NEWS AND VIEWS OF DAVID RISSTROM: 2004 VICTORIAN GREENS No 1 SENATE CANDIDATE

David Risstrom and Rosa, the Greens' Melbourne City Council Policy Watchdog and Chairdog of the Senate Oversight Committee, keep a watching brief on news, ideas, issues and policies. If there are issues you think need to be discussed, please contact David at david@davidrisstrom.org or Rosa at rosa@davidrisstrom.org. David last updated this site on 29 June 2005.

JOIN THE FIGHT AGAINST HOWARD'S ATTACK ON WORKING PEOPLE LIKE YOU

Tomorrow, Thursday 30 June will be a rally to mark the fight against the conservative's attack on working people. With the Victorian Labor Party's preferences having delivered a Family First Senator to Victoria, the Coalition now have a comfortable one vote buffer to pass through draconian laws that will decimate much of what we assumed was part of a fair Australia. While I will not be able to represent Victoria as a Green Senator from 1 July 2005, I will remain a part of the fight against the Conservative time machine that is set to back us to the times of master and slave.

The timetable for tomorrow is: 10am Workers gather at the VTHC corner Victoria and Lygon Street
 10.10am Workers to be addressed by union officials
 10.35am March to Flinders Street via Russell, La Trobe and Swanston Streets
 11.20am Main speakers: Trades Hall Choir - "Solidarity"; Brian Boyd, Secretary Victorian Trades Hall Council; Kim Beazley, Federal Leader of the Australian Labor Party; Rob Hulls, State Minister for Industrial Relations; Greg Combet, Secretary Australian Council of Trade Unions; Ethnic Communities Council - Speaker; Father Peter Norden, Jesuit Social Services; Kemalex Worker - Danna Davic, NUW 
 12.00pm Finish

28 JUNE 2005

HELP THE NEW ZEALAND GREENS WIN THER ELECTION FROM AUSTRALIA

The New Zealand General election will be held later this year. With the Government yet to announce a date spectators are predicting the poll will be held in September. The Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand is aiming to increase it’s representation above the current 9 MP’s in NZ’s 120 seat parliament. Key Green issues are expected to include Energy, Water and Student Loan Debt.

The overseas voters will be very important for the Greens in this election, in the 2002 election The Greens scored 15% of the overseas vote, around double the domestic vote. With so many Kiwi’s living overseas the Greens have targeted Australia, London and America. Part of the Campaign plan to attract votes from ex-patriot Kiwis involves selecting candidates residing in target areas. Former Christchurch resident James Diack, who has lived in Sydney for seven years was confirmed as a candidate at the party’s annual conference in Christchurch on the 4th and 5th of June.

The Greens Office is looking for people who can help with the Campaign, please contact James by email at james@nsw.greens.org.au or by calling 9519 0877. The first steps in this campaign will be to encourage Kiwi Green supporters to get on the roll. Ex-patriots can check their enrolment and enrol on the NZ Electoral Enrolment Centre website: http://www.elections.org.nz/

GLOBAL REPORTING INITIATIVE EMPLOYS AUSTRALIAN TALENT TO EXTEND PUBLIC SECTOR REPORTING

The Global Reporting Initiative aims to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The Global Reporting Initiatives' international effort to provide a standardised way of reporting on sustainability, was recently expanded to include public sector reporting. As part of a collaboration between the GRI, ICLEI ANZ - Local Governments for Sustainability, the City of Melbourne and the State of Victoria.

Dr. Robyn Leeson, a former invaluable staff member I worked with at Melbourne City Council, will head the newly established "Centre for Public Agency Sustainability Reporting." Hosted by ICLEI in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, details of the work to be done by the new centre is detailed in the 21 March 2005 media release reproduced below. Robyn Leeson can be contacted at ICLEI ANZ on Tel: +613 9660 2249 and email robyn.leeson@iclei.org

You can download the 880Kb Sector Supplement for Public Agencies by visiting the GRI website at: http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/sectors/public.asp

Giant Step in Public Sector Transparency: GRI Releases Sector Supplement for Public Agencies.

21 March 2005. Melbourne, Australia. In recent years, sustainability reporting has been recognised as a key component of corporate transparency and accountability. There is now a parallel and growing interest in reporting as a tool to enhance transparency in the public sector. For example, public authorities at various levels in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong, and Japan have already initiated non-financial reporting of various types, including the release of sustainability reports.

Already established as the international reference point for sustainability reporting, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has now completed the development of a Sector Supplement for Public Agencies to enhance the ability of public agencies to apply the GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. The project was sponsored by the European Commission, along with help from the City of Melbourne, and the Australian Departments of Environment & Heritage and Family and Community Services.

GRI utilised its normal international, multi-stakeholder procedures for the development of the Supplement. A working group of 15 experts were convened from civil society, labour, foundations, research, municipalities, state level agencies, federal agencies, and regional agencies (European Commission).

"Recent interest from public agencies to use the Guidelines created a need for specialised guidance" said GRI Chief Executive Ernst Ligteringen. "The Supplement is a first step in harmonising reporting practices amongst public sector organisations, as well as between private sector reporting and public sector reporting activities."

The Supplement was launched at an event in Melbourne, Australia on Monday. Lord Mayor John So stated "The City of Melbourne is an innovator in sustainability reporting. We are pleased and excited to see this Supplement released, which will do much to promote excellence in sustainability reporting by public agencies."

Also on Monday, a collaboration was announced between GRI, ICLEI ANZ - Local Governments for Sustainability, the City of Melbourne, and the State of Victoria. The partners will establish "The Centre for Public Agency Sustainability Reporting" in Melbourne, hosted by ICLEI, which will house several projects focused on building capacity within the public sector for using the Supplement, potentially including a pilot or "Structured Feedback Process" for the Supplement which would contribute to its further evolution in the future.

