GreensBlog

Climate politics vs climate action

TimHollo — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 16:02:44 +1100

This was published today at ABC Unleashed

The release on Monday of the Rudd Government's climate change white paper is a clear demonstration that this Government is intent on playing politics with climate change without actually doing anything about it.

The useless emissions reduction target and self-defeating design of the scheme tells only half the story. The Government pre-empted the announcement by throwing half a billion dollars at expanding coal infrastructure in the Hunter Valley, and followed it up with a badly-designed incentive scheme for renewable energy that will ensure it does not grow beyond a marginal player to challenge the dominance of the coal sector.

Today's Age newspaper's editorial put it clearly:

"Each time the Government announces a major policy initiative on energy and climate policy, it has managed to convey the impression that a politically convenient compromise has been preferred to policy that might actually encourage fundamental changes in energy use."

What we need now is transformative policy to turn Australia from a highly polluting resource-based economy into a carbon neutral society based around our natural assets of sun, wind, wave and clever, innovative, forward-thinking people. Instead, Monday's white paper delivered a policy structure that pretends to encourage change while doing everything it can to protect the status quo.

It does this in two fundamental ways - by setting an extremely weak target and by shielding as many relevant groups as possible from the impact of the scheme through free permits, tax cuts and cash handouts.

The 5% target emissions reduction target Prime Minister Rudd announced is completely globally irresponsible. Instead of setting a precedent of a country willing to put its best foot forward and play its responsible role on the world stage, it takes us back to the bad old days of special pleadings from every country which can only lead to inadequate action. To add insult to injury, Australia will go into the global negotiations with a fixed position - no target stronger than 15% - which is contrary to the spirit of the process.

If other countries follow Rudd's lead, Australia's 5% target is consistent only with a plan to see greenhouse gases go beyond 550 parts per million in the atmosphere (some say 650 ppm), a recipe for runaway climate change and global catastrophe. If we are to have a reasonable chance of avoiding runaway heating, Australia would need to reduce emissions by at least 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, on our way to building a zero emissions economy.

Importantly, a 40% target would not see Australia taking a lead. It is equivalent only to us playing a reasonable and equitable role in the global emissions reduction effort.

Beyond the target level, the scheme's design is fundamentally flawed. The whole point of emissions trading is to drive emissions reductions and behavioural change by shifting investment signals from polluters to clean options. The price signal caused by polluters having to buy permits provides the stick, while the sale of permits delivers large amounts of cash which the Government can use as a carrot - spending it on helping people reduce both emissions and the costs they face through investing in energy efficiency, public transport, switching to renewable energy, stopping logging, etc.

This scheme, on the other hand, gives the biggest polluters almost all of their permits free, neutering the price signal to them, and then uses the drastically reduced cash flow to neutralise the price signal for everybody else by delivering tax cuts and increased welfare payments.

Only a tiny proportion of the revenue raised by the scheme will be used to reduce people's carbon liability by reducing their carbon emissions.

50% of all revenue raised will go to shielding polluters from the scheme's impact through free permits and, what's worse, this is projected to rise over time! 47% will go to shielding householders from the impact through the short-sighted mechanism of cash handouts instead of the long-sighted approach of energy efficiency to reduce costs and pollution. A measly 3% of the scheme's revenue will actually go towards helping anyone reduce emissions and driving the new renewable energy and energy efficiency revolution.

This was a tremendous lost opportunity. By investing the billions of dollars raised through putting a price on polluters into emissions-reducing options, we could have had twice the bang for our buck, building a sustainable future through a "Green New Deal". We could have rolled out energy efficiency in homes, commercial buildings and factories across the country. We could have paid to roll out intelligent networks and to take the electricity grid out to the new renewable energy hotspots that should be the focus of our new, zero emissions energy infrastructure. We could have done this while still leaving money to increase welfare payments to meet the cost-of-living increases that will come with both climate change and action to prevent it.

There are plenty more flaws with this scheme, not least the short-sighted decision to completely shield the transport sector from any impact and to actively prevent 'additional' activities - the scheme's emissions cap will also act as a floor, meaning that any actions people take voluntarily to reduce their emissions will make it easier for big polluters to meet the target, rather than 'adding' its impact on top.

The Rudd Government has failed this critical test of leadership. It has betrayed all those who voted last year for a Government that would take climate change seriously. The Greens, however, have not forgotten and will not give up. We will do everything we can in the Senate and on the streets to ensure that this scheme is "greened up".

Some are more equal than others - what does the emissions target mean?

ChristineMilne — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:00:38 +1100

This post was published originally this morning at ABC Online

One of the most important numbers in Australia's history was revealed yesterday - a number that carries with it the hopes and fears of millions of people and embodies our priorities as a nation, our balancing of the relative worth of human beings.

It has been argued that the 5 per cent 2020 emissions reduction target that Prime Minister Rudd announced is no more or less than a political balancing act - navigating a midway path between the competing demands of business and scientists, of the Coalition and the Greens. But that is an extremely superficial view, and one that fails to see just how all-encompassing climate change is. There are much deeper choices at the core of any decision on emissions targets.

Perhaps the most obvious of these choices is the question 'do we value our children as much as ourselves?' That question, fundamentally, is the reason why we have just been through the lengthy and expensive process of Treasury modelling. The Government wanted to work out if it is worth our while to invest our money now in protecting the planet for our children and our children's children.

There is something unsettling about this question. Surely, at the heart of all of us lies the evolutionary imperative to protect and nurture our children, to do everything we can to ensure that they survive, prosper, and carry our hopes and dreams into the future. But, if the question is unsettling, the answer Mr Rudd gave is deeply troubling.

Even though every economic model for years has demonstrated that the cost of acting now is dwarfed by the cost of failing to act, and that our inexorably increasing wealth will hardly be dented by slashing our emissions, Mr Rudd still thinks it is too much. Even though his own modelling shows that the economic difference between 5 per cent emissions cuts and 25 per cent cuts is vanishingly small (he was too miserly to even investigate the scientifically necessary 40 per cent cuts), Mr Rudd will not invest our current wealth to ensure that our children can prosper.

Is that a choice Australians support?

Next is the question 'do we value our farms as highly as our aluminium, our beaches as highly as our coal, our renewable energy innovators as highly as our resource extractors?'

John Howard famously said he would not sacrifice Australia's coal and aluminium workers on "the altar of environmentalism". But what he did not say is that, by refusing to ask those in polluting industries to change, he was directly sacrificing all those whose livelihoods will be destroyed by climate change and whose new, clean-tech manufacturing jobs will never appear. From farmers whose land will dry up to tourist operators who will no longer have a reef to attract people to, to the millions who live close to sea level along the coast. If runaway climate change takes hold, we all will be sacrificed because the few refused to change.

Kevin Rudd's emissions trading scheme might be painted green, but it is designed around John Howard's frame. Rather than the promised economic transformation, we have a scheme geared towards maintaining the status quo - protecting polluters while locking out clean industry and condemning those most at risk. Fifty per cent of all revenue raised will go to shielding polluters from the scheme's impact. Forty-seven per cent will go to shielding householders from the impact through the short-sighted mechanism of cash handouts instead of the long-sighted approach of energy efficiency to reduce costs and pollution. A measly 3 per cent of the scheme's revenue will actually go towards helping anyone reduce emissions and driving the new renewable energy and energy efficiency revolution.

Is that a choice Australians support?

Finally there is the question 'do we think we Australians deserve to pollute more than everybody else?' This is the vexed 'per capita' issue that Professor Garnaut so cleverly inverted - taking what had been a powerful argument for change and turning it into a weapon in the hands of climate naysayers. He took the 'contraction and convergence' model that is the only equitable basis for a global agreement, and perverted it by talking up future population while sidelining current per capita pollution, stretching out convergence - the point where all people have the same pollution allocation - to the far future, and ignoring historical responsibility.

