Sutherland’s new Labor mayor, Ken McDonell, is to revise development codes formulated 30 years ago and to argue for amendments to the State Government’s urban consolidation policy.

Schreiber predicts a more belligerent council will have little impact on the pace of development, only wasting ratepayers’ funds contesting challenges from developers in the Land and Environment Court.

“The new council will turn around and reject development applications and the developers will off and go to the Land and Environment Court at a cost of $30,000 for ratepayers, and all for the same result,” he says.

In North Sydney, a group of anonymous developers trying to push through large-scale projects in the North Sydney CBD took the unusual step of hiring a public relations firm to urge pro-development ratepayers to overthrow the conservative North Sydney Council.

Barry Hyland’s publicity agency, PR+Communications, organised a letter-writing campaign in local daily newspapers, arguing that North Sydney Council is unnecessarily holding up $200 million in new development projects and has spent $5.5 million since 1995 fighting development and building applications through means such as the Land and Environment Court.

The campaign paid unintended dividends for the Independent Genia McCaffery, who was returned as mayor with 66 per cent support, up from 48 per cent four years ago.

“I don’t think the developers picked the mood and understand how much residents are concerned by levels of development and the constant onslaught of their communities,” McCaffery said.

“I know this because . . . every time I go to the supermarket I get badgered about it. Nobody is saying orderly and well-planned development . . . is not a good thing, but the imposition of urban consolidation policies and their poor implementation has angered people.”

Hyland says that in most cases, the developers win in courts because the council gives undue weight to residents’ concerns, despite the council’s own planning rules that often provide for, and encourage, greater densities.

“Not all development is good; some of it is hideous, but most of the projects we are talking about are earmarked for areas where the cityscape has already been set.”

If anything, McCaffery says, the council elections proved one thing: “Governments who ignore their communities end up in trouble.”

***

Driving a Carr through the environment

Bob Carr used environmental laws to climb to the top of the State political tree, but once there proceeded to trim it limb by green limb. Tim Bonyhady assesses the damage.

SMH Spectrum, January 29, 2000

WHEN Bob Carr was a journalist on The Bulletin 20 years ago, he was one of the redeeming features of a magazine long past its glory days. Almost every week, Carr would produce another sharp political piece, occasionally addressing the national stage he aspired to join as a Labor politician, more usually fixing on State or union issues. The most significant, given both Carr’s subsequent political career and his recent environmental pronouncements in the Herald, was a profile of Paul Landa, Neville Wran’s first minister for planning and environment and one of Carr’s own role models.

While Landa’s reputation in 1980 was very mixed, Carr’s admiration for him was manifest as he dwelt on how the minister had not only given Wran’s “cautious government some real reformist glamour” but also marked himself out as a potential party leader through his handling of the environment portfolio. One key was Landa’s “radical upgrading of the planning and environment function – the department went from being a Cabinet poor sister to an equal of the big developmental departments”. Carr predicted that this change was “irreversible”.

But Carr also made much of Landa’s success in extending the area of national parks by 40 per cent. Carr reported that “Landa had pursued extension of parklands so ruthlessly and single- mindedly that some younger Caucus members were heard to complain that he was leaving nothing for any future occupant of the office to achieve”. Carr made even more of Landa’s Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, which he recognised as the most advanced in Australia.

As Carr put it: “The reforms represent Landa’s main legislative edifice. Previous State planning law was just a rewrite of the 1932 English Town and Country Planning Act, enacted in NSW in 1945. Landa’s updated bill broadened the whole scope of planning to encompass ecological and social factors and, in addition, gave citizens the right for the first time to object to developments.”

This judgment is particularly significant as the act reaches its 20th birthday, because Carr has probably had more influence than anyone else over what has become of this legislation. Just a year after entering State politics as the MP for Maroubra in 1983, Carr became minister for planning and environment when Landa’s death resulted in a Cabinet reshuffle.

A year later Carr began dismembering Landa’s reforms when he introduced the first major amendments to the Environmental Planning Act. Far from extending its environmental requirements or expanding its provisions for public objection and appeal, Carr reduced them.

So Carr has proceeded since he led Labor back into power in 1995 – the first and still the only NSW politician to use planning and environment as a ministerial step to the top of the political ladder. Both the 1996 and the 1997 amendments to the Environmental Planning Act extended the State Government’s powers while curtailing public rights, environmental protections and the power of local councils.

Meanwhile, Labor has repeatedly sidestepped Landa’s legislation. The Wran Government started in the early 80s when it legislated to exempt a swath of major developments from the environmental planning system. It continued while Carr was minister in order to authorise such projects as the monorail and the Harbour Tunnel. Labor under Carr has done the same with last year’s Walsh Bay legislation, authorising Mirvac to demolish a wharf that had been subject to a permanent conservation order, just the most recent example.

As is often the case with such legislation, the Walsh Bay Act was designed to stop a legal challenge even starting. On the day the National Trust was due to begin testing the legality of this development in the Land and Environment Court, the NSW Government announced that it would be legislating in Mirvac’s favour. As a result, the judge adjourned the hearing. A month later, the legislation was in place, stopping the trust invoking either the Heritage or Environmental Planning acts.

Yet the Carr Government has also intervened, even more dramatically, between when a case under the act was heard and decided. After Rosemount Wines mounted two successful challenges in the Land and Environment Court in 1995 against the Bengalla open-cut mine near Muswellbrook, Bengalla took the second case on appeal. The Court of Appeal duly heard both sides’ arguments. But before the court could hand down its judgment, the Government legislated to approve the mine.

The result, says Justice Paul Stein, who spent 12 years on the State’s Land and Environment Court, has been the gradual erosion of almost everything Landa set out to achieve. Stein maintains that as a result of the Environmental Planning Act’s amendment in 1997, “the last vestiges of traditional planning and genuine public participation have been largely abandoned”. Despite all the political rhetoric, ecological sustainability is “seldom applied in practice”. The norm is now “ad hoc decision-making, often at the behest of individual entrepreneurs who court State or local government politicians”.

This negation of Landa’s reforms is all the more significant because Bob Carr’s image combines the bushwalker conservationist, keen to experience the Blue Mountains or Budda-wangs in the company of the late Milo Dunphy, with the armchair conservationist quick to show off his book learning. Neither the Prime Minister nor any other premier would have thought to start the year by triggering a debate in the Herald about the environmental challenges of the new millennium.

So why has Carr been not just a silent party but an active participant in the negation of Landa’s reforms? What does it say about the extent of his environmental concern? Is he a better talker than doer, more adept at talking up a big issue such as population control, which is more or less outside his political control, than addressing issues within his own bailiwick where he has immediate power?

One answer is that Carr’s environmental record is much better in some other areas, although still very mixed. A key example is the Wilderness Act which he introduced with much fanfare in 1987. According to Carr, he offered Parliament “a historic choice”. Either Australians could “continue to destroy, piece by piece, the great natural areas of this country” or they could “resolve that the very fibre of this continent should be treated with greater respect, that our much-diminished wilderness should be protected, and that our country should earn a reputation for excellence in its approach to conservation”.

In fact, Carr’s act was toothless. The problem was that while any member of the public could nominate an area for wilderness designation – and the director-general of National Parks then had two years in which to respond to this nomination – the Government had an unlimited period in which to accept, reject or ignore this advice. As a result, the Wilderness Act was a dead letter during the first term of Nick Greiner’s Liberal-National Party Government.

But since then, the act has had some bite. By the time the Coalition lost office in 1995, it had declared 650,000 hectares of wilderness, a significant achievement given the opposition of some sections of the National Party. Now there are more than 1.5 million hectares, or almost 2 per cent of the State, including 520,000 hectares last year, the most ever. Just as Wran is remembered for protecting the State’s rainforests, Carr may be credited with preserving its wilderness.

Carr’s handling of the Environmental Planning Act has been very different because it has affected a very different bundle of political and economic interests, some of which Labor has wanted to accommodate regardless of the environmental costs. The Wran Government became set against Landa’s legislation simply because it achieved what it set out to do in exposing the environmental flaws of a range of major projects.

Had Carr been right when he predicted that Landa’s upgrading of the planning and environment ministry was irreversible, he might have been able to maintain the integrity of Landa’s act. In fact, Graham Richardson has been the only environment minister in either the Federal or State arena who matched Carr’s image of Landa. While Carr was minister, he could not pack such punch, even if he wanted to.

At least as significantly, Labor soon found that for all the uproar excited by its special legislation, it could get away with these interventions. The press could accuse it of treating the Environmental Planning Act “with contempt”.

The late Jim McClelland, the former Whitlam minister and first chief judge of the Land and Environment Court, might have charge his old Labor mates with a “cynical abuse of power”. But there was no electoral backlash. As McClelland noted in 1987: “Wran taught his successors that they could get away with brush-ing any court aside.”