"Organisations of all kinds, big and small, need to consider the social and environmental aspects of their activities as well as the economic. This applies to how government agencies conduct their operations just as it does to the mining companies, banks and telecommunications companies of the private sector" said Wayne Wescott, Chief Executive of ICLEI for Australia/New Zealand when asked about ICLEI’s leadership in promoting reporting in the sector.

GOVERNMENT ADMITS AUSTRALIAN LEFT TO LANGUISH IN US PRISON IN IRAQ

The following information was received from Greens Senator Kerry Nettle.

In question time today Greens Senator Kerry Nettle raised the plight of Australian and Adelaide resident Ahmed Aziz Rafiq who has been imprisoned without charge by US forces in Iraq for over a year.

Senator Nettle asked what the government was doing to arrange his release and why he has had no consular visits for 11 months only to be told by the Minster for Defence that "I'll have to seek further advice...when we all come back in August I'll able to provide the Senator with an answer."

"Mr Aziz is an Australian and has been detained by the US forces in Iraq without charge for 12 months but astonishingly the Minister appears to have only the sketchiest knowledge of his plight," Senator Nettle said.

"Once again it appears that the government is happy to leave this matter in the hands of the US military.

"In answer to previous questions the Minister has said that consular access is hampered by security problems when travelling in Iraq. Today I asked what our ADF security detachment is for if not escorting consular officials when travelling in Iraq.

"If the ADF cannot protect our consular officials on a trip to Camp Bucca to visit Mr Rafiq then why doesn't the government insist that the US forces facilitate such a visit.

"The Minister today could not recall whether Mr Rafiq had been visited recently which is symptomatic of a disregard this government has of the welfare of Australians who have the misfortune of being detained by the US military.

"While the Minister gives me an undertaking to find out the answer to my question by August Mr Rafiq will languish for another two months in Iraq imprisoned by our so called allies."

"Mr Rafiq should be charged or released so he can have a chance to return home to his family in Australia."

SENATE BACKS ACTU CAMPAIGN ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

The following media release was received from Greens Senator Kerry Nettle.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today welcomed the Senate's support for a motion backing the ACTU's campaign against the government's planned industrial relations changes.

"There is growing public recognition of the danger for workers and their families of the Howard government's plans", Senator Nettle said today.

"The coming month will see a range of actions initiated by unions including mass meetings, protests and industrial action to highlight the strength of community concern. The Senate in supporting this motion is reflecting that concern by expressing its support for the ACTU's campaign."

The following motion was passed by the Senate this afternoon:

Senators Nettle and Sherry: To move-That the Senate:
(a) notes the launch on Sunday, 19 June 2005 of the advertising campaign of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) highlighting the terrible impact of the Government's planned industrial relations changes on working people and their families;
(b) urges all Australians to support the ACTU's national week of union and community action from 27 June to 1 July 2005;
(c) commends the planned community action to be held across the country from 29 June to 1 July 2005;
(d) notes the growing community concern and anger about the proposed industrial relations changes which will remove many basic rights and conditions that workers have acquired in the past 100 years; and
(e) calls on the Government to withdraw its proposals and commit to a fair and cooperative approach to industrial relations.

ABC FUNDING CONTINUES ITS FREEFALL UNDER THE CONSERVATIVES

With newspaper reports having recently claimed Channel 10 is paying between $250,000 and $400,000 for an interview with the recently released Iraqi hostage, Mr. Douglas Woods, as A Friend of the ABC my mind turned to two issue raised in the Winter edition of the Victorian Friends of the ABC newsletter 'News and Views'.

The first issue under the heading of 'Independence, not balance, is under threat' related to the recent findings of the Australian Broadcasting Authority concerning a complaint of bias against the ABC lodged by the then Senator Alston in May 2003, acting on public complaints received about the ABC 'AM' program. According to 'News and Views' "A Freedom of Information request revealed that Senator Alston had received only one complaint about AM, a letter from the Federal Director of the Liberal Party.

Finding that AM's coverage of the war in Iraq was balanced, the Australian Broadcasting Authority stated, "The Panel finds no evidence, overall, of biased and anti-Coalition coverage as alleged by the Minister. Nor does [the panel] uphold [Senator Alston's] view that the program was characterised by one-sided and tendentious commentary by program presenters and reporters: the analysis and interpretive reporting, the program's raison d'etre, which allowed the listener to grasp what has happening on the battlefields."

The second article in news and Views titled 'Starvation of ABC continues' posits that "The May 2005 Budget provides no indication the Government has changed its attitude towards independent public broadcasting. The article states, "Figures available after last year's Budget revealed that since 1985-86 (the high point of ABC funding), the ABC's operational funding had declined by almost 30% in real terms. Compared to 996, when the Howard Coalition Government came to office, the level of funds available for programme making was down around $35m per annum."

Government fixes, collects and holds taxation revenue on trust for the public good. This government has refined the art form of punishing its critics and rewarding supplicants.

A functional, independent media is an essential part of a healthy democracy. With the continued political and financial attacks by the Government on the ABC, Australia is going to need a strong willed public to demand the independence of its own ABC.

GREENS, ALP AND DEMOCRACTS JOIN TO ESTABLISH IMMIGRATION DETENTION INQUIRY

Greens, Australian Labor Party and Democrats Senators voted today to join to establish Senate inquiry in immigration detention The following information disserved from a media release from Greens Senator Nettle's office on 21 June 2005.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle, today co-sponsored a motion to establish a Senate inquiry into the government's immigration detention regime.

"This Senate inquiry is an important opportunity for Australians to get to the bottom of the immigration detention regime scandal given that the government continues to refuse to set up a royal commission," Senator Nettle said.