The message at the heart of Rudd's emissions trajectories is that Australians, who have built our riches by polluting, deserve to keep polluting more than anyone else on the planet for another 42 years.

The way we Australians make these choices will say a lot about who we are. Are we wise and generous, or selfish and short-sighted?

I firmly believe that the great majority of Australians want us to make the compassionate, fair and reasonable choice: to do everything we can, scrimp and save, innovate and create, so that our children can prosper; to all pull together, each of us doing what we can to support the others; and to play our responsible part in the 'Green New Deal' to pass on our planet in a fit state for those who come after us.

Mr Rudd, you made your choice yesterday. It is clear that you do not have the vision to see Australia as a prosperous, green energy hub. Instead of a White Paper, you raised the white flag of surrender.

But, soon enough, the people will make their choice. Don't say we didn't warn you.

Day of Action against 5% climate target

TimHollo — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:29:00 +1100

It's hard to find the words to express quite how atrocious today's decision announcement has been.

Here's a video that expresses what a lot of us are starting to think - that all those who voted for Kevin Rudd thinking he'd be better than John Howard on climate change were sold a lump of coal.

If you're angry, come along tomorrow and join us at the rallies listed here.

So what just happened with the National Academy of Music?

TimHollo — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 15:28:53 +1100

Yesterday, after a whirlwind six week campaign, Melbourne Uni and the National Academy of Music put out a statement the upshot of which is that the full 2009 program that the Academy had planned to run will now be run, with Brett Dean as Artistic Director, staying in its existing location, key staff remaining the same, and places to be offered to existing students. A new independent board will be appointed with a view to determining the Academy's long-term programming.

Sounds an awful lot like a complete reversal of Peter Garrett's decision to close the Academy on October 22. So how come the Minister's spokesperson told AAP last night that

"The Greens have got this entirely wrong... The government's objectives have always been the continuation of elite classical music training into 2009 and beyond but with substantial changes to the way that is governed and administered, including new management and board. The intention was never that ANAM would close, but rather that the government would redirect its $2.5 million commitment to a new organisation from 2009. That will still happen."

It's worth going through this story step by step to highlight the slow-motion backflip for what it is. Apologies for length, but I think it's worth setting out the full story.

The National Academy of Music was established in 1994 by Paul Keating - one of the very few Australia political leaders of any stripe who really appreciated and understood classical music. It was originally part of Youth Music Australia, who run the National Music Camps and Australian Youth Orchestra. The Academy had a troubled childhood and adolescence, moving from running highly-reputed short courses (with incredibly stiff competition to get in, as I can attest to as a young musician and AYO member at the time!), to a globally-renowned full-time post-tertiary 'finishing school' for music performance. While the musical standard it offered has never really been in doubt, there certainly has been justified criticism of its administration in the past. The irony is that, in the last few years, most of those issues had been resolved, and the Academy had begun to flower and perform at or close to its full potential.

Unfortunately, tied up in all this has been an undercurrent of dissatisfaction in parts of the local community of South Melbourne due to the fact that the Academy was located in the South Melbourne Town Hall when the Kennett Government forcibly amalgamated councils, getting rid of the local council that was based there. The Academy was tarred with that brush, and sadly, by its own acknowledgement, has not necessarily always managed its community relations terribly well.

Because of the reasonable criticisms of the Academy as it operated in the early 00's, two independent reports into its operations were commissioned - the Mills Report into its artistic merits, followed by the Grant Report, setting out a business case. Both of these reports were gently critical, saying the Academy should do more, but very clearly calling for a huge increase in funding to allow it to do so - an increase from $2.5 million to $6.5-7 million a year. Neither of these reports has ever been officially accepted by Government or published, but you can read the full Grant Report here.

There are many theories about what actually led to the specific events of recent months, including various suggestions about an unholy alliance between Prime Minister Rudd and his good friend and close adviser, Glyn Davies, VC of Melbourne Uni, a concerted campaign by unhappy locals, or cost shifting promoted by Lindsay Tanner. None of these really stack up, when you dig deep into them.

Our understanding is that certain Canberra bureaucrats had a bee in their bonnets about the Academy and, based on their understanding of the administrative problems of some years ago, had long been agitating for radical change - the closure of the Academy and its replacement by a new school. The previous two Coaltion Arts Ministers - Rod Kemp and George Brandis - were both personally supportive of the Academy and would not let this happen. However, the Minister for Uncomfortable Contortions, Peter Garrett, provided the perfect opportunity to pounce.

On August 25, Mr Garrett wrote to John Haddad, Chair of the Board of the Academy. Here is what he had to say:

I write to advise you that the Australian Government's 2008-09 budget allocation for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM) is $2.545 million to be administered through two six-month funding deeds.

I have considered the reviews of ANAM and ANAM's response to those reviews. I seek ANAM's commitment to implement the significant business reforms as recommended by the reviews.

The full allocation of funding in 2008-09 will be dependant on ANAM's compliance with the terms and conditions of the first funding deed. Should the Australian Government be satisfied that ANAM has met the terms of the first deed, the second funding deed will be entered into. The period of the funding deeds will be July to December 2008, and January to June 2009.

Should ANAM accept the 2008-09 funding offer, it will be required to incorporate in its
Business Plan 2009 and Strategic Plan 2009-11 the following:
1. balanced budgets for 2009, 2010 and 2011;
2. an amended bursary policy;
3. a commitment and plan to diversify income;
4. a commitment and plan to be national leaders in classical music education and
Initiatives that support that role;
5. a framework for the review of ANAM's constitution;
6. a succession plan of ANAM Board members to satisfy geographical diversity;
7. a plan for course certification;
8. continually engage a full-time artistic director; and
9. achieve a working alumni database.

ANAM will need to provide evidence of the above by 31 October 2008.

ANAM's success in implementing the reform agenda in 2008-09 will be a key
consideration in determining any future funding of ANAM.

The sharp-eyed amongst you will note a couple of direct contradictions in this, most notably the requirement to "continually engage a full-time artistic director" when funding is not guaranteed beyond 6 month blocks! The commitment to be a national leader in classical music education is an insult - the Academy always has been! Geographical diversity of the board is code for wanting to dissolve the existing board and replace it, and the board already has members from 4 states. Diversified income is code for requiring the Academy to fundraise off its own bat to supplement Commonwealth funding. Course certification, as anyone in the industry will tell you, is irrelevant in the extreme!

On October 3, Haddad replied to Garrett:

Dear Minister

I refer to your letter of 25 August and our recent meeting at your Electorate
Office.

The Academy Board has met twice since receiving your letter and discussed its contents at length. The unanimous view of these meetings was that the Academy must apply its most strenuous efforts to meeting the concerns raised by you and your Department.

As a first step, and after speaking with your Department, we are recommending subject to your approval, that an Implementation Working Group be established to develop a Transformational Plan to enable the Academy to address the issues covered in your letter and ensure that they are actioned within your deadlines and with full joint support. The Working Group will be comprised of members of your Department along with key staff of the Academy and will be chaired by a member of the Academy Board. We believe the Working Group should also include a representative of the University of Melbourne who have already indicated their nominee would be Barry Sheehan. The Group will be assisted by the engagement of The Boston Consulting Group who have agreed to review the Academy's structure and operations, on a pro bono basis.

As part of your consideration of our response, we also hope that we can work with your Department in making some adjustments to the proposed funding drawdowns, particularly in the next three weeks, so that the Academy can continue as a going concern. As set out in our session the variation as to the drawdown schedule that was not previously identified, creates very real difficulties for the Academy as it does not accord with the actual (and historically verified) expenditure profile of the Academy and its program.

He went on to address in turn each of the concerns raised by Garrett, setting out how it was already being addressed or could not be addressed without sufficient funds.

After several phone conversations which, according to the Academy, seemed positive in tone, Garrett wrote back to Haddad on October 22:

Dear Mr Haddad

I refer to your letter of 3 October 2008 and your response to the terms and conditions of the Australian Government's 2008-09 funding for the Australian National Academy of Music (ANAM), as outlined in my letter of 25 August 2008.