Yet, particularly since Carr won office in 1995, his Government has also been influenced by more recent political currents which have put environmental planning laws into retreat across the country. The Kennett Government characteristically went furthest as it used special legislation to authorise its favoured projects, such as the Formula One Grand Prix in Albert Park and the City Link freeway, and savaged the public’s rights under Victoria’s Planning and Environment Act. The Liberal government of Dean Brown in South Australia was most explicit about its changes. From 1982 until 1993 South Australia had a Planning Act. Now it has a Development Act.

While partly a manifestation of the traditional developmentalist ethos of government in which environmental protection has long been cast as an impediment to private investment and job creation, these changes have been fuelled increasingly by the rise of economic rationalism. Privatis-ation, national and State competition policies and contracting out have all contributed to the diminution of local government and the exclusion of public participation. The recent introduction by the NSW Government of the private certification of development proposals is just one manifestation of this trend.

The limited success, if not failure, of some of these changes may force the Government to rethink. Carr’s 1997 amendments to the Environmental Planning Act, which introduced “integrated development assessment”, is an example. While designed to free developers from the uncertainty of having to secure multiple approvals over an extended period, it appears they are resulting in development applications taking longer to approve, increasing developers’ costs.

But in so far as the Carr Government has simply followed fashion in running down its environmental planning controls, it might also look to Victoria. Since the readiness of the Kennett Government to override local planning regimes was one of many factors that contributed to its defeat last year, the new Bracks Government has begun offering a new approach to planning decisions. As part of its successful campaign in the December by-election for Kennett’s old seat of Hawthorn, Labor’s Minister for Planning, John Thwaites, announced that he would be constraining his own powers.

The focus of Thwaites’s announcement was ad hoc State intervention in planning decisions, which has also been such an issue in NSW. Where Thwaites’s Liberal predecessor, Rob Maclellan, had been widely criticised for his interventions, which often involved seemingly trivial issues, Thwaites announced that he would call in decisions only after the parties had tried to resolve the dispute. Where Maclellan had run foul of the State’s auditor for generally failing to maintain adequate documentation justifying his interventions, Thwaites promised to explain his reasons publicly in writing.

This measure is just a small step towards restoring the integrity of Victoria’s Environment and Planning Act. The Bracks Government would have to do much more to live up to Thwaites’s boast that he was ending “ad hoc ministerial intervention”, let alone that henceforth councils would “have a lead role in planning” and the community would “be heard and their values and needs reflected in planning decisions”.

Yet even the mere statement of these goals presents a challenge to Carr. After all, these goals are just what Landa aspired to 20 years ago when he introduced the NSW Environmental Planning Act.

Tim Bonyhady’s books include Places Worth Keeping: Conservationists, Politics and Law.

Several readers have asked me to publish Justice Michael Kirby’s speech at the Gay Games opening ceremony in Sydney last weekend. Justice Kirby has kindly agreed.

Courage

by Michael Kirby

Under different stars, at the beginning of a new millennium, in an old land and a young nation, we join together in the hope and conviction that the future will be kinder and more just than the past.

At a time when there is so much fear and danger, anger and destruction, this event represents an alternative vision struggling for the soul of humanity. Acceptance. Diversity. Inclusiveness. Participation. Tolerance and joy. Ours is the world of love, questing to find the common links that bind all people. We are here because, whatever our sexuality, we believe that the days of exclusion are numbered. In our world, everyone can find their place, where their human rights and human dignity will be upheld.

This is a great night for Australia because we are a nation in the process of reinventing ourselves. We began our modern history by denying the existence of our indigenous peoples and their rights. We embraced White Australia. Women could play little part in public life: their place was in the kitchen. And as for gays, lesbians and other sexual minorities, they were an abomination. Lock them up. Throw away the key.

We have not corrected all these wrongs. But we are surely on the road to enlightenment. There will be no U-turns.

Little did my partner Johan and I think, thirty years ago, as we danced the night away at the Purple Onion, less than a mile from this place, that we would be at the opening of a Gay Games with the Queen’s Representative and all of you to bear witness to such a social revolution. Never did we think we would be dancing together in a football stadium. And with the Governor. And that the Governor would be a woman! True, we rubbed shoulders on the dance floor with Knights of the Realm, such as Sir Robert Helpmann and with a future Premier, such as Don Dunstan. But if an angel had tapped us on our youthful shoulders and told us of tonight we would have said “Impossible”. Well, nothing is impossible to the human spirit. Scientific truth always ultimately prevails. So here we are tonight, men and women, indigenous and newcomers, black and white, Australians and visitors, religious and atheist, young and not so young, straight and gay – together.

It is put best by Corey Czok, an Australian basketballer in these Games:

“It’s good to be able to throw out the stereotypes – we’re not all sissies, we don’t all look the same and we’re not all pretty!”

His last comment may be disputed. Real beauty lies in the fact that we are united not in the negatives of hate and exclusion, so common today, but in the positives of love and inclusion.

The changes over thirty years would not have happened if it had not been for people of courage who rejected the common ignorance about sexuality. Who taught that variations are a normal and universal aspect of the human species. That they are not going away. That they are no big deal. And that, between consenting adults, we all just have to get used to it and get on with life.

The people of courage certainly include Oscar Wilde. His suffering, his interpretation of it and the ordeal of many others have bought the changes for us. I would include Alfred Kinsey. In the midst of the McCarthyist era in the United States he, and those who followed him, dared to investigate the real facts about human sexual diversity. In Australia, I would also include, as heroes, politicians of every major party, most of them heterosexual. Over thirty years, they have dismantled many of the unequal laws. But the first of them was Don Dunstan. He proved, once again, the astonishing fact that good things sometimes occur when the dancing stops.

I would also add Rodney Croome and Nick Toonen. They took Australia to the United Nations to get rid of the last criminal laws against gay men in Tasmania. Now the decision in their case stands for the whole world. I would include Neal Blewett who led Australia’s first battles against AIDS. Robyn Archer, Kerryn Phelps, Ian Roberts and many, many others.

But this is not just an Australian story. In every land a previously frightened and oppressed minority is awakening from a long sleep to assert its human dignity. We should honour those who looked into themselves and spoke the truth. Now they are legion. It is the truth that makes us free.

I think of Tom Waddell, the inspired founder of the Gay Games. His last words in this life were: “This should be interesting”. Look around. What an under-statement.

I think of Greg Louganis, twice Olympic gold medallist, who came out as gay and HIV positive and said that it was the Gay Games that emboldened him to tell it as it was.

I think of Mark Bingham, a rowdy Rugby player. He would have been with us tonight. But he lost his life in one of the planes downed on 11 September 2001, struggling to save the lives of others. He was a real hero.

Je pense a Bertrand Delanoe, le maire ouvertement gay de Paris, poignarde a l’Hotel de Ville au course de la Nuit Blanche. Il a fait preuve d’un tres grand courage – et il est un homme exceptionnel. When the gay Mayor of Paris was stabbed by a homophobe he commanded the party at which it happened to “Dance Till Dawn”. Do that in his honour tonight. And in honour of the Cairo 52; the Sister movement in Namibia; Al Fatiha – the organisation for Gay Moslems and many others struggling for their human rights.

And I think of all of you who come together on this magical night to affirm the fundamental unity of all human beings. To reject ignorance, hatred and error. And to embrace love, which is the ultimate foundation of all human rights.

Let the word go out from Sydney and the Gay Games of 2002 that the movement for equality is unstoppable. Its message will eventually reach the four corners of the world. These Games will be another catalyst to help make that happen. Be sure that, in the end, inclusion will replace exclusion. For the sake of the planet and of humanity it must be so.

Amusez-vous bien. Et par l’exemple de nos vies defendons les droits de l’humanite pour tous. Non seulement pour les gays. Pour tout le monde.

Enjoy yourselves. And by our lives let us be an example of respect for human rights. Not just for gays. For everyone.