"The minister has refused to guarantee that the full contents of the Palmer inquiry will be made public, and the public has been excluded from Mr Palmers investigations.

"This Senate inquiry will have the power to protect witnesses where necessary and make both its recommendations and deliberations public.

The Greens first moved to have the immigration detention regime investigated by the Senate in May this year."

MOTION & TERMS OF REFERENCE
Senators Ludwig, Bartlett and Nettle: To move-That the following matters be referred to the Legal and Constitutional References Committee for inquiry and report by 8 November 2005:
(a) the administration and operation of the Migration Act 1958, its regulations and guidelines by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, with particular reference to the processing and assessment of visa applications, migration detention and the deportation of people from Australia;
(b) the activities and involvement of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and any other government agencies in processes surrounding the deportation of people from Australia;
(c) the adequacy of healthcare, including mental healthcare, and other services and assistance provided to people in immigration detention;
(d) the outsourcing of management and service provision at immigration detention centres; and
(e) any related matters.

JUSTICE FOR REFUGEES RALLY

On the eve of World Refugee Day why not join in the 'Justice for Refugees Rally' at midday Sunday 19 June 2005.Melbourne Museum, Carlton Gardens, near the corner of Nicholson & Gertrude Streets. Bring kites and balloons! Music will be provided by Rene & Etienne, and 'Welcome to Country' from Annette Xiberras. Other speakers will include Aladdin Sisalem (who was detained on his own on Manus Island for 9 months); Pamela Curr, from the Asylum Seeker Resource Centre, Ingrid Stitt, the State Secretary of the Australian Services Union, Yarra Councilor Steve Jolly, and Nagamuthu Ramalingam Wickiramasingham (Wicki) from the Victorian Tamil Cultural Association.

The rally will then move onto join Multicultural Arts Victoria's Refugee & Asylum Seeker Festival at Fitzroy Town Hall. All welcome. Passports not required!

 

MINISTERIAL RIGHTS REMAIN SUPREME OVER HUMAN RIGHTS

The following press release was issued by Green Senator Bob Brown on 17 June 2005.

Greens will amend bill in Senate to insert Petro Georgio terms

The rights of the Minister for Immigration to deny children and families release from detention centres remains under tonight's compromise deal by the Howard Government, Greens Senator Bob Brown said.

"And the right to hold asylum seekers for years also remains, despite a 2 year review by the Ombudsman," Senator Brown said.

"Despite the 3 month timeline for the department and then the Refuge Tribunal there is no right of release once that timeline is passed - simply a report to parliament but with parliament not empowered to act on it.

"The Greens will move to amend the Government's legislation so that it matches the original Petro Georgio terms.

"While the Liberal moderates have forced some minor changes the structure of the Howard Government's inhumane system stands," Senator Brown said.

3CR RADIOTHON - SUPPORT THIS ESSENTIAL SERVICE HOWEVER YOU CAN!

3CR is Melbourne's most progressive community radio station. It is a working class radio station that has been broadcasting for about 28 years. It is run and operated by the community. It retains its independence by not accepting advertising, sponsorship or government money. The Radiothon, running from 3 June to 19 June is an essential part of keeping alive one of Melbourne's essential services - freedom of speech and the guts to sat things how they are. Please call 03 9419 8377 if you are able to donate any amount whatsoever. You can either ring 3CR Radio on 03 9419 8377, call in at 21 Smith Street Fitzroy or send a cheque to 3CR Radio, PO Box 1277, Collingwood Vic 3066 Australia.

SENATE VOTES UP CHEN INQUIRY

The following press release was issued by Green Senator Bob Brown.

Senate votes up Chen inquiry

The Senate has voted 35 to 29 to set up an inquiry into the government’s mishandling of the defection of Chinese diplomat Chen Yonglin.  The Greens proposed the inquiry last week.  The Government voted against the inquiry.
 
This morning the Senate backed the following proposal after it was jointly moved by Senators Brown, Ludwig(Labor) and Stott-Despoja (Democrats):
 
That the following matters be referred to the Foreign Affairs and Trade References Committee for Inquiry and report by 9 August 2005:
• the responses of DIMIA, DFAT, AGD and their respective Ministers to Mr Chen Yonglin’s approaches or requests to the Australian Government for asylum and/or a protection visa
• the application of the Migration Act 1958, its regulations and guidelines concerning the maintenance of confidentiality for any consular officials or staff (including Mr Chen Yonglin, and any other former consular officials or staff) who were applicants for territorial asylum and/or protection visas by Department of Immigration Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and their respective Minister
• the involvement of DFAT and the Minister in the deportation, search and discovery of Vivian Solon, and:
• any related matters

"Serious questions have arisen including those about information passed to the Chinese authorities by the Australian government after Mr Chen’s defection.  This inquiry will enable those questions to be answered,” Senator Brown said.

ENVIRONMENT GROUPS FUNDING CUT BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The following press release was issued by the Australian Conservation Foundation. I am an ACF Councillor, but was not involved in the production or issue of this press release.

Environment groups cut by $250,000, most state conservation councils zeroed out

Major federal government funding cuts to environment groups, including the total defunding of the conservation councils of the ACT, Qld, NSW, WA, and NT, have placed jobs and important conservation programs at risk, ACF said today.

Environment Minister Senator Ian Campbell announced the quarter of a million dollar cutbacks to the FY04/05 Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO) yesterday afternoon, 12 working days before the end of this financial year.

In 2003/04 funding allocated under the GVEHO scheme was close to $1 million, while the 04/05 allocation is $750,000. The conservation councils of the ACT, Queensland, NSW, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory have had their funding cut by up to $80,000 to zero with just 12 working days left to deal with what are now major holes in their 04/05 budgets. Most will suffer financial hardship as a result of cuts in their annual funding.