Your letter indicates that the Board is unable to deliver on the reform agenda or meet the terms and conditions detailed in the first six-month funding agreement. In relation to your recommendation for a working group, I do not support such a proposal as ANAM has already had sufficient time to address these conditions.

Your response reflects my concern that ANAM may not be the most effective or efficient model for the delivery of national programs supporting elite level classical music training, and I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training. Consequently, and consistent with my letter of 25 August, the Australian Government will not provide funds to ANAM to conduct its training programs in 2009. I have instructed my Department to prepare a revised funding agreement to provide ANAM with sufficient funds to complete its 2008 training program. This agreement will be provided to you shortly.

I understand that cessation of Australian Government funding may result in ANAM not continuing operations in to 2009. Should this matter require clarification, you may direct your enquiries to my department.

Note in particular that final comment. Peter Garrett knew exactly what the impact of his decision was - no ANAM for 2009. Because of actual or perceived problems with the administration of the school, he was knowingly destroying a pedagogical and cultural institution that had developed a global reputation. He was tossing out 55 of Australia's top young musicians only weeks before the end of the year, with no plans for 2009.

Impact of this decision: closure of the Academy with absolutely no plan in place for a replacement to take on the students and continue the momentum of their training. The only reference to future plans was "I have accordingly asked my Department to investigate alternative options for the delivery of this training."

The outcry began. Shortly thereafter, the Greens were approached to offer what help we could. Starting with a joint motion with the Liberals, a question in Question Time and a series of Questions on Notice, we began to get involved. At the same time, musicians and artists from around the world joined the campaign.

Thanks to this outcry, Minister Garrett was pressed to outline what would happen to the students of the Academy. On November 18, Garrett released his proposal for a new body, to be called the Australian Institute of Music Performance. The AIMP would start in July 2009, with transitional arrangements sending students to the Uni of Melbourne - a totally inappropriate solution none of them were happy about. The AIMP looked strangely like ANAM, although it would take many months, if not years, to achieve the same level of performance. In addition, it had a name that uncomfortably mirrored the existing Australian Institute of Music in Sydney.

This was the first step in the backflip. There would be a new institution that would do effectively the same thing as the existing one, but under a different name and more directly controlled by Melbourne University.

The next Friday, November 28, Christine and I met with students and staff at the Academy, inviting them to bring their music to Canberra to lift the campaign several notches. We had the privilege of attending their spectacular concert that evening! But, in the meantime - at 3.30 pm on a Friday afternoon (a favourite time of Environment Ministers to release uncomfortable information) - Garrett proudly announced that he had decided to keep the name ANAM, instead of replacing it with AIMP! This was seen by students, staff and supporters as the nonsensical slap in the face that it was.

Step two in the backflip - let's keep the same name, as well as the essentially the same activities! And, hey, into the bargain, we'll let the students stay in the same place!

After a flurry of activity over the weekend, 12 students came to Canberra with Brett Dean, the Artistic Director, and staff members Bill Hennesey, Nick Bailey and Hillary Frost on the night of Monday December 1. The call was for a 12 month moratorium on the closure to allow for a proper discussion about the Academy's future without disadvantaging the students and destroying the continuity of their training.

Bright and early on the Tuesday morning, musicians welcomed MPs and Senators at the traditional "doors" media scrums on both sides of Parliament, making quite an impact. During the day, music echoed in the corridors throughout the House, with students and staff holding a press conference and simply playing beautiful music. The President of the Senate denied them permission to play at Aussie's Café, the haunt of all the lobbyists, MPs and staff. They also managed to get meetings with Labor backbenchers, Peter Garrett and, most importantly, Terry Moran, head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. Finally, they secured agreement that, on Saturday December 6, there would be a meeting in Melbourne including Brett, Nick, Terry Moran, Glyn Davies and representatives of the Department.

This is where we get to the best part.

The meeting was a great success, and Brett Dean called us delighted with the outcome. The Academy would run its full program for 2009 as planned, a new, independent board would be appointed, and its first job would be to determine the next few years of programming for the Academy.

Now, there are two ways of seeing this. On one level, it is a very effective delivery of the transition strategy to a new institution, which happens to have the same name as the previous, many of the same staff, many of the same students, and be based in the same location. That's certainly what Minister Garrett's office is saying has happened - there is nothing to see, move along.

On another level, of course, it is a complete reversal. Instead of the closure of the Academy with no future plans in place, as we had on October 22, we have the Academy continuing exactly as it had planned, with the only difference being the dissolution of the board and appointment of a replacement. This is all that should have happened in the first place - Garrett should have dismissed the board and kept the Academy going while appointing a new one. Instead we had a terribly ham-fisted approach which put the students and staff through a month and a half of heartache.

All is well that ends well, I suppose.

On the bright side, they got a great introduction to the world of politics! And, as one obsessed with music and politics who used to admire Peter Garrett so greatly, I reckon this is a pretty good outcome.

Throwing a lifeline to the Murray

TimNorton — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 10:51:09 +1100

The Greens, Coalition & independents have come together to unite in the need for immediate action on the Murray Darling Basin.

Senator Rachel Siewert (Greens spokesperson on water), Greg Hunt MP (opposition Environment Minister) & Senator Nick Xenophon (Independent) joined GetUp! National Director Simon Sheik in Canberra yesterday to call for Government action on the Water Bill and save the Murray Darling.

GetUp! presented the politicians with a petition signed by almost 50,000 Australians concerned about the Murray's future.

Mr Sheikh said that independent legal advice obtained by constitutional law expert Professor John Williams from Adelaide University suggests that the Federal Government has the power to wrest control of the waterway from the states.

"Experts suggest there is a way and what's more Liberal, National, Greens and Independent politicians have shown today is that there is also the political will to rescue Australia's biggest river," Mr Sheikh said.

"Our message now to Federal Government is: throw the Murray River a lifeline, adopt our plan for one set of rules for one river and prevent the nation's food bowl from turning into a dust bowl.

"We cannot afford to let the situation of the country's most important river system to get any more direr.

"We need a Federal Government takeover to protect the future of the river's health and the livelihoods of the people who depend on it. We need Federal Government to throw the Murray River this critical lifeline now."

Rachel had this to say on the Water Bill:

"The Greens believe that limited water resources within the Murray-Darling Basin need to be retained within the Basin. We do not support any new extractions outside the Basin and believe that we need to progressively wean outsider users off the system," said Senator Siewert.

"Victoria's investments in irrigation efficiency to 'save' water for the Sugarloaf Pipeline is modernisation activity that should be undertaking anyway to address over-allocation. The solution to Melbourne's perceived water problems lie in Melbourne, not in the Murray Darling Basin."

"There is only a limited amount that can be recovered this way and all of it is urgently needed to help basin communities and threatened ecosystems deal with the impacts of climate change. Basin communities are hurting, and precious ecosystems are literally dying for a drink."

The GetUp petition reads:

Recover and release 500 gigalitres of water into the river system by the end of the year, and 4000 gigalitres overall to prevent our food bowl turning into a dust bowl.

Create an emergency Interim Basin management plan, including a focus on the Coorong and Lower Lakes. This could be done in a matter of weeks, as a precursor to establishing a truly independent authority that is not held to ransom by State governments' veto power

Establish a national freshwater reserve system to protect rivers, wetlands and estuaries of high value to the river. As a first step, urgently intervene to save the Murray River Red Gums, the river's "green lungs" suffering from State inaction.

See more photos of the event here

Swiss Cheese won’t solve the Murray Darling crisis

TimNorton — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 11:14:05 +1100

There are two fundamental problems with the current approach to reform in the Murray Darling Basin:

Basin communities have not been part of the consultation and negotiation process for the new arrangements. The only key stakeholders from the Rudd Government's point of view have been the State Governments.
Commonwealth investment in water buyback, infrastructure improvements and structural adjustment are being rolled out slowly in an ad hoc fashion, with no consideration for the social, economic, environmental or structural impacts of where water is bought, or irrigation infrastructure investments are located.