Should we join a strike on Iraq or is there a better response to the terror? Big question. Webdiarists David Makinson and John Wojdylo began debating this matter a while ago. Then came Bali. John argued strongly for a unilateral strike in Saddam’s heart of darkness (webdiarySep26 and webdiarySep26. David took him on in It’s about judgement, not belief (webdiaryOct1)and John replied in Loving Hitler(webdiaryOct2). Then came Bali. David’s response: Searching for hope. John’s response: Desiderata . Both are republished below, before David’s latest, Fools and fanatics. *** Searching for hope By David Makinson This is an extract from a letter I wrote to a friend (of socio-political bent) last night. I usually try to be constructive, but I cannot find it in me at the moment. I think I am beginning to despair. It surprises no-one I suppose, but it still defies belief, that commentators from across the political spectrum are using (yes, “using”) the Bali atrocity to score points off their rival pontificators. It is deeply sickening. So now it’s definitively established to those of the right that the bleeding hearts have been exposed as fools, whilst it’s equally clear to those of the left that here is proof-positive that the macho, militaristic posturings of the right continue to rain catastrophe upon us. I want to scream: Wake up, people! These horrible events prove neither faction right. Surely it’s obvious by now that we’re all wrong? Our romanticised assessments of what we define as good and evil, and our yearnings for the simplicity of black and white solutions, are delusions. The world lurches from futile rhetoric to ineffective response and still our people are dying. Unnecessary deaths. Politicians and commentators of all persuasions will seek to portray their particular cause as noble because we have lost our friends. We must reject this cynicism. Be clear that these poor, poor people died for nothing – a tragic symbol of an abject failure of leadership. Politicians failed to protect them. The experts of right and left have had no effect. We must not reward them by jumping on any of their various bandwagons. Just cry and cry and cry for the wasted victims and the torment of their loved ones. The left says our government’s public support of the US makes us a target. We sense the truth in this. The right says that it is folly to think that a passive stance will protect us. We sense the truth in this. The right says a military solution is the only solution. They may be correct. The left says violence begets violence, and they too may be correct. Neither group can recognise the merits in each other’s case, and so the true, far more complex solution eludes us. President Bush said, in the seeming long ago, “You’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists”. Wrong, George. We’re against both of you. We wonder if perhaps you deserve each other, but we’re certain we have done nothing at all to deserve you. We, the cannon fodder, oppose you. We are the innocent people of Australia, the US, Palestine, Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, the world, and we are opposed to you. It’s not as simple as us and them. It’s about all of us. For myself, every instinct I have says we need to seek an active path of peaceful action and engagement if we are to have any chance of working through these troubles. I believe this is the test of courage we need to confront – to engage these people at the root of their grievances and hurts – both real and imagined. I am not optimistic that we can pass this test. I fear our bravery does not run that deep. The pragmatist in me recognises that we will resort to force. We will dress this up in words of action and purpose, and imagine it a considered and effective response. We will convince ourselves it is necessary and just. It is neither – and it will not work. It is a dark time. I fear for my children. I am conscious that I offer no solutions. Doubtless the right and the left will have many. Let us pray that somewhere amongst the dross is a kernel of constructive thought which can be built into hope. *** Desiderata By John Wojdylo I will engage this Islamist idealism – or this nihilism, so alien to Islam – even when they swear they hate my way of life and vow to destroy it. My love and humanity will change their hearts. Their grievances and hurts will be healed. They will not murder my people anymore. I will build schools for their children, give their families food when they need it, educate them about my way of life, help them build the society of their dreams. I will undertake peaceful action and engagement. I will take it upon myself to atone for the evils inflicted upon them by people acting in my name, by the “system” I live under that is beyond my control. When my people die I will forgive the Islamists. It is the hardest thing, but I’ll will forgiveness. I cannot live hating or confronting anyone. It is self-destructive for me. I will be Saint Sebastian, the innocent one slain by 100 Islamist arrows. I will ceaselessly subject myself to self-criticism, to root out my failures, and to try to understand what more I can do to see things from their point of view and make them stop hating me and my people. I will even try to imagine their imagined grievances against me, so that I can persuade them – through my humanity – that we’re really all just human beings, can all live together irrespective of our deeply-held ambitions and will to achieve them. I will weep lamentations that politicians and commentators of all persuasions disgustingly seek to portray their particular cause as noble because we have lost our friends, and then I will seek to further my particular noble cause. I will be the innocent one who refuses to comprehend the realities of power and madness; madness is too tiring to think about, too debilitating to even begin to comprehend. Too tragic – because there is no hope with madness. With madness, there is no hope, just darkness. Like death. I will refuse to understand the power I wield, particularly that exerting compelling force wisely in the face of madness is both a duty and a good. I will, at all costs, resist comprehending the portents of incorrigible and embittered irrationality, resist using my power wisely not to confront or engage or change hearts but to guide them away from the abyss. And in those cases when guiding is impossible I will banish the thought that the day is coming when an attack will not only destroy a building and 200 lives, but an entire city. Because for the Islamist fascist, it can make no material difference. He feels the power of God when his finger is on the detonator; and in a self-referential narcissistic loop, flush with hate for the ants around him, he senses imminent deliverance for himself and “his” people from this world of suffering: “God is great!” Because he is God. *** Fools and Fanatics By David Makinson Just re-read Wojdylo’s latest and realised he’s actually had another go at me – stealing my words and using them for his own ends! First my knowledge is “paltry”, next I “love Hitler”, now he’s using my material. A vengeful guy! I think I am actually pissed off. My critique of his “Desiderata” is below. The tone is consciously aggressive, though I can’t get the hectoring and condescending tone of that awful “Loving Hitler” piece – I bow to the master. “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” Bertrand Russell It was interesting to see some of the feedback concerning the writings of John Wojdylo. The man attracts both friends and foes, it seems, but not a lot of neutrals. I’ll declare myself a foe, if only because he seems to have designated me as one of his, presumably for having the temerity to question his wisdom. John accused me recently of objecting to the style, rather than the substance of his offerings. I’ll wear that. The style is certainly deeply objectionable. His Loving Hitler piece is downright offensive. Doubtless I’ll object to the substance too, if I ever find some. People should bear in mind that John is biased, and take this into account when evaluating his offerings. This is not (only) my opinion – it is self confessed. John calls it “willed bias” and believes there should be more of it. It is “all too rare”, he states with calm conviction. This disturbing confession is towards the end of Loving Hitler, the piece in which he accused me and others of loving Hitler (at least I think he did, it’s all terribly convoluted). Remember: ” Willed bias”. Prejudice and bigotry can sometimes be forgiven, because they are blind and may be cured with knowledge. But there’s a special place in hell for people who do it deliberately. I read John’s Desiderata with interest and realised it has to be refuted, and just a little ridiculed – in case anyone is gullible enough to think it is of any substance or merit. Here at last we see John’s true colours, rather than his endless and deeply selective regurgitation of other people’s views. I suspect most people reading Webdiary are not taken in by this tosh, but I want to be on the safe side. I also realised that I didn’t need to look very far for support for a whole list of contrary positions – John’s house is already riddled with the termites I need. So I found myself a whole list of facile, baseless, plain old-fashioned stupid, positions – and just changed a few words. Sound familiar? I should note that unlike John I don’t necessarily accuse him or anyone else of taking these positions. My intention is only to demonstrate the poverty of thinking and the cynicism which underpins the original effort. I begin to wonder if it’s not much more that some kind of word game to John, one where he gets to prove how much smarter than the rest of us he is. Perhaps he is smarter, who knows? Who cares? In sanctifying the use of military force on the grounds of his version of morality and duty, John is arguing the logic that Israel applies to Palestine. He is also arguing the logic the suicide bomber applies to Israel. And regardless of where you stand on the rights and wrongs of that particular issue, next time you read about a suicide bombing remind yourself – both Israel’s and Palestine’s approach just doesn’t work. (Before I’m lambasted for condoning suicide bombers or loving Arafat, or loving Sharon for that matter, let me unequivocally refute those and any other similarly ludicrous claims). I could stoop to John’s level at this point and say that because he talks such a clearly terrorist book, he must love terrorism. But that would just be silly, so I won’t. It is absolutely critical that we find a more intelligent way to address terrorism – both the symptoms and the causes. I do not claim to know what that way is. John does of course, but I cannot summon that quantum of arrogance. What I am certain of is that the more we listen to John and his fellow fools and fanatics as they preach a way that is so clearly wrong, the less likely we are to find a path that is right. John – you may wish to ponder this – from a man whose morality, unlike yours or mine, is not in question: “What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?” Mahatma Gandhi. See – I can trundle out quotes too. They’re just shorter. I have begun to believe and hope that it in the smallest of symbolic gestures we may be planting the seeds of constructive change. It may be the only way that people like us can hope to make any kind of difference. Confronting John is a tiny act, I admit, but it’s got to be done, because he is a tiny part of the problem. Here’s my response to Desiderata, with apologies and thanks to John Wojdylo *** Contra Desiderata By David Makinson I will not engage this Islamist idealism. I will not wonder why they hate my way of life and vow to destroy it. My love and humanity will be put to one side, reserved exclusively for those I call my own. Their grievances and hurts will be ignored. I will have them murdered as they murder us. I will not build schools for their children, give their families food when they need it, educate them about my way of life, help them build the society of their dreams. I will use military force and make sure the wounds go ever deeper. I will turn a deliberate blind eye to the evils inflicted upon them by people acting in my name, by the “system” I live under because I do not care. When my people die I will send the young of my nation to kill theirs. It is the easiest thing, and there can be no forgiveness. I cannot live without hating or confronting someone. It is essential to me. I will be endless vengeance, and slay a hundred of them for every one I lose. I will never subject myself to self-criticism, I will ignore my failures, and I will not try to understand what else I can do to see things from their point of view and make them stop hating me and my people. I will never try to imagine their imagined grievances against me, so that I can persuade them – through my humanity – that we’re really all just human beings, can all live together irrespective of our deeply-held ambitions and will to achieve them. I endorse the politicians and commentators who portray my cause as noble because we have lost our friends. I applaud this necessary manipulation. I will be the corrupt one who can comprehend the realities of power and who will foster madness. Madness is a tool to be used for my ends. Without their madness, and my own, I have no substance, and no-one will listen to me. I understand the power I wield, particularly that using weapons of mass destruction against those who have done nothing to me is perfectly acceptable. I will not seek out the actual criminals. I will revenge myself with indiscriminate acts of mass murder. I will be like them, because I am like them. I will, at all costs, pretend I do not see the mirror which shows in my own face the portents of incorrigible and embittered irrationality, and I will use my power gratuitously to force more and more people in their worlds and my own towards the abyss. By my conscious acts, I will sow the seeds of an attack which will not only destroy a building and 200 lives, but an entire city. I will respond to this with ever greater violence. Because for a Wojdylo, it can make no material difference. I feel the power of God when my finger is on the keyboard; and in a self-referential narcissistic loop, I will dismiss all contrary views even as by my own words I prove their validity. Because I am right and they are wrong.