ACF Executive Director Don Henry said the quarter of a million cut in funding and the zeroing out of many conservation councils was a very distressing departure from a 30 year bipartisan tradition of support for the work of conservation groups, and in particular the state conservation councils who service thousands of environment groups around Australia.

"The support this government enjoys for its efforts to protect the Great Barrier Reef and whales is built on the years of public education and advocacy of these conservation groups, and to slash their funding 12 working days before the end of the financial year is short sighted and very damaging to them," Mr Henry said.

"The state conservation councils provide support to a wide range of environment organisations - from landcare groups to those working for cleaner cities - and have received important funding from this program over decades of bipartisan support.

"Support for environment volunteers, our nation's unsung heroes, has been greatly diminished by this decision."

GREENS EXPRESS CONCERN OVER OTHER CHINESE ASYLUM CASES

The following press release was issued by Peter Job, Victorian Greens refugees spokesperson.

Mr. Peter Job, Victorian Greens spokesperson for refugees, today expressed his concern about the cases of the Chinese asylum seekers Professor Yuan Hongbing and his assistant Zhao Jing, and the length of time the department of immigration was taking in assessing their cases.

“It has been almost a year since Professor Yuan and Ms. Zhao sought protection,” Mr. Job said, “Professor Yuan lodged his application in July 2004 and was interviewed by a department delegate on September 3. To date he has heard nothing. This is an extraordinary amount of time for an initial protection decision to take.

“Ms. Zhao had her case accepted by the Refugee Review Tribunal in December last year, but is still to be granted to a protection visa. Once again, this amount of time is unusual.

“In the light of other recent Chinese cases we are entitled to ask whether the department is deliberately making it difficult for Chinese dissidents to seek protection in Australia.”

Mr. Job explained that Professor Yuan is a writer and a former Professor of Law at Beijing University who was imprisoned for six months in 1994 for his work in support of the Chinese democracy movement. Upon his release he was exiled to distant Guizhou Province. He was forbidden to return to Beijing, his books were banned and manuscripts destroyed. Despite threats from Chinese authorities Professor Yuan continued to write.

He left China on a tour group to Australia when he learned from a government source that authorities were aware of his writing and had issued an order to begin collect evidence against him for arrest. Ms. Zhao, his supporter and assistant, also sought protection at this time, Mr. Job explained.

“It would be difficult to imagine clearer cases for protection,” Mr. Job said.

Mr. Job noted that the Chinese foreign ministry had openly pressured the Australian government over the cases, distributing a press release in August 2004 calling for Professor Yuan to be treated as an illegal immigrant.

“We can only hope that such pressure has not played a part in the length of time these cases have taken,” Mr. Job said.

“I am also concerned that delays are often caused by security checks. If security checks are being sought from the People’s Republic of China, the nation that is persecuting the applicants, it would in itself be a grave cause for concern,” Mr. Job said.

“The department of immigration should bring down a decision on Professor Yuan’s case immediately,” Mr. Job said. “Ms. Zhao, whose case has already been accepted by the Refugee Tribunal, should be granted protection without further delay. The Department of Immigration should also explain to the applicants and to the Australian people why these cases have taken this length of time.

“Professor Yuan and Ms. Zhao have fought for democracy and human rights in their own country. If Australia is a country that does value freedom and human rights we should welcome their applications for protection,” Mr. Job said.

For interviews or further information contact Peter Job mobile: 0423 515 603, email: refugees@vic.greens.org.au

SENATE INQUIRY NEEDED INTO GOVERNMENT INACTION ON CHINESE ASYLUM SEEKERS

Prime Minister John Howard's claim that the Australian Government will not be influenced by its trade decisions with China when considering Chinese diplomat's Chen Yonglin claim for asylum begs the question, "What is it that is atrophying government action?

In my view, the Prime Minister's claim is unbelievable. Our government's appaulling record of putting parochial interests ahead of Australia's human rights obligations suggests this recent failure is part of a pattern, rather than an aberration.

Speaking at a rally in the Melbourne City Square on Saturday 11 June 2005 I called on the Australian Parliament to investigate the failure of government action in relation to Chen Yonglin and Hau Fenjung, most properly through an all party Senate inquiry.

BEING AUSTRALIAN?

An interesting new website has landed in the ethernet that deals with a question many of us have been thinking about for some time: What is 'Being Australian'?

Being Australian describes itself as "an online record of the Australian experience.This is where you get to journal things that remind you of being Australian so that other Australians of today and tomorrow can experience life from your perspective. Our mission is to bring Australians closer together through humour and contemplation about life in Australia. Being Australian is about you -- your real-life anecdotes about things you see and do that remind you of being Australian.

CHEN YONGLIN - A CHINESE NATIONAL SEEKING ASYLUM IN AUSTRALIA

Chen letter to Government

Greens Senator Bob Brown has released the full text of the letter handed to the Howard Government two weeks ago by Chinese diplomat and defector Chen Yonglin. Mr Chen has agreed to the release. Senator Bob Brown says the letter reveals a man tormented and having nightmares about his spying on religious and political groups including people he refers to as ‘vulnerable’ and ‘innocent’.

Click here to see a full copy of Mr Chen's letter (120 kb pdf download)
 
He says he would rather die than return to a job in China which would involve repressing Falun Gong religious adherents. He describes Australia as a ‘second home’ and seeks asylum for himself, his wife and 6 year old daughter.
 
“Here is a story of unfolding awareness of his Beijing bosses’ ruthless and unforgivable repression of Chinese dissenters. It is a remarkable document of human decency transcending political evil,” Senator Brown said.
 