What we need is a targeted and integrated approach.

The Greens believe the solution lies in giving basin communities the tools and support they need to plan for the future.

This is why we're calling for the Government to move away from the current ‘bitsy' approach to spending the $12.9 billion Water for the Future fund of buying water back from individual farmers - in favour of an approach that prioritises funding for integrated planning, where groups of farmers and irrigation districts get together and map out where they will upgrade irrigation structure versus where they will sell back water and use structural adjustment funds to change to other crops and land uses.

Their current approach is delivering what ACF's Dr Arlene Buchan described to the Senate inquiry as a "Swiss cheese" effect - with holes in irrigation infrastructure where individual irrigators have been forced out by financial pressures... making it harder for their neighbours to maintain existing irrigation infrastructure... and making it even harder for them to improve it.

This "Swiss cheese" approach increases both the risk of stranded assets and the likelihood of the economies of local communities dropping below sustainability thresholds.

The Greens do not want to see some of our smartest and most efficient farmers walking off productive land because of the uncertainty... or because of financial difficulties that have nothing to do with the profitability of their enterprises, and everything to do with the costs of credit at a time of extremely low water allocations.

Taking a strategic approach to targeting infrastructure investment based on planning at the irrigation district level (with the support of the best available science on its future prospects) is the best way to minimise this risk, while at the same time helping to build community engagement at a time where community support is at its most valuable.

This is why the Greens are putting forward the MDB 2010-2050 plan.

Its aim is to develop a vision for the Basin in 2050 of a vibrant community, sustained by a healthy river system that delivers food, fibre and ecosystem services to the nation - with all the plans underway by 2010.

We are calling on the Commonwealth to:

Resource and support community planning as a matter of priority;
Enable communities to produce plans which integrate infrastructure investment, water sales and structural adjustment, and
Provide incentives and support for them to do so;
Give integrated community plans priority in assessing funding applications;
Empower the Murray Darling Basin Authority to develop an interim, non-binding Basin Plan, that suggests likely sustainable water use targets for individual catchments, as quickly as possible;
Create community planning support teams and resources - to produce decision-support tools including district maps with overlays of relevant information.

Many of the witnesses to the recent Senate inquiry also backed calls to speed up investment in infrastructure through an integrated and targeted approach - including NFF, ACF, NSW Irrigators, Prof. Mike Young and the Bondi Group.

The Greens believe that a more consultative and democratic approach will generate a fairer, more robust and sustainable outcome.

The kind of perverse outcomes we've seen to date from the intergovernmental agreement process reflect the narrow self-interest of the States... and wouldn't have survived an open public debate:

like a new pipeline to extract an additional 75 Gigalitres for Melbourne from the system at a time of crisis;
a definition of 'critical human need' that is not restricted to the core survival requirements of drinking water, health and sanitation but can include piggeries and golf courses;
or a plan to return extraction to sustainable levels that won't come into operation until 2014 (or 2019 in Victoria).

The Greens will be moving amendments in the Senate this week to tackle each of these problems... so stay tuned.

What is Peter Garrett doing to the Academy of Music?

TimHollo — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:26:43 +1100

On October 31, after an entirely inadequate process, Arts Minister Peter Garrett wrote to the board of the Australian National Academy of Music, Australia's world-renowned training ground for our top young classical musicians, informing them that they would be de-funded as of 2009.

In one easy decision, the musician-turned-politician threw some of Australia's brightest young talents on the scrap heap. According to some reports, he didn't even realise that there were students enrolled in ongoing courses at the Academy. I don't know whether that would make the decision less culpable on the basis of it being less cruel, or more on the basis of sheer ignorance from a decision-maker.

Having provoked a bigger storm than he perhaps expected, Minister Garrett was forced to swiftly turn around a replacement, a transition strategy and interim arrangements. The resulting policy on the run is as messy as you would expect.

The National Academy has a tremendous reputation today, although it's true that, a few years ago, it was plagued by problems. But a lot of effort has been put into making it run more smoothly, ensuring that the top quality tuition and training that it has always offered was matched by appropriate administration. That is what makes this decision so bizarre. This decision is seemingly based on prejudices that were formed some years ago and no longer pertain.

In looking at ways to improve the Academy, two independent reports were commissioned by the previous Government into its operation - the Mills Report, which was an artistic overview, and the Grant review (pdf), a business case. It is these old and (officially) unpublished reports which Peter Garrett has repeatedly used to justify his decision to de-fund the Academy. But, in actual fact, both of them call for the funding to be increased! It is true that the Grant review made a series of recommendations for improvements - but these were couched clearly in terms of the requirement for tripled funding in order to meet them!

Instead, Peter Garrett demanded that the Academy Board meet the recommendations without any certainty of existing funding, let along an increase! He made these demands on August 25 this year. When the Board told him on October 3 that they had met as many as they could reasonably expected to meet in his timeframe and within limitations of his funding allocation, he made the decision (on October 31) to de-fund the Academy and close its doors. Several weeks on, he made the weird announcement that he would replace it with with an institution which looks like it will do essentially the same thing as the Academy does now - except that it won't open until July next year - and would kindly offer students the option of going to Melbourne University until then.

This comment is in no way meant to reflect badly on the University of Melbourne's music school. But they are not set up to do what the Academy does - it's not their job! The Academy had an extremely exciting program lined up for its students next year - a program that they enrolled for and were expecting! It involved not just private one-on-one tuition, but also chamber music with their peers, orchestral experience, and master-classes with some of the world's top performers and teachers. This level of performance training is very different from what the University will or can offer.

You can't overestimate the impact of disrupting momentum for young musicians in that way. No government would do such a thing to our young up-and-coming sports stars by de-funding the AIS, replacing with a similar institution 6 months later, and telling the athletes to just go to a University until then! Why do it to musicians? Are they just an easy target?

If the AIS had any administrative problems, the Government would deal with them in such a way as to have the least impact possible on the athletes training there.If there truly were such problems with the Academy of Music, the Government could and should have worked with all stakeholders to provide either improvements or a new school while the existing school cotinued to operate, so that students could continue to learn until the replacement was ready. Surely that would be an appropriate path.

Peter Garrett can still reverse this decision and fund the Academy to run its 2009 program at least while its long-term future is discussed.

He should do so, and you can help tell him so! You can sign a petition to save the Academy here.

Green car plan one small step in the right direction

ChristineMilne — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:58:05 +1100

This post was first published at ABC's Unleashed site:

With the global financial meltdown meeting the climate meltdown head on, the potential to deal with both crises using the same solutions has been gaining support.

Last month, the United Nations Environment Program joined with Deutsche Bank and others to promote a 'Green New Deal' based on investing billions of dollars in the four pillars of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean transport and ecosystem protection, reducing greenhouse emissions, building infrastructure and creating millions of new jobs. World leaders such as US President-elect Obama, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon have publicly embraced the proposal, with Obama listing a $150 billion clean energy plan as his top priority.

The 'Green New Deal', taking its inspiration from Franklin Delano Roosevelt's 'New Deal' to build the USA out of the Great Depression, is only the most recent embodiment of strategies put forward from Hobart to London over the last few decades, recognising that investing in protecting the environment is the only sensible economic plan.

The Greens have long been arguing that Australia's economic future depends on investing our current wealth in a clean, zero emissions future. Since the beginning of the current economic crisis, we have been calling for a 'Green New Deal' at home and for any economic support package to be directed at sustainable alternatives. A key aspect of this is our proposal to retrofit every home in the nation with energy efficient technologies such as solar water heaters and insulation.