Just when I’d convinced myself to stop thinking about the meaning of Cunningham and the rise of the Greens, on Saturday the Herald’s Mick Millett broke the story of a groundbreaking CSIRO report on how we’ll have to change how we live, consume energy and use water to stay afloat with a population of 25 million, let alone 50 million. On the same day, The Australian scored a scoop on what Australia’s top scientists will tell the government we need to do to handle our water crisis.

Both stories stress the need for national planning, visionary policies, mass education and extensive carrots and sticks to change behaviour. They’re talking LONG TERM PLANNING – you know, that dreadful socialist concept that economic rationalism proved was bunkum, that we should all do our own thing for our own self-interest, the government should slash taxes so we can get on with it, and all will be well.

Both stories vindicate the slog of a green movement of activists and scientists who have read, thought, planned and fought for the mainstream realisation of this necessity for decades, and now, when it is almost too late, have forced themselves inside the political tent at a local and federal level and threaten to do so at the Victorian and NSW elections. The majors threw them tit-bit promises, usually broken, when they needed their preferences. The Greens are on a roll now, and that’s because because the public want change, real change, and the majors weren’t listening. They are now.

Here’s two quotes which say a lot about how seriously our mainstream takes this stuff. Last week, in his pitch for the environmental vote post Cunningham, Bob Carr said:

“When I became Premier in March 1995 every part of the debate over our natural resources was contested – protests over forestry, water allocations and land clearing. Today there is a link between almost all of the key players. It’s not just the “green movement” that now embraces this idea. Many farmers and businesses now recognise that only sustainability can guarantee their future as well as the environment’s.

“There is, of course, much to be done to define what is meant by sustainability. It’s fair to say there’s no consensus on what it precisely means in practice. There is, however, a consensus on the fundamental point: that sustainability must be our collective goal.”

What he’s saying is that sustainability is a buzzword, behind which there is still no agreement. To claim this as an achievement is breathtaking. One example of the reality behind the rhetoric. On March 16, 1995, Bob Carr made this written promise to the Greens to help Labor get Green preferences: “We will end export woodchipping by the year 2000 or earlier (Carr’s emphasis) if regional circumstances permit.” NSW is still exporting woodchips from old growth forest logs, not waste, to Japan. Bob Carr’s government still issues mining permits and logging permits in water catchment areas without investigation of the effect on our water supply.

Yes, Bob, “sustainability” is a cool word that everyone nods at. Developers even put “eco” in front of their development application s these days. Little else has changed.

The Australian Financial Review’s anti-Green editorial last week (reproduced in Labor’s new crime: Civil disobedience (webdiary)is in similar vein: “Most of us accept we have to do things better, especially in agriculture and water use, but not that we should risk everything in a headlong rush to sustainability, especially while there is still little consensus on what it means.”

Heh, editorial writer, what about what we risk if we don’t get a move on towards sustainability? We’re already facing costs of billions of dollars trying to repair a river system in enormous distress and in fighting a losing battle against a salinity crisis laying once-productive land to waste.

All of a sudden, the Greens idea of co-operation, not competition, and of working with the land, not against it, sounds pretty good. The environment movement’s volunteers have been willing – for the sake of our children – to beat their heads against a brick wall of indifference, short termism and greed to get this message across. Now, politicians and editorial writers say everything’s fine because we all agree sustainability is a cool word?

Enough of my ideas. A correction, then over to you. I wrote last week that Yarra in inner city Melbourne – where the Greens-v-Labor action will be in the Victorian election – had produced the first Green mayor in Australia. Dinesh Mathew, the Greens Candidate for Prahran, advises: “The Greens only ended up winning 4 of the 9 seats on Yarra council. We missed out on the 5th to an independent by a 185 votes or so. The Greens have not got the mayor in Yarra.”

GREEN POLITICS, BY WEBDIARISTS

1. James Goodman and Karen Jackson on protests

2. David Davis reflects on how volatile we are these days

3. Webdiarist Keith Conley and I exchange views, and Max Phillips says he’s Green, and ready to argue Green policy on the merits any time.

4. Merill Pye and Peter Ekstein on the history of environmental politics.

5. Ben Oquist and Guido Tresoldi on the green hotspots in the Victorian election.

6. Noel Hadjimichael, Joseph Davis and Pierre du Parte on the NSW election

***

1. The right to protest

James Goodman in Sydney

I’m organising the civil disobedience forum to be held this Friday 8 Nov at NSW Parliament House. It was quite a relief to read Labor’s new crime: Civil disobedience after all the negative coverage in the Daily Telegraph. Many many thanks. I have written a rather academic response to the police minister Michael Costa’s comments at indymedia.

There’s just one inaccuracy in your report that stems from Costa’s response in Parliament. The Forum is not organised by Greens’ upper house member Lee Rhiannon, it is hosted by her. The Forum is organised by the Research Initiative on International Activism from the University of technology Sydney, of which I am a member – see www.international.acti=vism.uts.edu.au

This is important for me: the Chancellor of the University, Gerard Brennan, is apparently concerned that a University research group does not align itself with a political party. I am concerned about that also: the Research Initiative is not party-political.

***

Karen Jackson in Gympie, Queensland

Disclosure: I’m (still) a member of the Australian Democrats (despite much provocation).

I find it endlessly frustrating that the media, when reporting protests against the World Trade Organisation, fails to make clear why the protest is actually taking place. People don’t risk their safety against police batons just for a nice day out.

In the case of the coming protests in November, the objective will be to denounce the Global Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). This insidious agreement aims to open all government services to private tender, including water, health and education. It ultimately will result in the removal of government control over basic necessities, and allow the lowest bidder to conduct the business. To use an example, it could possibly allow an Indonesian company to run the NSW police service, provided that company was able to run it for the least amount of money.

For a better explanation of what GATS means, I recommend this link: globalissues

To put it bluntly, GATS is another step in dismantling government and placing power into the hands of multinational business.

Negotiations on GATS have been occurring for the past couple of years. The agreement will be discussed at the trade ministers meeting this month. If Australia signs the agreement, it will have an enormous effecton the way Australians live. However, if you were to ask the average Australian what GATS is, they probably wouldn’t know. (MARGO: It’s predecessor was the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, pulled from the negotiating table after protests from left wingers around the world: In Australia Pauline Hanson told the public about the secret negotiations – which Treasury even refused to brief other government departments about.)

And they don’t know because the media has been conspicuously silent on this topic. It rarely receives a mention in mainstream dailies or on commercial news broadcasts. And the government is certainly doing its best to refrain from mentioning the topic, at least in the media.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website has various papers outlining Australia’s stance on GATS, mostly supportive. Every page speaks glowingly of the benefit to Australian exporters, but little mention is made of the effect on the Australian public. dfat

So I want to ask: what is the reason behind the media’s silence on GATS? Is it because its boring? Is it because its better news to simply show riots and violence at protests? Or is it because the media companies have something to gain from the ignorance of the general public?