“Mr Chen has made it clear to me that he loves China, his homeland, but deplores the Beijing authorities.
 
“He deserves a much better hearing in Australia from our own government, which, so far, has given him nothing at all. Mr Downer’s criticism that Mr Chen’s letter seeking asylum was not addressed to him is specious.
 
“It was an appeal to the Australian Government and Mr Downer is the responsible minister. One gets the feeling that had the letter begun ‘oh, great and honourable minister Downer’ it would have been rejected because it was not in capitals.
 
“The Government’s own guidelines require the Department of Immigration to direct approaches for political asylum to Foreign Affairs,” Senator Brown said.

ONE OF THESE ENVIRONMENT GROUPS MAY NOT BE LIKE THE OTHERS

Melbourne Age Environment Reporter Melissa Fyfe has made an interesting claim that Australia's newest environment group, the Australian Environment Foundation, has its registered place of business as the right wing think tank known as the Institute of Public Affairs. The group was launched on World Environment Day, June 5.

It is possible that the title 'Australian Environment Foundation' was chosen for its similarity to the long standing and highly reputable Australian Conservation Foundation.'

The Age reports the new group's leader, Dr. Marohasy as saying the group 'was born out of frustration with the current direction of environment groups and that it received no funding from the IPA.

In my opinion, the IPA has been no friend of the environment. While they may wish to package their policies in a way that appears less aggressive towards progressive politics, the disposition of many its pronouncements have, in my view, sustained a lack of understanding of environmental issues and their social consequences.

If Melissa Fyfe's claims are true, it is a surprise to me that the IPA would be the natural nest of an environment group wanting to seriously advance the interests of environmental sustainability. I recall many years ago in a televised debate involving David Suzuki and Des Moore of the IPA, David Suzuki pointing out that their can be no economy without an environment, with Mr. Moore taking an opposing view.

I am a Councillor of the Australian Conservation Foundation. The Australian Conservation Foundation is reported by The Age as having taken action against the Australian Environment Foundation, requesting the new body to stop using the title "Australian Environment Foundation' on the basis that it is 'deceptively similar' to the ACF's own name.

ENVIRONMENT GROUPS JOIN TOGETHER ON WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

A large number of environment groups joined together today to release statement reflecting on our environment. I have taken a copy of the Statement from the Australian Conservation Foundation website and reproduced it below. The groups involved are listed as the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Conservation Western Australia, Conservation South Australia, Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra, Environment Victoria, Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, Queensland Conservation Council, Cairns & Far North Environment Centre, Environment Tasmania, Environs Kimberley, Climate Action Network Australia, National Toxics Network, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, The Wilderness Society and The Australian Conservation Foundation.

This World Environment Day, environment groups Australia-wide have released a statement to draw attention to our proud record of achievements and our commitment to the future.

It has been a mixed year for the environment, according to the 17 state and national environment groups listed below.

"On one hand the impacts of global warming are gathering pace and the hard-won victories of whale protection are under attack" said Danny Kennedy, Greenpeace Campaigns Manager. "The increased talk of uranium mining and nuclear waste dumps in regional Australia also emerged this year as major challenges for the future" said Toby Hutcheon, Queensland Conservation Council Coordinator.

"On the upside there has also been some very limited progress on protecting our priceless forests in Tasmania" said Andrew Ricketts of Environment Tasmania. "The 2004 Federal election showed historic levels of public concern and support for the environment, and even those governments with a poor track record have been forced to deliver some improvements" noted The Wilderness Society's National Campaigns Director Alec Marr.

For Australian environmental organisations the year has also brought challenges and achievements. "The Federal Government's eleventh hour changes to the criteria for the Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO) threaten state conservation groups and their ability to speak out about environmental laws and policy" said Cate Faehrmann, Director of the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

"Combined with a new round of Commonwealth scrutiny of charitable status, and legal action by corporations against environmental campaigners, many would expect the mood in the environment movement to be downbeat" said Cam Walker of Friends of the Earth. "But these challenges are bringing out the best in environment groups and our supporters"

"The World Environment Day statement reflects the environment movement's optimistic and energised response to the challenges of the coming year" said John Connor, Australian Conservation Foundation Campaigns Director. "With the support of the millions of Australians who care about the environment, we will continue to work for the future of the planet."

World Environment Day Statement: June 5, 2005

Today is World Environment Day, a day to celebrate our environment and the people around the world who care for it.

Many of the great natural and cultural treasures that we enjoy today would not exist without the dedication of ordinary people who have joined together to achieve extraordinary things. Environment groups, large and small, have been central to these victories.

Whether we are working to save our local area or fighting for global change, we have in common a passion for the future. With that passion in mind we seek to present solutions.

We are united as the voice of the millions of Australians who care about the future of the planet and its people. We speak for those that cannot speak - the oceans and atmosphere, for the land, plants and animals, and for future generations. We will not be silenced.

Environment groups take pride in our record of bringing environmental truths to light. Where unjust and short-sighted laws block the way, we stand up to decision-makers. Those in power have shown they must regularly be reminded that a healthy environment is essential to a healthy economy and society.

The environment still faces new threats, some that could undo what we have already achieved. Especially climate change, which will affect almost every aspect of our natural environment and economy.

This World Environment Day, more than ever, the earth needs a voice and environment groups need your support.

Please write to the Prime Minister reminding him that Australians value our environment and the organisations that speak up for it, become a member of an environment group today, or donate to your favourite environment group (www.earthshare.org.au).