That's why, after weeks of silence from the Rudd Government, I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister and his Industry Minister, Senator Carr, at least start using this language in launching their Green Car Package last week. Both noted that it was only by building environmentally sustainable cars that Australia's car industry can have a sustainable future - something I have been telling them for years.

But the devil, as always, is in the detail. And so much of that detail is still missing - right down to what is the definition of a 'green car' that will benefit from the package.

I welcomed the plan as the first step in recognising the importance of linking economic stimulus measures to the effort to build a new, zero emissions economy. But, in doing so, I noted that it was a small first step and that the Greens look forward to working with the Government to flesh it out.

Here is what we would propose:

In rethinking transport for a zero emissions Australia, the fundamental points are to help people to drive less and, when they do drive, to drive more efficiently and with the least polluting vehicles possible.

There is no reason why the Green Car Plan could not have been presented as a Green Transport Plan that would shift car manufacturing onto a green base and drive investment and job creation in rolling out buses, trains, ferries, trams and cycleways. Instead of thinking small, with changes at the margins to make cars that little bit more fuel efficient, we could see a plan to roll out an electrified vehicle fleet and all the infrastructure that will have to go with that - powered by a massively increased renewable energy grid, of course. American entrepreneur Shai Agassi has already proposed rolling out electric vehicle infrastructure in Australia. He should be given all the help he can to make it a reality. Agassi is only one of many entrepreneurs promoting intelligent networks, such as digital control systems for railways and smart electricity grids, which create significant efficiencies and make it easier to have an energy system powered entirely by renewable energy.

As well as investing in the infrastructure for public transport and electric vehicles, the Government should be investing in R&D and commercialisation for second generation biofuels which present a real potential for zero emissions transport without reducing availability of food crops or replacing standing forests with oil palm plantations, for example.

Aside from direct spending, there are plenty of big changes that can be encouraged through the tax system. The Greens achieved a small win by exempting fuel efficient vehicles from the Luxury Car Tax, already leading Audi to sell more efficient cars in Australia, but we propose a much broader tax shift to drive cleaner transport. We would replace the Luxury Car Tax altogether with a tax based on the fuel consumption of vehicles rather than their sale price. We would remove the Fringe Benefits Tax Concessions that encourage people to drive more. We would also take the GST off public transport fares.

When it finally decides how to define a 'green car', we will be calling on the Government to implement mandatory vehicle fuel efficiency standards. China and Europe are powering ahead of Australia with stringent standards in place and, without them, Australia will be left behind, regardless of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister and Industry Minister.

One policy the Government has ignored altogether is the tremendous impact of changing government procurement policies to buy more efficient and hybrid cars for the government fleets. Because of the fast turnover in these fleets, this simple change has a large flow-on effect by driving many more efficient vehicles into the second hand market.

The Government has not yet embraced very much of this obvious agenda. But, with the Green Car Plan, they took the first step of recognising that the economic meltdown and climate meltdown could be addressed at the same time. There is much more to be done but, perhaps encouraged by the election of Barack Obama, we can have some hope of stronger action in that direction in 2009.

Forward with Workplace Relations

RachelSiewert — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:19:22 +1100

There are increasing concerns that the Government's Forward with Fairness legislation will not be delivering sustainable fair workplace laws but rather will be serving up Work Choices-lite.

The Greens have already argued the award modernisation process will result in a deterioration of minimum conditions of work, particularly affecting workers who are not able to access genuine collective bargaining.

On 12 November 2008 I read out in the Senate the stories of women workers finding life difficult under the current laws and wondering what life will be like under Forward with Fairness. The Greens strongly believe the voices of disadvantaged workers must be heard in the upcoming debate.

The recently released Australia@Work report found that more Australian workers are struggling to make ends meet, one third of workers are outside the protection of workplace laws and that Australia continues to have some of the worst working hours in the OECD. It also found that awards continue to be relevant to many workers.

Will Forward with Fairness provide the framework to increase job security, give workers more control over their working hours and provide sufficient protection for lower paid workers?

Without retaining a strong award system, without providing for arbitration and by allowing the deterioration of minimum conditions, the answer is no.

The Greens are determined to put Forward with Fairness to the test in the Senate.

Safe Work Australia
The Greens combined with Senator Xenophon and the opposition to make important changes to the Safe Work Australia Bill in the Senate. The Bill establishes Safe Work Australia to draft model OHS laws, regulations and codes of practice.

I delivered a speech in the Senate which outlines the Greens' key concerns with the Bill. Our approach was to follow the internationally accepted practice that OHS regulation works best when developed through a genuine tripartite and independent process.

The amendments passed in the Senate restored the former representative numbers for employees and employers and removed excessive interference in the operations of Safe Work Australia by the Minister and the Ministerial Council. The Government has inexplicably rejected all of the Senate's amendments.

Campaign to abolish the ABCC
On 28 August 2008 I introduced into the Senate the Building and Construction Industry (Restoring Workplace Rights) Bill 2008. The Bill repeals the Building and Construction Industry Improvement Act and thereby abolishes the ABCC.

The Greens have consistently stated that it is an affront to democracy to have workplace laws that take away the right to silence, deny people their choice of lawyer, provide powers to compel evidence with the possibility of jail for not complying, and impose severe restrictions on the rights of workers to organise and bargain collectively.

There is not and never was any justification for targeting building and construction workers with such laws. Unfortunately the current government, like the previous one, doesn't agree.

But, the Greens will keep fighting in the Parliament to repeal these laws and abolish the ABCC before 2010, and fight to ensure that Fair Work Australia does not have any similar punitive powers.

Rudd Government bypasses proven renewables for 'imaginary' geosequestration

TimHollo — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:44:35 +1100

Yesterday the Rudd Government demonstrated very clearly where its climate and energy priorities lie - not with the proven renewable energy solutions, but with the geosequestration pipe-dream that Al Gore has recently called "too imaginary to make a difference in protecting either our national security or the global climate".

Fresh from burying Christine Milne's feed-in tariff Bill with a majority Senate Inquiry report saying it's a "great idea, but let's not do it", the Rudd Government went on last night to push through a Bill which gives a huge benefit to those who seek to bury CO2 under the sea floor - letting them make profits without having to carry the liability. This is a recipe for a new sub-prime crisis, telling industry that they can make significant profits safe in the knowledge that they will not need to carry the can for more than 20 years.

The debate on this bill is worth reading in its entirety if you have time. It exposes quite how blinded by industry rhetoric the Government and Opposition both are. Perhaps the pinnacle of this is to be found in Senator McLucas's statement that, as far as leaks from storage are concerned, "we do not predict that will happen". Considering it is widely acknowledged by government, industry and bodies such as the IPCC around the world that leaks will happen, at the rate of at least 1% a year on average, this is a rather heroic prediction.

The Bill is largely about settling arguments between the petroleum exploration industry and the geosequestration industry, but the sting in its tail is how it deals with the planning approvals and long-term liability issues that arise from dumping massive quantities of a dangerous substance under the sea bed - what Christine has called a "21st century landfill strategy". The original Bill left the issue open, as discussed in this media release. After a closure certificate was issued for a burial site, the liability was to be settled under common law - not an ideal solution due to the uncertainties, timelines and costs involved.

The Greens' proposal was that, acknowledging that companies will not be around for the lengths of time the carbon needs to be stored for (ie perpetuity), we should take a leaf out of the book of mining regulation and require companies to post a bond to cover potential liability into the future. This, however, was not acceptable to the Opposition, who negotiated with the Government an amendment that keeps liability on the company for 20 years after a closure certificate has been issued, and then passes all liability onto the taxpayer.

Christine moved an array of other amendments to try to make the legislation somewhat more environmentally responsible, only to be told by Liberal Senator David Johnston that the changes were unnecessary because "This whole act has the environment as its fundamental objective." Only people who have no idea about environmental protection could say such a thing, as their efforts to be 'green' are frequently self-contradictory. It is not uncommonly their actions that purport to be about environmental protection that need the most scrutiny. The whole advocacy for geosequestration (let alone nuclear power) is testament to this fact.