During the 2001 election I was part of a joint media interview with the local Greens candidate denouncing GATS. Interestingly, the One Nation and Independent candidates also spoke out against it during the campaign. Trade and globalisation were issues on which we all seemed to agree. Actually, in the end it felt as though the ideological contest was between the combined small parties and the Libs.

There is a great deal of awareness about GATS in my home town of Gympie, which is One Nation heartland. Indeed, if Sydney weren’t so far away you’d get plenty of rednecks manning the barricades alongside the dreadlocked hippies.

I live in a very interesting place.

Margo: Quite a few people have sent me info on GATs, but with lots to think about these days, it always goes to the bottom of the pile. So COMPLICATED! I think that’s one reason why the media doesn’t go for it. We like things simple.

***

2. Constant changing

David Davis in Switzerland

It seems like ancient history but there was a time when John Howard confronted difficult by elections. Who will ever forget Ryan? The earth moved when the electorate I grew up in, always Liberal, turned Labor, just last year. Then it swapped back again. All in the same year. Talk about a mad, fickle electorate! I knew there was something I liked about Ryan.

Remember Aston? You should because you went down there and checked it out for yourself. This is in the dim, distant past of 2001, when it seemed John Howard was doomed. I recall that transport and the built environment were key issues in Aston. I think the Liberals managed to just barely hold onto that one. A turning point perhaps. A turning point in a terrible, tumultuous year.

You have to be pretty good to read the political tea leaves these days. There are regional, state and national trends but the best way to understand it is to look at it at the micro level. Case studies are great. Data and analysis are great.

I just read your piece in ‘Labor’s New Crime’ and was wondering why on earth you were including the editorial from the Fin Review regarding the rise of the Greens in NSW. To me the editorial was lucidly and accurately tearing apart any possible reason one may have to vote Green. I thought you sort of liked the Greens. Then you brought in the Hanson principle. How right you are about that. It sort of becomes an asymmetric argument where one side argues the logic of how bad it would be if the extremist party policies were implemented. The other side (ie the pissed off electorate) is engaged in a different debate. They’ve had a gutful of the current situation and they are going to be heard. That’s their logic…….and of course it works. As you pointed out in the Hanson case, the policies of the government did take a slant in her direction. It was the same wolf but this time in sheeps clothing.

On the Civil Disobedience thing, imagine if Sydney hadn’t had the green bans of the 1970s? All traces of charm or history would have been eliminated. Just as well we had that piece of civil disobedience.

3. Email exchange

Keith Conley in Canberra

Why do you care what Labor does or doesn’t do? I’m a little perplexed about your motives for criticising the ALP. You seem to be trying to shame the ALP into change, but to what end, when your political support clearly lies elsewhere? (I’ve given up on the antique and naive notion that journos ought to be independent, when the evidence is overwhelmingly contrary).

The Greens offer a legitimate democratic alternative which you appear to vigorously endorse. I would like to see a Webdiary debate surrounding their policies and the same intense scrutiny applied to their organisation and policies as you ceaselessly dedicate to the hapless ALP. If they are the future of Australian politics, as you bravely insist, then let’s see where we are going. It will require you to step out of the circus tent for a while, but I think it is long overdue.

Let me start the ball rolling. I think it hilarious that you cited the Greens deal to deliver government to the National Party in Queensland at the expense of a Goss Labor Government as evidence of the good and powerful work of this political movement. The Queensland Nationals of course being the type of government you would want to run a green agenda. To the surprise of no one, except perhaps some very green greens, the Nats promptly ignored whatever political commitments they had made to deliver them the Treasury benches and continued on their merry destructive way, doing more environmental harm I’m sure than any Goss government could or would have done. Maybe Goss wasn’t delivering everything the Greens wanted, but I still get white hot angry thinking about the stupidity of that decision. I had a good go at Shane Rattenbury about that one once, jeez it felt good.

I’ll give you another instance of Green idiocy that got me steaming. Am I the only one who was spewing when Bob Brown led a walkout on Colin Powell’s address at the Environment summit in Johannesburg? The most powerful black man on earth, in a job that would test a couple of the better saints, self-made from a working class immigrant background, being shunned and heckled by a middle-class white man in the home of a country that gave us the moral extremities of apartheid and Mandela. The symbolism was appalling, but I guess the world has a very short memory and Bob’s sensitivities to other stories aren’t that well honed. I noticed his behaviour though and it deepened my suspicions about what drives this man.

You have to ask, who really is the enemy here? If it is not Labor, then how do you forge a workable political alliance that delivers the sort of changes you wish to see? If you don’t think the Greens will ever win government in their own right, then how does crippling the ALP do anything to advance your cause? Or are you happy to be one of the spoilers, so famously derided by Keating (although originally intended for Australian Tories, it applies equally well to its far left)?

For all Labor’s faults, I would suggest stitch-ups like Cunningham may not be all that smart a start.

You could also be a little more explicit about why you support the Greens. What’s the vision? So far, it’s apparently whatever Bob Brown says it is. That’s not the sort of broad grassroots voice you claim it to be, it sounds more like the Liberals under Howard. At some stage the Greens have to stop being a protest/anti-everything movement, and start being a political party with a raft of policies that can convince a large section of the electorate that they can be implemented and sustained.

So, convince me Margo. Failing that, and sorry for preempting your powers of persuasion, but how does an alliance between the Greens and the Liberals/Nats, which you keep flirting with, get you any closer to political nirvana? It sounds pretty dirty and familiar politics to me.

Margo to Keith

Whatever I’m not, I AM independent! Dunno if you read my last entry, the civil disobedience one, but at the end I run the fin review editorial saying the greens would be hopeless on big picture policy etc. My reaction – look at what the people are trying to tell the majors, and let the majors adjust their priorities accordingly or explain why they can’t.

I see the Greens’ momentum as a good chance for the former, and the recent CSIRO report on how we need to alter our behaviour to stay a rich country, and the Wentworth groups proposals to preserve our water are good examples of how the Greens can help. After all, they’ve been doing the science on this stuff for years, and arguing the case. On the inside of politics, with a seat at the table of power, maybe some real thinking and good decisions will be possible.

Re advising Labor, I’m confident I would have no influence whatever on them, so what’s the downside? As for the Libs, whether or not they have changed their spots, being in the competition on overdevelopment is enough to change the priorities anyway, at least in perception terms – one can only pray for the reality to bite. Still, as I argued last week, John Howard, bless his soul, looks like he’s picked this new agenda through his support for a national water policy.

So I’m obsessing about this stuff a bit like I obsessed about Hansonism – it MEANS something, and I’m trying to get my head around what, and by throwing out ideas I’m hoping it sparks better minds than mine to have a go at it. Protest votes can be seen as positives for the political process if they’re assessed proactively, rather than reactively.

Re why I’m keen on the Greens ‘vision’, well, it’s a VISION!

Keith to Margo

So this is all about giving the ‘majors’ a scare? Sorry, but I think that is cynical. You either believe this stuff and give it your all – ie a Green government. Or you join a ‘major’ and get cracking. The nature of institutions is a reflection of their membership. A local council made up of real estate agents and engineers is going to have a certain view of the world. The same goes for political parties. Denigrate them enough, and who would want to join one? All you get is a party of thick skinned political junkies.

Water policy? Who started the Murray Darling Basin Commission that has done all the research that got Howard to treat this issue seriously? The ALP. You throw away hard and intelligent work done over years by good Labor governments too lightly.

Short memory, must have a ….

***

Max Phillips

Disclaimer: I am a member of The Greens

Wow, I had to do a double-take. Could it be that the media is actually reviewing the Greens’ policies? It seems that Post-Cunningham they are having to work harder to discredit the Greens than just uttering the word “protest” (nothing to see here, move along!).

I’m not sure how successful this new patronising approach actually will be at discrediting the Greens’ policies. Sure AFR reading business types might be horrified at the prospect of: “a four-day working week based on a seven- to eight-hour working day”) and reimpose controls on trade and foreign investment (only socially useful and environmentally benign proposals please).” But AFR business types probably vote Liberal anyway. For ordinary folk, the permanent long weekend is a dream! Why shouldn’t we work toward it?

If the Greens’ policies were to be reviewed in the media, I think many ALP members and voters would be surprised that they are in agreement with many of these policies. My Dad, for instance, would probably agree to just about every point of Greens policy, but is “sticking with the ALP to try and help change it from within” (although he’s now questioning the effectiveness of this strategy).

Perhaps it only the size of the ALP’s shift to the right which makes the Greens seem so “radical”? Perhaps the abandoned ideals which were once the heart of the ALP (equality, social justice, public services etc) now reside with the Greens and people aren’t just lodging a protest but voting for a genuine alternative?

Webdiary certainly spent enough time debating the vacuous “Third Way”. I’d love to see a substantial debate about the merits of the Greens’ policies, such as working toward the implementation of a 4-day working week?