Nature Conservation Council of NSW, Conservation Western Australia, Conservation South Australia, Conservation Council of the South East Region and Canberra, Environment Victoria, Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, Queensland Conservation Council, Cairns & Far North Environment Centre, Environment Tasmania, Environs Kimberley, Climate Action Network Australia, National Toxics Network, Australian Marine Conservation Society, Friends of the Earth Australia, Greenpeace Australia Pacific, The Wilderness Society and The Australian Conservation Foundation.

GREEN GARAGE SALES TOMORROW 5 JUNE 2005 FOR WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

One of the tenets of environmental sustainability is 'reducing, reusing and recycling'. One of the aims of the Green Garage Sales held across Victoria is to encourage people all over Victoria to hold garage sales that allow all those useful but unused items in your house or garage to be sold or exchanged with someone who will use them.

Details of two Green Garage Sales on 5 June 2005 that I am aware of are:

• Whitehorse Branch: 40 William St., Box Hill, from 9am to 1pm Sunday 5th June
• Lilydale Greens: 8 Seamer Rd Monbulk from 8am – 2pm Sunday 5th June.

 

REFLECTIONS AHEAD OF WORLD ENVIRONMENT DAY

If There Must Be War, There Must Be Environmental Law by Klaus Toepfer

War must and should always be a last resort, and if armed conflict occurs, warring factions have a duty to minimize the casualties and the suffering of those caught in the crossfire.

Another duty must also be considered, namely to minimize the damage and pollution to air, water and soil supplies.

A post-conflict society will struggle even harder to recover its dignity, its health and its future if the very life support systems upon which people rely have been partially or wholly destroyed. The environment has, since the dawn of time, been one of the casualties of war.

In the fifth century BC, the retreating Scythians scorched the earth and polluted drinking water supplies, to slow the advancing Persians.

At the end of the final Punic war, in the second century BC, the conquering Romans, salted the soils around Carthage to make them infertile and the area uninhabitable. A damaged and degraded land was seen as way to permanently end the Phoenicians' might.

During the Vietnam War of the 1970s, the United States used defoliants to expose enemy positions in heavily forested areas.

Tests were also carried out on rain seeding in an attempt to trigger downpours to impede and bog down enemy movements on the Ho Chi Min Trail.

More recently, during the first Gulf War of the early 1990s, Iraqi troops deliberately sabotaged oil installations with smoke, turning day into night, and oil spills severely polluting the desert and the waters of the Gulf.

The environment is what you might also call an innocent bystander damaged not deliberately but as a result of a hit on a target such as a chemical plant or hydroelectric dam.

The environment can also be a casualty as a result of a military machine deliberately overexploiting natural resources. During World War I, Turkey severely depleted the forests in the Lebanon for fuel for its railways.

More recently, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Rwanda and the Sudan, rhinos, gorillas and other wildlife have been killed to raise money for armies.

While humankind's ability to wage war continues apace with new and even more potentially devastating weapons, international rules and laws designed to minimize the impact on the Earth's life support systems have lagged far behind.

We have the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 that do have environmental implications. However, their primary aims are the protection of civilians, prisoners of war, the sick and wounded, and cultural objects such as internationally important monuments.

There have also been a myriad of treaties attempting to outlaw specific targets such as dams, or military acts such as torching crops that are seen by many as targeting and attempting to demoralize the civilian population rather than an enemy army.

There are also treaties that attempt to regulate specific weapons that may have environmental implications. One thinks of the Chemicals Weapon Convention of 1997 and ones covering nuclear weapons and landmines.

This does not mean that there have not been attempts to specifically address the environmental aspects of war.

One, article 35 of what is known as the Geneva Protocol I, prohibits combatants from " methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long term and severe damage to the natural environment."

The other, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, aims to tackle new technologies that might, for example, alter weather systems as a way of waging war.

But most legal experts have concluded that these and others fall far short of what is ideal and what is needed.

In a new report, commissioned by the German Environment Ministry, Daniel Bodansky of the School of Law, University of Georgia, argues that the requirement of proving "widespread, long term and severe damage" renders the Geneva Protocol I ineffective in respect of environmental protection.

The environmental damage caused by the Iraqi forces in 1991 that resulted in nearly 700 oil fires and oil spills 40 times greater than the Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska, is a case in point.

The Protocol also appears silent on the issue of long term risk, of the so-called precautionary approach which guides many of our modern environmental treaties covering everything from the the ozone layer to climate change.

It is possible that, 20 or so years down the road, some of the pollution arising from recent theaters of war may prove to be a long term environmental and public health hazard. But the Protocol only applies to expected damages rather than possible ones.

Civilian casualties, the displaced and the dispossessed, will be and should be the focus of our attention during and immediately after hostilities cease. But the environment, which has a key role in ensuring the stability of a country and its citizens, cannot be ignored.

The world is slowly waking up to the powerful links between a healthy environment and national and regional stability, or to use the buzz phrase "environment security." And there there are many ways in which the world can improve the security of natural resources and nature's life support systems during conflict. Some are legal, others are codes of conduct or improved guidelines for military commanders on what constitute legitimate targets.

Should striking an oil tanker sailing near a coral reef be deemed unacceptable or a legitimate act of war? Does the crippling of an enemy's oil supplies justify the killing of an ecosystem upon which hundreds, maybe thousands, of the poor rely for food in the form of fish?

These are the kinds of issues that the world needs to grapple with. International law is in its infancy, war is not. It is time that international law, or at the very least the rules of engagement, achieved some kind of maturity, if not full adulthood.

The original Geneva Conventions have demonstrated that the world can take humanitarian steps designed to minimize suffering, and many countries adhere to these principles.

The United Nations, since the war in the Balkans, has been increasingly linking environmental assessments and clean up with the humanitarian effort, which gives some indication of the importance of the issue.