Those who elected the Rudd Government on a platform of climate action need to know just how much they are bypassing renewable energy in favour of coal. But, when the Government deliberately tabled the feed-in report at 6pm and scheduled the debate on the geosequestration bill to conclude at 9.50pm, it is no surprise that there has been virtually no media coverage of either. We have to work hard to make sure people understand what is happening.

Yes they did - Obama wins!

TimHollo — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 15:48:27 +1100

What an extraordinary day! That the American people have elected - by a large margin - Barack Obama to be their President is something I can scarcely believe!

Bob Brown has welcomed the election result here.We must all hope that this can and will herald a new era for global politics - an era of hopeful, positive, visionary politics.

Now what will happen?

It's worth looking at Obama's climate and energy policy here. Note the EASI idea, the Green New Deal stuff, and, less positively, the clean coal support. There's some very positive analysis of Obama's energy plan here and some more critical analysis here.

Obama has also talked green rhetoric on the stimulus stimulus package here.

On Biden, it's worth reading this.

We've cracked the bubbly here, so I'm going to leave this post at that for today. Some more analysis later on.

One thing we can all agree on - “clean coal” ain’t gonna be cheap!

TimHollo — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:44:27 +1100

The thing I’ve found most fascinating about the responses to the Treasury’s ETS modelling
released yesterday is how, all of a sudden, a pile of big coal’s
biggest fans are agreeing with us that coal with geosequestration isn’t
going to come cheap!

Malcolm Turnbull, for example, told the media yesterday
that “The cost of carbon capture and storage is probably the biggest
single assumption in this whole analysis… There is no full-blown
demonstration plant employing carbon capture and storage so estimates
of its costs are speculative.”

Well-known climate naysayer, Brian Fisher, writes in today’s Australian
that “The Treasury’s assumptions on the capital cost of construction of
a CCS-ready coal-fired power plant appear to be about half those
estimated by well-qualified industry experts.”

What’s that? Those geosequestration advocates who have been telling
us that renewables might be nice, but “clean coal” is nicer, have
decided that it’s more important to try to prove the Treasury modelling
wrong than to stand by their previous argument?

They are right, of course. Even if geosequestration can be proven
(which it hasn’t been), and even if it proves socially acceptable
(which it hasn’t), and even if companies seeking to profit from burying
carbon go ahead without a legislative promise from governments that
they will be absolved of all future liability for leakage (for which
there is no evidence), it ain’t gonna come cheap.

And here’s the rub - it’s already being overtaken by renewables.
There are plenty of renewable energy technologies which are now or will
be soon cheaper than Treasury’s extremely optimistic price projections
for geosequestration.

The modelling evens itself out, though. While underestimating the
cost and overestimating the potential of geosequestration, it
overstimates the cost and underestimates the potential of renewables.

Treasury puts solar thermal costs at twice geothermal costs, which
doesn’t match international evidence. They don’t model any rooftop PV
at all - only concentrating PV power stations - even though major PV players are now saying they will achieve parity with coal in less than five years! Introduce a good feed-in tariff, and rooftop PV will boom here, as it has in Germany.

Bizarrely, Treasury puts black coal with CCS as cheaper than solar
thermal power is now! And yet, somehow, even in the context of
entrenched pro-coal bias, over a dozen large-scale solar thermal plants
are in construction now, whereas not one single commercial CCS plant is
actually being built. Solar thermal is booming, particularly in places
like Spain and the southern USA, while CCS plans are falling over due
to going over budget, over time, and simply not working.

The Prime Minister, meanwhile, is completely incoherent on renewable energy, as his interview with Kerry O’Brien last night demonstrated:

KERRY O’BRIEN: On the one hand the Treasury modelling
appears to make a heroic assumption that science will have found a way
to produce acceptably clean coal by 2020. But on the other hand it
appears to ignore the impact of meeting 20 per cent renewable energy
targets by 2020. Don’t both of those factors, or the absence of them,
represent serious flaws in the Treasury modelling?

KEVIN RUDD: When you come to, for example, clean coal technology,
CCS - carbon capture and storage, on which this Government has done a
lot of work in recent times, with our proposal for a global carbon,
capture and storage institute.

It’s quite clear from previous work that’s been done by the
International energy agency, for example, both carbon price in the
vicinity of $20 to $40 per tonne, that the use of clean coal technology
becomes economically feasible. One of the reasons that we are doing
this work through the global carbon capture and storage institute, is
in fact to work out how governments and industry work together to close
any financial gap in this very important, exciting and revolutionary
technology.

The other part of your question was about renewable energy.
Renewable energy, of course, is important for the future for this
reason: that if you bring in renewables through a renewable energy
target, what you do is bring forward a lot of investment in those new
energy producers early on.”

Got that?

This exchange goes some way to explaining why the huge renewable
energy sources of zero emissions energy are sidelined in the Treasury
modelling, pushing the costs unnecessarily higher. And that’s before we
even get to the tremendously understated (and cost-saving) energy
efficiency opportunities which Brian Fisher bizarrely reckons
“breach the laws of thermodynamics”. Presumably, the laws of
conservation of energy mean that energy conservation is impossible, I
guess.

In fact, on the energy side of the ledger, the analysis comes out
looking deeply conservative and overstating the costs. On the other
hand, the costs may be understated by the carbon colonialism inherent
in the plan to get developing countries to do our dirty work
and buy in well over half our emissions reductions! Evening it out, the
costs are still vanishingly small, particularly when set next to the
tremendous costs of failing to act.

What we are still missing, however, is any kind of analysis of the economic implications of meeting the real
emissions targets that we need if we are to avoid catastrophic climate
change - at least 40% cuts below 1990 levels by 2020, heading towards
carbon neutrality as soon thereafter as feasible, with the bulk of
emissions reductions being met at home (because there may not be many
permits to buy on the international market if we’re all trying really
hard to reduce emissions!). There is good reason to believe that, with
the accelerated ‘learning’ that will be triggered by really stringent
targets, the costs could actually be lower than with the mediocre
targets.

I say it’s important to get that analysis done. And it is important,
politically, so that we are open and accountable about the decisions we
will make. As Richard Denniss of the Australia Institute told 7.30 last night
“I think what we should be able to do today is draw a line under this
concern with the economy and just start listening to the scientists.”

But, on another level, working out whether or not we can afford to
reduce emissions enough to prevent catastrophic climate change is an
exercise in futility. Because, when it comes down to it, if we don’t do
it, we won’t have an economy…

Christine Milne's speech to the Sydney Institute - the Greens, balance of power and climate politics

ChristineMilne — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 12:14:22 +1100

This is a speech I delivered to the Sydney Institute last night. You can also listen to it here or download a pdf here.

Sydney Institute, October 27th 2008.

Green Politics, the Balance of Power and the Green New Deal.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening about Green Politics, Balance of Power and the twin global meltdowns of climate and finance. There has never been a more critical time to be a Green and there has never been a time when the philosophy and experience of Green politics - based on forty years of environmental, social justice, peace and democracy campaigning - has been more important. The decisions that will be made in the next five years are crucial for the future of life on Earth.

In acknowledging the traditional owners of the land on which we are meeting, the Eora people, I want to reflect on how their enduring message - that a physical, emotional and spiritual connection to the land is central to well being - is resonating widely. People everywhere are simultaneously reaching the same conclusion amidst the collapsing ecosystems in which they live from the Murray Darling to the Arctic, from Tuvalu to the Maldives. They want to maintain their connection to country. They yearn to get back in touch with the Earth's realities.

As we speak, Australia and the world are in meltdown, teetering on the edge of political, economic and environmental tipping points. Whichever path we choose, the world will never be the same again. In the coming decades, either we will have successfully reshaped our political and economic structures and be heading towards a new healthy, happy, prosperous and safe future with an environment under repair and a strengthened civil society, or we will have chosen to stick with the current model which is reshaping our environment and climate in ways that will lead to system collapse, huge population movements and widespread conflict. The choice is ours - we can make a change for the better, but we have to make it now.