The Greens’ policies can be found here: nswgreens

Margo to Max: Thanks Max. In my defence, I did run Kerry Nettle’s maiden speech.

Max to Margo

Yup, but you’re the exception Margo 🙂 I was very impressed you ran Nettle’s Speech, but even you seem to combine the words ‘protest’ and ‘The Greens’ together too often for my liking! It is a pet hate of mine. Do people vote Labor to protest the Liberals? Do people vote Liberal to protest Labor? No, we assume they vote for them because they prefer their policies and politics, yet the Greens are always the ‘protest’ party. It seems to me a device to stop people taking their policies and politics seriously. And I’m strongly of the belief that if we don’t start taking sustainable, human oriented alternatives seriously then it will be too late and there will be catastrophic environmental problems as well as social warfare and a permanent climate of fear for both the North and South.

There is a window of opportunity to try and fix things up, but it won’t last forever and it worries me greatly. For me the Greens aren’t ‘protest’, they are a real ‘alternative’. Unlike the ‘Third Way’ which is just the status quo with a shiny wrapping.

***

4. Oh yeah, the environment

Merrill Pye in Sydney

The Australian Financial Review’s editorial, Red alert over Greens threat, included the laughable-if-not-so-treacherous ‘weasel’ phrase, “a headlong rush to sustainability”.

We are currently commemorating the 40th anniversary of Rachel Carson’s publication of Silent Spring (it took me, barely in primary school, a few years to work out which of the possible meanings that title meant). There were earlier discussions of the problems being caused by the kinds of things happening around humans, but this work caused a major public reaction where the others tended to be among specialists and particularly interested groups.

It is nearly 30 years since “The Limits to Growth” report from the Club of Rome was disseminated.

A lot of good work has been done since then, but the ‘headlong rush’ has in general been in the opposite direction to sustainability. Many statistics demonstrate this. Reports from even simple things like satellite images demonstrating the magnitude of human effects have been released in the last year.

The Fin Review also quibbles that ‘sustainability’ is poorly defined. Contemplate other poorly defined concepts such as ‘life’, ‘death’, ‘love’, ‘money’, ‘good’, ‘evil’ or ‘human’. Somehow, despite sometimes violent disagreements about them, humanity has agreed that they have considerable importance. Many people and societies have come to ways of dealing with the majority of incidences of these of importance in most peoples lives, while conceding that there are ‘hard cases’ in all of them which fortunately occur less frequently than the others.

Consider perhaps some ideas opposite to ‘sustainability’. Concepts like ‘greed’, ‘selfishness’, ‘short-term vision’, ‘stupidity’ (in the sense of failing to learn from repeated previous examples and/or failing to grasp clear logical connections), ‘unviability’ and particularly ‘destructiveness’. Can the Fin Rev manage to support these in any kind of thinking way?

I hope this makes some sort of sense. I tend to get up to white heat very quickly when I see this kind of argument about issues close to my core philosophy – one reason that I’ve steered away from involvement in political parties despite requests.

Peter Ekstein

I first heard reference to your weblog on Late Night Live, and your analysis of Labor’s malaise is by and large on the money. Strange isn’t it – the original environmentalists were leafy lower northshore constituents of the 20s and 30s (small ‘l’ liberals) … might have romped with Norman Lindsay and the Bohemians around Kings Cross in the 40s and 50s … Labor co-opted the Green vote in the 70s with Green bans/Victoria St/ Jack Mundey and Builders Labourers Federation … the Total Environment Centre (after Jeff Angel dealt with Dunphy) was co-opted by Labor …

Of course the central problematic is Labor’s rump constituency – workers and the dispossessed, stuck in dirty, unsafe jobs – a form of structural murder – so Labor cannot be too tough on industry even though it is killing those who grow up and work in its catchment area – they need those jobs to pay for food, mortgage etc…and so it goes

In many ways Labor is doomed- it’s left with the McDonalds demographic while better educated,left or higher socio-economic groups look to alternatives.

To the medical industrial complex the poor and unwashed eat Maccers as a rational response to lowest cost bulk /no time to prepare/fast food, guaranteeing them as future candidates for an already overwhelmed health care system. Of course they are kept, for the time being at least, in check by the social opiate of Lotto (you can win what’s never been won) and the warrantor of state revenues – smoking, other forms of gambling and alcohol…

As you have said in different words, they are f…….d and very far from home.

***

5. Victoria Green

Bob Brown’s adviser Ben Oquist says the Greens are targetting Brunswick, Melbourne district, Northcote and Richmond in the lower house, and Melbourne Province in the Upper house at the Victorian election. He also suggests the outer and rural Melbourne seats seats of Macedon and Monbulk are worth watching: “We have good candidates and are putting in a fair few resources – remember we polled over 10% in Ballarat at the federal election and there is a huge forest protest vote going on.”

Inner Melbourne voters aren’t happy with Victorian Labor’s decision to build the Commonwealth Games athletes village in a public park. Kennett started the parks’ scam when he put the grand prix circuit in Albert Park, and NSW Labor can’t keep it’s hands off public land either. Here’s a recent Greens’ press release, so you get the gist of the play.

Australian Greens candidates for Melbourne and Brunswick have called the decision by the State Government to build a Commonwealth Games Village in Royal Park an outrageous move that will anger many inner Melbourne residents.

“This is typical of Labor’s approach to the environment – they will have to bulldoze hectares of inner city parkland but they still have the audacity to call it an ecologically sustainable development,” said Greens candidate for Melbourne, Dr Richard Di Natale.

“The Sydney Olympic Village was built on an abandoned quarry site where derelict land was brought back to life but the Commonwealth Games Village will do the exact opposite.

“I would have thought Cunningham would have sent a strong message to all of the ALP, including Premier Bracks, that people are sick and tired of the selling off of our dwindling open spaces.

Australian Greens candidate for Brunswick, Ms Pamela Curr said “within hours of the Greens claiming victory in the Cunningham by-election, we saw NSW Premier Bob Carr back down from a controversial development in a much-loved public parkland in Sydney, Callan Park.

“The battle to save Callan Park in NSW, like Royal Park in Victoria, took place in Labor heartland in the seat of Leichhardt where polling has revealed the Greens candidate Jamie Parker poses a serious threat to a NSW State Minister, Sandra Nori.

“This is almost a mirror image of the situation here in Labor’s heartland electorates of Brunswick and Melbourne, where many disillusioned Labor voters are turning to the Greens.

“We will be fighting a very strong, public campaign on this issue, alongside residents and community groups, in the electorates of Melbourne and Brunswick in the lead up to the state election,” said Ms Curr.

Dr Di Natale and Ms Curr, along with concerned residents, will be at the proposed site, which is at the old Psychiatric Hospital at Royal Park, at 12.30pm today.

***

Guido Tresoldi in Brunswick, Melbourne

I always enjoy reading your columns, although between you on the left and the Piers Akermans/Andrew Bolts of this world on the right Labor is really friendless as far commentators go!

Anyway, as you requested I state my allegiances. I have been an ALP members for the last 20 years, and I also have been just a rank and file member never been elected as a delegate or anything like that. I also live in Brunswick, one of the seats that the Greens are targetting for the next election.

It seems to me that you are translating what has happened in Cunningham into a variety of other areas, but I think that may prove to be misleading. There is no doubt that the Greens will increase their vote and I believe that they will do well at the next state election. I particularly think this will be so in the seat of Melbourne. This seat mainly because it has lots of the voter that is attracted to the Greens (had the highest proportion of pro-republic votes in Australia and had a huge increase of Green votes at the last Federal election). There is also the issue of the construction of the Commonwealth Games village which may have some influence.

However Brunswick is a different matter. First of all there is the local member, the Italian boy made good, Carlo Carli. While Carli is part of the ALP ‘structure’ he is not a Cunningham type candidate dropped from high. He is a local boy with strong having lived in the seat all of his life and has established lots of local connections, especially with the ethnic communities over many years.

The seat (especially in the southern regions nearest the CBD) has had an influx of more affluent, tertiary educated people in recent years, which may be more willing to vote green. However Brunswick still has a strong migrant/working/lower middle class that may still be willing to stick with Labor.

For these voters (unfortunately) lots of green issues such as forests do not resonate strongly. Therefore while an increase in the green vote will occur, I would be surprised if Carlo will needs even their preferences to win the seat.

***

6. NSW

Noel Hadjimichael in Camden, Western Sydney

A thought about the post-Cunningham situation: If the Greens and other “progressives” want to leverage the maximum from the ALP, they might take a leaf from P Hanson. When One Nation punished the conservative parties, it forced those parties to consider policy shifts and other action to re-connect with the “pissed off” right of centre voters.