CARRUTHERS GROUP OF ALPINE ECOLOGICAL AND SCIENTISTS STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO SEEK CULTURAL HERITAGE LISTING FOR THE VICTORIAN ALPINE NATIONAL PARK.

___________________________________________________

A STATEMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO SEEK CULTURAL HERITAGE LISTING FOR THE VICTORIAN ALPINE NATIONAL PARK

The Carruthers Group of alpine ecologists and scientists has for many years given support to the removal of domestic stock grazing from the Australian Alps National Parks in New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and Victoria. The Group applauds the Victorian Government for making the decision not to renew grazing leases in the Victorian Alpine National Park.

The removal of grazing from the scientifically significant high mountain ecosystems, sensitive vegetation and groundwater communities is a major step forward in the protection and conservation of these communities and the unique flora and fauna that they support.  The end of grazing is also a significant step for catchment management, particularly as the Alps are the headwaters of several major rivers of the Murray-Darling system – the most important river system in southeastern Australia. 

The scientific evidence in support of the removal of grazing has been acknowledged for over 50 years. While this contributed to the removal of grazing from Kosciuszko National Park in NSW and Namadgi National Park in the ACT, many years ago, the Carruthers Group also recognises that many external factors and issues have delayed the decision to remove grazing from the Victorian Alpine National Park.  A major issue has been the perceived strong link between high mountain grazing and the deeply entrenched folklore created by A.B ‘Banjo’ Paterson in his poem The Man from Snowy River. 

This link has contributed to what is now recognised by many people, as the Australian ‘character and ethos’ which should be recognised and retained as part of our cultural heritage but not at the expense of our world-renowned high mountain natural heritage. This natural heritage lies in the diversity and cover of soils, the geology, the botanically significant and diverse flora, the scientifically important fauna,  and the complex ecosystems of which these are a part. The ecosystems are very sensitive to external influences of which grazing has been a major impact over the past 150 years. The ecosystems will only survive and remain fully functional if they are managed for their intrinsic values and not for the external factors that have or would continue to utilise the very biota that management aims to conserve and protect in the Australian Alps parks.

Cattle grazing in the high mountains is a part of European cultural heritage but, in the same way as the man from Snowy River himself is immortalised in poetry and folklore, so has and will the cultural heritage of alpine grazing continue to be recognised.  The many huts built and utilised by the cattlemen and the many grazier family names which are now a feature of the Alps, have also immortalised the high mountain grazing heritage and ensured it will continue to be recognised as part of the heritage of the Alps.

The family linkages to high mountain grazing will also not be lost, as a ‘living museum’ of this grazing tradition will continue in the high mountains in Victoria in areas other than the  Alpine National Park. The European cultural heritage attached to high mountain grazing will, as such still be preserved and recognised, but without impact on the high mountain ecosystems and catchments within the Alpine National Park. The Carruthers Group supports a cultural heritage listing for the Australian Alps as part of a comprehensive listing of all natural and other values of the mountains. That listing should be a celebration of the rich history of the grazing tradition but more significantly, an acknowledgement that the mountain environment can no longer sustain the impact of that activity.

The end of grazing will also provide a real opportunity for all the parks of the Alps to be managed as one biophysical unit; an objective of the interstate co-operative management program, as detailed in the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperative Management of the Alps Parks, signed by State and Commonwealth Ministers for the Environment in 1986.

It will also provide an opportunity and stimulus to pursue appropriate national and international natural heritage recognition and listing for the Australian Alps Parks, which to date has not been possible while grazing continued within them.     

________________________________________________________________________

Dr Alec Costin, - Senior Principal Research Scientist, CSIRO  (retired)

Prof . Frank Fenner – Past Director, John Curtin School of Medical Research, Australian National University.  (retired)

Dane Wimbush – Senior Research Officer, (Alpine Ecology)  CSIRO –(retired)

Roger Good – Senior Project Manager, Mountain Catchments and Alpine Ecologist (NSW NPWS) – (retired). Ecological rehabilitation specialist

Prof. Ralph Slatyer – Former Director Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University

Prof. Jamie Kirkpatrick – Environmental Sciences (Alpine Ecologist), University of Tasmania

Prof. Geoff Hope  - Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University

Dr Geoff Mosley – Environmental Consultant, . Past Director of Australian Conservation Foundation.

Graeme Worboys - Vice Chair (Mountains Biome Theme) International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Commission on Protected Areas.

Dr Jennie Whinam – Botanist, World Heritage Area, Tasmania and President International Mire Society

Andy Spate – Karst Systems and Soils Research  Scientist  (NSW NPWS) – (retired), Environmental Consultant – research and ecological rehabilitation

Dr Catherine Pickering – Senior Lecturer, (Ecologist) Environmental Sciences, Griffith University

Dr John Harris – Senior Lecturer, (Ecology), Canberra University  - (retired)

Prof Ralf Buckley –Director of International Centre for Ecotourism Research, Griffith University

Attachments.

1.   Background to The Carruthers Group of Ecologists and Scientists.

The Carruthers Group is a network of professional associates who have had a long-term involvement or interest in alpine ecology  and  research  in the Australian Alps. The  network has existed for several decades, formerly being known as the Kosciuszko Committee of Interested Scientists. As the Group now takes a more holistic view of research and  management across the entire Australian Alps bioregion, it has changed its network name to The Carruthers Group.

This iconic name  was chosen as Mt Carruthers in Kosciuszko National Park  was the most severely eroded site as a result of  domestic stock grazing in the Snowy Mountains.