Victor Hugo once said "There is nothing so powerful as an idea whose time has come". The idea that is swirling around the planet right now is that the solution to the financial collapse is the same as the solution to climate change. To rescue ourselves socially, politically and economically, we need to invest heavily in healing and repairing the Earth's ecosystems and in the transition to a net carbon zero economy. As Sir Nicholas Stern said last Thursday, "Now is the time to lay the foundation for a world of low carbon growth."

Last week in London there was a call from the United Nations Environment Program and Deutsche Bank, backed by the governments of Germany and Norway, for a Global "Green New Deal ". Echoing Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" to lift the USA out of the Great Depression, a "Green New Deal" seeks to rebuild the global economy based on four pillars: renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean alternative transport and protection of ecosystems. In order to achieve this, we need a massive injection of funds into education and training to take full advantage of human innovation and ensure that we have a workforce and a manufacturing sector ready to make it a reality.

In terms of protecting ecosystems, UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner, noted that logging costs the world over $2.5 trillion a year in lost ecosystem services such as clean water and air, stopping soil erosion and storing carbon. This is more than the $1.5 trillion the economic crisis has so far cost.

A "Green New Deal" would stop logging our old growth forests and value the carbon they store, as well as the biodiversity they shelter. It would help farmers and indigenous people in remote communities be the best possible land stewards, bringing together protection and productivity on the land in a way not seen in much of the world for centuries.

A "Green New Deal" would help redesign our cities around urban villages, linked by fast, convenient and safe buses, trains, trams and ferries. We would all be healthier and happier in cleaner cities, exercising more and spending more time with our families and communities.

A "Green New Deal" would use guided research, development and commercialisation funding, alongside industry support policies such as feed-in tariffs, to bring renewable energy onto the market fast. It would work with communities and local governments to pre-permit the best sites for renewables development and take the energy grid out to them. It would roll out energy efficiency upgrades to our entire housing and commercial building stock and drive low emissions industrial alternatives to today's biggest polluters.

With a "Green New Deal", I agree with Al Gore that it is both necessary and possible for us to build a new zero emissions energy network, based on energy efficiency and renewable energy, in just a decade. If that seems impossible, think how fast mobile communications technologies, which now dictate every aspect of our lives, have leapt onto the scene. Back in 1989, when I first ran for Tasmanian Parliament, I was the only candidate to have a mobile phone - and it was so large that it took up most of the boot of my car! No-one - no-one - had email. Just a decade ago, mobiles and email were less widespread than renewable energy is now. Who would have thought even a year ago with the collapse of the car industry that Australia would be aiming for a plug in electric vehicle network by 2012?

The "Green New Deal" is not a new idea. It has been at the hear t of Green politics since the beginning of the Environment movement in the 1960s. It was central to the Greens Business and Industry Strategy published in 1992 as a recipe for transforming the Tasmanian economy from a resource based to a knowledge- and information-based economy prioritising protection of the environment and promotion of our unique high quality food and beverage products. It was central to Re Energising Australia which I released in early 2007 as a transformative proposal for the Australian economy.

So why has it taken a financial crisis and not the environmental crisis to allow this idea to burst through to the surface of political debate as it has now done internationally, even if it has not yet done so here? What has been holding it back?

The answer is simple. By the 1960's when we realised that the Earth is a finite planet, governed by a complex system of feedback loops and ecosystems and with a finite ability to provide resources and to absorb wastes, we had already invented political, social and economic systems which were underpinned by the opposite assumption, namely that our finite planet has infinite resources to sustain an infinite population and can absorb unlimited wastes. Unlimited economic growth, coupled with increased energy consumption and ongoing increased resource use and pollution were and remain the hall marks of the modern economic systems and were and still are vigorously defended by those individuals and nations who have benefited.

To admit that the system in its current form is ecologically unsustainable and that new economic, social and political tools and models need to be developed and applied is to admit that the world needs to change dramatically. Change delivers winners and losers and as Machiavelli once said, "There is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, and more dangerous to carry through than initiating change. The innovator makes enemies of all those who prosper under the old order, and only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new. Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the existing laws on their side and partly because men are generally incredulous never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience." The Prince 1514. Sound like the ETS?

The tug of war between those who want to change the basic assumption and those whose vested interests rely on no change being made is the history of Green politics for the past 36 years.
Greens around the world have been developing policies and models designed to overcome the disconnection between this constructed world of traditional politics and economics and the real world of nature and natural ecosystems for decades.. As the Ecological crisis deepened, Green politics with its strong philosophical underpinnings started to appeal to greater numbers of people. Just as the Labor party in the early 20th century grew out of the need for justice for working people and their representation following the exploitative Industrial Age and the Shearers strikes of the 1890s, so too the Greens have grown out of the excesses of environmental destruction and injustices wrought by industrial capitalism in the last 30 years of the last Century. Whereas traditional politics is in denial about the problems that exist, The Green Party is proposing solutions.

This is hardly surprising since we have been thinking about these issues for thirty years. We are developing new ways of governing the relationship between people and nature so that it becomes genuinely ecologically sustainable. This means changes to economic thinking and transformative new economic tools and financial mechanisms. No less than a change to the economic system is needed , and the current financial crisis is the opportunity to do it.

But as Machiavelli warned, it will not be easy. Just as Labor began with a few individuals being elected and then achieved Balance of Power and then Opposition and Government so too it will be for the Greens. We are on our way to government. But not before Labor, Liberal and Nationals combine to do everything in their power to thwart the rise of the Greens. They are different only by degree. None advocate or want systemic change. Interestingly in 1924 Vere Gordon Childe in his "How Labor Governs" observed, "The Labour Party started with a band of inspired idealists and degenerated into a vast machine for capturing power but did not know how to use that power when attained except for the profit of the individual". The community understands that now. It is why we have personality politics substituting for philosophical difference. It is why Grant Hackett can say that he wants a political career but has not decided which party he wants to stand for. This says more about the two old parties than it says about Grant Hackett.

The world's first Green party , the United Tasmania Group , was formed in Tasmania in 1972 and the turmoil at the time was part of my political awakening. Its Charter, The New Ethic remains as insightful now as it was then in formulating a new social contract which was global in its thinking, "United in a global movement for survival," and which had at its heart environmental sustainability and the nurturing of values consistent with justice, equal opportunity and peace. The UTG was followed in 1975 by the Values Party in New Zealand and then Petra Kelly, following a visit to Australia, took the ideas to Europe where she formed a Green Party in Germany and contested the European elections as a Green.

I am always amused when I see commentators saying that the Greens have broadened their policies to appeal to a greater number of voters. In reality the Party was founded on the four pillars of ecology, social justice, peace and non violence and participatory democracy and The Party throughout the world has advocated these values for the past 36 years. It is only now that a wider audience is listening, facilitated by the ability of the new media to communicate directly with constituents.

The Greens are the only truly global party at the beginning of this century. At the first Global Greens conference held in Canberra in 2001, we adopted a Global Greens Charter and at the second Global Greens Conference held in San Paolo Brazil this year, a decision was made to establish a Global Greens Secretariat which we hope will be hosted in Australia.

The Party is contesting elections in more than 70 countries of the world from Columbia where Ingrid Betancourt was our Green Presidential candidate when she was kidnapped, to Russia where Greens are actively prevented from running, to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, most European countries, and the Americas and New Zealand. We have over 300 national MPs and tens of thousands of state and local government representatives. We have held ministries in several European countries including the German foreign Ministry and the French Environment Ministry and we currently hold three Irish, three Finnish, 4 Czech and one Latvian Ministry. Green Parties are forming in our region with the latest being in Indonesia and Fiji. Green candidates are in touch with each other, and parties are talking about policies and political experiences. At the UNFCCC conference in Bali last year for example there was a get together of Green Party MPs from around the world to discuss the state of the negotiations and it was valuable for me to talk to them about what was really happening in Australia behind the hype surrounding the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.