If the NSW and Victorian Greens were to punish Labor at the next State Elections – Vote 1 Green and maybe 2 Liberal, or at least exhaust in NSW – the shock of losing marginals and not so marginal seats might give the ALP the necessary reason to re-connect with the “left”.

There is little chance the Greens will win seats in Sydney’s west, except maybe Camden in a good campaign, and no prospect of winning seats in the Sutherland Shire. However, losses amongst the Labor marginals and some hitherto safe seats would pull the ALP into line. However, aggression in the inner city would see 2-3 Green seats where Lib voters would get Greens up over the ALP.

An interesting analogy is the punishment the Greens gave to the SPD in Germany during the Kohl period. Now the red/green coalition is on a mature footing.

***

Joseph Davis

I’ve followed your commentary for a long while now – probably back from when ou and Phillip Adams were always nattering on Late Night Live about One Nation and Pauline. I wrongly (I hope) guessed that you were a bit loopy then.

But you seem, at the moment, to be one of the very few columnists who is picking it right in the post Cunning Hammond Organ analysis. It does keep coming back to an on-the-nose local ALP which supported Stockland (the developer) at Sandon Point and all sorts of other horrendous local “urban consolidation” development.

It annoys the long term locals like myself and all the newly resident refugees from Sydney as well.

ALP member David Campbell is in big trouble in Keira (even if the Liberals run this time) particularly if the same preference deal can be stitched up as in Cunningham.

The interesting thing is I don’t think the ALP is going to let us win on Sandon Point like they have let the locals win on Callan Park and I can’t for the life of me work out why.

***

Pierre du Parte in Worrigee, NSW

It’s Sunday and I’m in no mood to be thinking too hard, so this is straight off the top. First, Labor doesn’t need to demand I go Green – I did that before the last Federal election.

Second- so the Fin Review reckons I’ll (we’ll) be screwed if the Greens get the balance of power. But hang on, Labor’s already screwed me and the Coalition is doing a fine job of screwing me (you don’t really need details, do you? Yes? Start with Health, Education, Super, Tax, Lies etc).

If the Greens want to screw me too, go for it I say. It’s likely to be the most enjoyable screwing I’ve had in a long time.

Attention left wing voters: Labor disowns civil disobedience and demands you defect to the Greens!

NSW police minister Michael Costa is first off the blocks in the counter-attack against the Greens, and it’s beautiful. Civil disobedience is an outrage. The Party founded on civil disobedience now thinks the picket line is an obscenity. All you Labor MPs who joined the wharfies picket against Patricks, get lost. Free speech is no longer allowed in Parliament House if Costa doesn’t like what might be said. He’d have no sympathy with Henry Lawson’s ode to the Labour movement, Freedom on the Wallaby, written during the great Shearer’s strike of 1891 which triggered the formation of the ALP:

Australia’s a big country

An’ Freedom’s humping bluey,

An’ Freedom’s on the wallaby

Oh! don’t you hear ‘er cooey?

She’s just begun to boomerang,

She’ll knock the tyrants silly,

She’s goin’ to light another fire

And boil another billy.

Our fathers toiled for bitter bread

While loafers thrived beside ’em,

But food to eat and clothes to wear,

Their native land denied ’em.

An’ so they left their native land

In spite of their devotion,

An’ so they came, or if they stole,

Were sent across the ocean.

Then Freedom couldn’t stand the glare

O’ Royalty’s regalia,

She left the loafers where they were,

An’ came out to Australia.

But now across the mighty main

The chains have come ter bind her

She little thought to see again

The wrongs she left behind her.

Our parents toil’d to make a home

Hard grubbin ’twas an’ clearin’

They wasn’t crowded much with lords

When they was pioneering.

But now that we have made the land

A garden full of promise,

Old Greed must crook ‘is dirty hand

And come ter take it from us.

So we must fly a rebel flag,

As others did before us,

And we must sing a rebel song

And join in rebel chorus.

We’ll make the tyrants feel the sting

O’ those that they would throttle;

They needn’t say the fault is ours

If blood should stain the wattle!

***

The trigger for Costa’s invitation to the left to consider the Greens their natural home was an open, public conference in NSW parliament house next week organised by Greens Upper house MP Lee Rhiannon. A summary is on her website:

November 8 – CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

NSW Parliament House, Jubillee Room

Friday November 8, 2002, 2pm-6pm

A Debate with academic papers on the following topics:

Philosophy of civil disobedience

Traditions of civil disobedience

Civil disobedience and the media

The law and civil disobedience

Organised by the Research Initiative in International Activism, internationalactivism, with support from Lee Rhiannon’s office and the Greens. More Info: 9514 2714

Details: In the week prior to the protests against the World Trade Organisation in Sydney, the Research Initiative in International Activism is holding a seminar on civil disobedience at the NSW Parliament House. The seminar is intended to inform debate on the role of civil disobedience, amongst the media and policy-makers, as well as amongst protest groups.

***

Costa blew his stack in Parliament yesterday, then roped in Sydney’s Daily Telegraph to turbo-charge outrage to the Greens’ outrageous forum – oh so unfortunately cleared by the president of the Upper House, left-wing Labor MP Meredith Burgmann.

Page one screamed EXCLUSIVE: Guess where the people who protest like this are holding their next training session… – Pic of police on horses in front of people peacefully blockading the Stock Exchange in Sydney on May day – IN YOUR HOUSE

Costa reckons some people attending the forum will protest at the WTO meeting in Homebush Bay the next week. Shock! Horror! As usual, many protesters against economic globalisation in its present form will be unionists, and ALP members. And yes, many will engage in civil disobedience. Michael Costa’s successor as head of the NSW Labor Council, John Robertson, will address the protest.

Michael Costa has lost the plot. As the post-Cunningham Labor frenzy intensifies, it’s becoming increasingly clear that NSW Labor is not Labor at all. A bloke called Col Markham is the Labor member for the State seat of Wollongong. The Right planned to disendorse him for refusing to cross a union picket line at parliament house protesting Labor’s workers compensation reforms. Since Cunningham, Labor has dropped the plan. Costa hasn’t joined the dots.

Costa has nonchalantly alienated an already fractious left wing core constituency, and also doesn’t seem have cottoned on to the fact that the broader community has also been radicalised. In Wollongong, residents stood in front of bulldozers to stop the Sandon Point development. On the conservatively inclined south coast, a united community, including the council and the chamber of commerce, opposed a Labor-approved charcoal plant. Many – across party lines – attended a non-violent action workshop to learn civil disobedience techniques to stop the plant. To see just how radical the Australian grassroots is becoming on overdevelopment, see the Save our Suburbs website at sos.

Who knows where Costa is coming from, but wherever it is, the Greens love it. Labor, for the moment, appears to have gone crazy. The Daily Telegraph is toeing Costa’s line with glee, and adding that it’s absolutely disgusting that attendees of the forum don’t have to pay for the privilege. Federal and state Parliaments host forums all the time. They’re always free. It’s called the right to access the sites of democracy. And voters everywhere are increasingly exercising their right to be heard inside those sites.

Here’s Costa’s statement in Parliament yesterday:

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I direct my question to the Minister for Police. Will the Minister, as a responsible Minister, ensure that police on duty at the protest planned against the world trade organisation to be held in Sydney next month do not perpetrate violence against protesters, as we witnessed by some police at the S11 Melbourne protest in 2000 and some M1 protests in Sydney? Will the Minister ensure that police exercise their duty of care to protesters in such a way that protesters who infringe any law are arrested and not brutalised by police using their horses, batons or wedge chargers?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: This has to be the most hypocritical question that has ever been asked in this House. The Hon. Lee Rhiannon has not told us that she has booked a room in this Parliament to host a forum on civil disobedience. I assume that forum is associated with the World Trade Organisation protest. I ask the member whether that is right. It is an absolute disgrace. The member is using the resources of this Parliament to teach people how to cause problems for our police and members of the community as they go about their business.

This is an absolute disgrace. As everybody in this House knows, because I have made some comments on this publicly, some of the people associated with the WTO – not all of them, of course; people do have a right to protest peacefully – have been engaging in activities that lead us all to conclude that a number of them are coming here to create violent disturbances; they are coming here to have a violent confrontation with the police. I do not know if any of these people are going to the forum on civil disobedience that Ms Lee Rhiannon is organising in this Parliament; I would hope that is not the case. I hope she will be able to explain to the public why she intends to use parliamentary resources for this purpose. It is an absolute disgrace.

We saw what these people did on 1 May: They threw marbles under the hooves of police horses to bring them down and cause deliberate injury to the horses, to police officers, and to other people there. These are the people who have a web site that canvasses where people can purchase metal baseball bats and other equipment that can be used in demonstrations to cause damage not only to property but also to humans.