At the national level, the Greens have 21 state and territory MPs and now have representation in every State parliament and in the ACT. We have five Green Senators and are close to breaking through again into the House of Representatives especially in the seats of Melbourne, Sydney and Grayndler. At local government level we have more than 100 local government councillors around the country.

There is a great deal of interest in how we will use political power, how we will govern. Responsibly and with courage and commitment to system wide change is my answer. We will not make the same mistakes as Labor did. We are not after power for power's sake. We are seeking power to transform the way we live, to make a happier, healthier more sustainable world for us and for future generations. We have 13 Private members bills in the Senate now. We stand by our policies, our commitment to transparency and community engagement. Our political record is a distinguished one across the country. As former Liberal leader in Tasmania, Bob Cheek said of us, "At least they were true to their word, which is more than you can say for a lot of politicians."

I have been in Balance of Power on three occasions. I was part of the Labor Green Accord in Tasmania between 1989 and 1992, I was Leader of the Tasmanian Greens in Balance of Power with a Liberal minority government between 1996 and 1998 and I am now in balance of Power in the Senate. During the Accord the Greens brought about several great reforms including the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation. We also doubled the size of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area in negotiating the Accord.

Significantly the Greens supported the Field government in addressing the near bankruptcy of the State. The most fiscally responsible periods of government in Tasmania have been during minority governments.

The Majority Liberal government of Robin Gray had driven the State into a parlous economic situation and the Labor Green Accord had to turn it around. It was a difficult period of protests and unrest as the public service was slashed and public spending was cut. The Greens never wavered from the task. Nor did we do so with the Rundle government when again we had to rectify the reckless spending of the Groom majority Liberal Government.

With the Rundle Liberal minority government, the Greens achieved gay law reform, gun law reform, an apology to the Stolen generation, the only Liberal government in the country to do so, and a vote for the republic leading up to the Constitutional Convention. It was a socially progressive period but we were unable to achieve environmental outcomes because Liberal and Labor voted together against any moves to protect marine or terrestrial ecosystems. This dynamic of the old parties voting together to stop ecological solutions is common to both Liberal and Labor minorities and is of concern as we approach the emissions trading legislation.

Where old politics looks at the economic meltdown and the planetary meltdown as two separate political challenges, the Greens see an opportunity to deal with two aspects of the same problem simultaneously and to rebuild our economy for a cleaner, safer, fairer and more prosperous world.
Old politics takes each individual problem and seeks to solve it individually. Because of this approach, the solutions chosen frequently make other problems worse, and obvious alternatives which would solve multiple problems together are missed.

The emissions trading scheme proposed in the Government's Green Paper is an obvious example. Instead of looking at the underlying goal of the scheme - to reduce greenhouse emissions and therefore prevent catastrophic climate change - they decide that those who will bear the costs must be compensated through the allocation of free permits or cash payments. Because of the resulting chaos, with threats from polluters that they will relocate offshore unless they get the most compensation possible, they decide we also need a slow start and a weak target.

In a misguided attempt to make the system easier to deal with, they undermine its very purpose.
The Greens, on the other hand, see the coordinated solutions, enabling us to look at the problem with optimism. Our emissions trading plans would make "compensation" not about free permits or cash handouts, but about helping reduce emissions. We would reduce the carbon costs people and companies face by reducing their carbon emissions. We would auction all permits - ensuring that the biggest polluters get the biggest price signal - and use a significant proportion of the revenue to improve energy efficiency across the board, extend our electricity grid to renewable energy hot-spots, build new busways, train lines and cycleways. Industrial energy users might get accelerated depreciation or other help meeting the up-front capital costs of new, more efficient plant.

So a Greens-designed emissions trading scheme looks at where problems arise and seeks to deal with them in ways that create positive feedback instead of friction. With this kind of scheme design, there is no need for slow starts or lax targets. We can aim as high as we know we need to go given the urgent threat of climate catastrophe, safe in the knowledge that our social and economic support mechanisms are also helping achieve the goal of the scheme instead of undermining it.

The politics of climate policy and Balance of Power in the Senate are challenging. The government has the opportunity to green up its policies with our support or it can brown them down with the Coalition. At this point I am concerned that the Rudd government wants the latter course - and the community is certainly getting that message as the opinion polls reflect. There is a real possibility that the Government while feigning concern, will be happy to blame the coalition for a weak target as it perceives that such a price will make it less politically painful at the 2010 election.

At the same time the Government will try to blame the Greens for being too ambitious. This is politically risky. Our targets of a 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020 and net carbon zero as soon after that as possible are the targets that the scientists tell us are necessary and they are also the targets that will build competitive advantage in jobs, skills and innovation in the carbon constrained world. After all, JFK did not put a man on the moon in a decade by prevaricating about whether America could ever do so.

There are also the complementary measures of energy efficiency, renewable energy (particularly the gross feed-in tariff, EASI, Farming Renewable Energy )and the protection of native vegetation to be considered. The Rudd government and the Coalition must engage on these issues as these measures are the ones that will deliver real Greenhouse gas reductions. This is where the Coalition can step up and do a David Cameron and leap-frog Labor or deal itself into irrelevance. If Labor refuses to move on these critical issues it cannot meet any real reduction in emissions.

It is rapidly reaching the point where the community is throwing down the gauntlet to the Liberal and Labor parties on the urgency of climate change and the opportunities that a Green New Deal entails. There is a very real prospect of a major political realignment with the Nationals in decline, the liberals in flux and Labor disappointing its voters. The community is beginning to take on Ted Turners message: "either lead, follow, or get out of the way" and the election of four Greens in the ACT is symptomatic of things to come.

It is worth noting that when no party has all the power, every party shares the balance of power. Seven cross benchers can do nothing alone.When the Conservatives are in minority government a combination of Labor and the Greens can force progressive social reform either by use if numbers or by use of political strategy. But when Labor is in minority it is difficult, but not impossible, to achieve either social or environmental reform as the Conservatives oppose both and do not create the space for the government to move. This is where Oppositions have to be held to account. Therefore any environmental reforms have to be agreed as part of the negotiations to deliver government.

So if the Greens have been so responsible, why have we had to withstand all the advertising by Chambers of Commerce and the old parties about the need for majority governments to deliver stability? Why have we had to withstand the efforts of shadowy groups like Tasmanians for a Better future who refuse to say who they are or who funded them in their attacks on the Greens.

Stability for them means no parliamentary scrutiny or donations disclosure and no public input or unrest. Majority governments can and do do backroom deals and rubber stamp them with their numbers in the parliament whereas minority governments bring the issues to the floor of the House and generally better legislation and outcomes follow .It has been minority governments which have shone a light onto the backroom deals of majority governments. It is no wonder that industries like the logging industry in Tasmania and property developers in NSW love majority government. They like things just as they are.

It is why they combined with the Liberal and Labor Parties in Tasmania to change the electoral system to try to get rid of the Greens. They did not succeed but instead destroyed the Tasmanian parliament and the people's democracy. Now the island state is torn apart by corruption and incompetence. It is a salient lesson nationally. I have no doubt that, as the Greens make way nationally, there will be similar attacks on democracy. However, as in Tasmania, they will not succeed. They have been overtaken by global imperatives.

So in conclusion, the Green party is here to stay. Our collaborative ways of working, our belief in co-operative politics and our ecological ethic are aligned to the challenges of the times. We are prepared to work with the other parties to secure better outcomes as we have done for years, most recently with the luxury car tax and the Medicare levy. We have the solutions to address the problems of the time and we are confident that we will be given the chance to implement them.

As Einstein said, you cannot solve problems with the mentality that created them. The Greens have a new way of looking at the world. We provide hope that things can be different and that is why we are the politics of the future.