The Hon. John Della Bosca: How can you use a metal baseball bat in a peaceful protest?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: I know how you can use a metal baseball bat in a peaceful protest. Lee Rhiannon would be better off telling the House why she supports people who are likely to be involved in violent confrontation with the police. She has asked an absolutely hypocritical question. I would ask Lee Rhiannon to come clean about this forum on civil disobedience she is holding in the Parliament, which 60 people will attend. That is an absolute disgrace. I believe that every member of this House, other than Lee Rhiannon and maybe a couple of the nutters that support her on the cross benches, would be appalled by this move by Lee Rhiannon. She speaks very sanctimoniously in the House about things that other members of the House do, yet she is blatantly involved in a process that could lead to violence at the WTO meeting. It is a disgrace. She ought to resign.

Ms LEE RHIANNON: I ask a supplementary question: Minister, will you confirm that, if any protester breaks the law at the WTO meeting in Sydney, they will be arrested and the police will not use inappropriate and illegal tactics?

The Hon. MICHAEL COSTA: Again, the height of hypocrisy! I have just said that the WTO has a website on which it posts information about using violence at a demonstration. Let us be clear: People are coming here to have a violent confrontation with the police. Let me say to you: The police will be prepared and I will back the police in what they do.

***

To listen to Costa and Alan Jones froth at the mouth together on radio today, go to smh

***

The Australian Financial Review mounted a much more thoughtful counter-attack to the Greens in an editorial this week.

Red alert over Greens threat, 31/10/2002

The Greens are on a roll. Not content with mugging the bewildered NSW Labor Party in the by-election for the federal seat of Cunningham, the environmentalists are now setting their sights on no fewer than four Lower House seats plus an Upper House spot in the upcoming Victorian election.

The Bracks Labor government, which is holding office in Victoria by the skin of its teeth, and the Coalition are neck and neck, as this week’s Newspoll shows. As the Greens are polling 7 per cent overall and probably higher in the inner city, and Labor is on the nose with old-style unionists, it is not inconceivable that the Greens might end up with the balance of power in Victoria.

This changes the meaning of voting Green. Many sensible people have done so in the past out of a vague feeling that they would like to save trees and animals and give smug major party politicians a kick in the pants at the same time. It seemed a pretty harmless indulgence but now that there is a chance however slim of the Greens holding the balance of power in the second largest state in the land, would-be Green voters need to think again. For behind the reassuring stuff about sustainability and old growth forests lurks a comprehensive manifesto of soft socialism that would take us back to the 1970s, the undisputed low point of postwar economic performance.

The Greens’ Whitlam-era policies on tax, jobs, foreign investment, trade and state ownership loom like weapons of mass destruction trained on our major industries, our national prosperity and our way of life. Those of us who always knew the Greens had these policies never dreamed they might actually be used. Now we can’t be entirely sure.

Most of us accept we have to do things better, especially in agriculture and water use, but not that we should risk everything in a headlong rush to sustainability, especially while there is still little consensus on what it means.

The Greens make no such concessions. In their misguided utopia, the pursuit of economic growth must give way to a socially responsible society where people contribute according to their ability and are rewarded with a “guaranteed adequate income” and an “endowment of environmental and social resources”. It would not be necessary to seek work to qualify for generous income support, and the focus would be on “people working together for common goals” in other words, on co-operation and mutual benefit rather than competition and “control by minorities”.

Implementing this flawed vision would require a huge increase in taxation. The Greens are quite explicit about this, saying “the revenue share of GDP must increase” at the same time as the GST is abolished. They aim to do thisby lifting the company tax rate to “at least 49 per cent” and the marginal rate on incomes above $100,000 to more than 50 per cent, while imposing carbon and resource taxes on our most successful export industries. Of course, this would all end in tears because these measures would undermine investment, economic activity and tax revenue and would also spark a boom in tax minimisation and skilled emigration.

With profitability and global competitiveness jettisoned as policy objectives, the Greens would like to bring back centralised wage-fixing, dictate hours of work (“a four-day working week based on a seven- to eight-hour working day”) and reimpose controls on trade and foreign investment (only socially useful and environmentally benign proposals please). The Greens grudgingly concede that there are some benefits from trade such as raising standards of living in some Asian countries beyond their wildest dreams but can easily come up with at least twice as many drawbacks.

And on they go ad nauseam. It may seem cruel to hold these hopeless policies up to ridicule but the voters of Melbourne’s inner suburbs must know what they’re playing with the sacrifice of two decades of hard-won economic gains by a young, trade-dependent, capital-importing country that saw its terms of trade slashed in the 1980s. It’s too much to risk.

Labor can’t comfort itself that the Cunningham result, where the Greens and union-backed candidates cut off the Labor vote, was a one-off, because some of the same conditions apply in the inner Melbourne seats the Greens are contesting. The moderate Bracks government has outraged left-of-centre voters in these electorates by opting to build the athletes’ village for the 2006 Commonwealth Games on the site of the old Royal Park psychiatric hospital, even though the decision makes perfect sense and the campaign against it by the Greens and local activists is typically disingenuous.

A vote for the Greens may no longer be the annoying but essentially harmless gesture it once was. It is to be hoped it won’t come to this.

***

To me, the AFR is making the same mistake we all made when the Hanson phenomenon took off.

When One Nation threatened to grab a share of political power in parliament, everyone tried to cut her down by dismantling the logic of her policies. We made the fundamental mistake of basing our attacks on what her policies could do to the nation if implemented in full – which they never would or could be – rather than focussing on what voters were trying to say to those who rule us through this protest vote.

The political establishment got the message eventually. Howard threw money at the bush for structural adjustment, leadership programs, retraining, innovative ways to delivery new technology, compensation for deregulation and the like. Voters wanted to belong to the new era, not be left behind to die from it. Looking back, one Hanson impact was to take the edge off the dominance of the economic rationalist ideology, which has now begun to consider wider measures of cost and benefit, and to provide transitional arrangements for those disproportionately adversely effected by reforms.

The media should turn the angle of vision around. Instead of standing on the inside looking out, we should get out on the ground so we can stand on the outside looking in. The aim would be to find out what is behind the protest vote, and how the majors could constructively adjust to the angst. In this way, protest votes can – as protest voters want – enrich and enhance the stability of the system, not destroy it.

As the Greens have extended their support base from environmentalists to supporters of social justice, human rights and public ownership of certain assets, vigorous debates on the priorities in and trade-offs between elements of their Utopian vision has already started. The biggest so far has been the decision not to agree to sell Telstra if the Government agreed to save old-growth forests. Bob Brown was keen. The Party decided both policies were bottom line. These debates will intensify if the Greens’ momentum continues. And the debates will be public. Labor was once famous for fierce and passionate policy debates on the floor of its conferences, before the spinners and the manipulators and the image makers closed all that down.

If the impossible happened and the Greens did get balance of power in Victoria, then if they demanded everything in return for support on the floor of the house both parties would say no and Victoria would go to another election. If the Greens provided support on the floor to one party in exchange for, say, stopping logging of old growth forests, but then made so many demands after that that government became too unstable or the economy suffered, they’d be one term wonders. It’s an open question whether the Greens would cope with significant power. It’s another, far more pressing concern, to find out what people see in the Greens that they like.

Several right wing commentators have said the Greens won’t do any good in the State elections because they’ve got a “religious” flavour to them. I say this proves that these commentators are out of touch. The surge in support for the Greens shows that people want some vision and belief back in politics.

The AFR identified as a negative the Greens’ view that “the focus would be on ‘people working together for common goals’ – in other words, on co-operation and mutual benefit rather than competition and “control by minorities’.”

In my view, this focus is extremely attractive to voters tired of the self-interested individualism, cut-throat philosophy, and the binary ‘you win, I lose” dynamic of economic rationalism. They are looking to find some genuine consensus reached in good faith by people who care about our future and not just about how much money they can stuff in their back pockets. These voters have lost trust that our majors consider the overall public interest as their bottom-line concern. Instead, they fear the majors are playing the game of awarding the goodies to the highest bidder. The public is also growing more concerned that the medium and longer term effects of decisions are not being put in the equation, and that their children will pay for this breach of trust. We’ve seen what happens when short termism takes over company management – obscene executive greed, disregard of customers’ needs, and damage to or destruction of invaluable company assets like staff loyalty, trust, and commitment to the brand. The same is happening in big-brand political parties.

If Labor cannot learn that lesson from Cunningham – and Costa’s performance suggests it can’t – it could lose government in NSW and take ages to get it back federally. And when it did, it may have taken so long to heed the message that it would be able to govern only in coalition with the Greens.