2.    Photographs of erosion and vegetation damage on Mt Carruthers as a result of grazing (a) [Photo not available due to technical difficulties: David Risstrom] and the recovery of the vegetation after extensive and costly rehabilitation and restoration works (b) [Photo not available due to technical difficulties: David Risstrom]

GREENSFORUM TOMORROW - PROF. MARCIA NEAVE ON LAW REFORM

Professor Marcia Neave of the Victorian Law Reform Commission will be talking on major issues in law reform at the next Greensforum. Come along to CII Restaurant, 470 Little Lonsdale Street Melbourne, between King and Williams St. in the city. There is no admission charge and all are welcome.

PLANS TO INCREASE URANIUM EXPORTS CONDEMNED AS 'ANTI-ENVIRONMENT, ANTI-PEACE, PRO GREED'

Plans to increase uranium exports condemned as 'anti-environment, anti-peace, pro-greed'

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle today condemned government plans to massively expand the export of uranium as "anti-environment, anti-peace, and pro-greed."

"The Minister for Resources has said the government wants to export 'as much uranium as we possibly can', despite the environmental and nuclear proliferation dangers it poses," Senator Nettle said.

"To facilitate the expansion of the most dangerous industry on the planet is irresponsible, putting dollars before sense.

"Expanding uranium mining and export is will clearly contribute to expansion of the nuclear industry and in some cases nuclear weapons.

"The government has admitted that it is seeking a treaty to allow uranium exports to China, one of the world nuclear superpowers, but the government will not be able to ensure that Australian uranium will not end up in Chinese nuclear weapons.

"The expansion of the nuclear energy industry will act as a disincentive for government to invest in renewable energy whilst simultaneously increasing the level of radioactive waste in the world. It's an environmentally disastrous decision.

"Australia's plan represents another backward step for non-proliferation at a time when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty talks in New York have failed and the nuclear weaponry industry is poised for further expansion.

"Australia is home to over a third of the worlds know uranium deposits. As a result we have a unique capacity to limit the expansion of the nuclear industry for the good of the planet. This is a responsibility the government is too greedy to accept."

UNFAIR ISN'T OK - LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Unfair Isn't OK

DUCK HUNT CHALLENGED

My partner and I took part in the weekend's Duck Rescue at the Dowdles swampland near Yarrawonga. This weekend Duck Rescue was in response to the Field and Game Association's annual 'Duck Hunt Challenge' competition. They must have been disappointed as I understand the organisers' hopes for a turn-up of around 400 was rewarded with about 95 shooters accompanied by 45 rescuers their to greet them. Rosa sends her apologies for not being able to attend.

Finding first hand what it is to walk through ice cold swamps and to see people shoot ducks and other defenceless water birds for 'sport', the weekend was worthwhile, rather than enjoyable. With the air temperature at around 1 or 2 degrees and the water about the same, Carolynne had the fortune to bring in an injured duck who was cared for by the experienced helpers

Media coverage for the Duck Hunt Challenge rescue was very successful with local Prime TV running the story, local and Melbourne radio (ABC & 3AW), the Wangaratta Chronicle and the Herald Sun.

The organisers have passed on their thanks to the two dedicated wildlife groups for being there to help the wounded. Two grey teal were slightly injured and are being cared for at a nearby wildlife shelter and will be released back to Dowdles when the season ends. Four dead grey teal were brought in, one had been plucked and left, probably because it was too small to eat. I found one of two galahs, but only one had evidence of a shotgun wound.

Victoria remains an Australia stand out in allowing the disgusting sport of shooting defenceless birds. Our wetlands and the species they support are under enough threat without people shooting what few birds are drawn to them in these periods of drought. For more information on what you do about duck shooting, please visit the website of the Coalition Against Duck Shooting. I have taken information from this website in May 2005 detailing advances across Australia made to protect ducks. As can be seen from the information, he Victorian parliament has been slow to act.

Thank you to all those good hearted people whose fortune extends to having empathy for beings other than themselves and their family. You are a great gift to the world.

David Risstrom

Information from the Coalition Against Duck Shooting website on progress made in ending duck shooting.

Western Australia

The Western Australian Government banned recreational duck shooting in 1990. The then Premier, Dr Carmen Lawrence, in a media release stated: "Our community has reached a stage of enlightenment where it can no longer accept the institutionalised killing of native birds for recreation."

New South Wales

In November 1995, the NSW Government banned recreational duck shooting. Legislation successfully passed through both houses of the NSW parliament.

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service cracks down on shooters on rice fields in that state. Scientists have commenced a scientific study on rice fields. It is now thought that instead of waterbirds damaging crops, they may in fact be helping rice farmers by keeping the real pests down, such as blood worms, snails and other invertebrates.

South Australia

South Australia banned lead shot in 1994. Shooter numbers in that state have decreased to about 2,000.

Victoria

In Victoria, duck shooter numbers have drastically decreased from 95,000 in 1986 to about 20,000 on the Department of Natural Resources database. However, over the last few years, the numbers of duck shooters on the state's wetlands dropped to less than 5,000. In 2001, only about 3,000 duck shooters were active.

The huge decrease is largely due to changing public opinion. The public today sees the shooting of native waterbirds as an outdated, anti-social activity that is no longer acceptable in our society.

The Victorian Labor Party has a policy to ban recreational duck shooting.

In a media-based campaign, public opinion has been the main catalyst in reducing the numbers of duck shooters. The decrease in numbers has also been due to the introduction of a Waterfowl Identification Test for shooters in 1990. Changes to Australia's Gun laws have further reduced the numbers of duck shooters. In 1997, following the tragedy at Port Arthur in Tasmania (where 35 people were shot and killed by a lone gunman), Prime Minister John Howard and state premiers banned semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns: This and the 2002 ban on lead shot have greatly impacted on the remaining few duck shooters.

AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE PAPER RELEASED: VICTORIA'S GREENHOUSE POLICY: THE MOMENT OF TRUTH

The Australia Institute posted a new webpaper to its website, www.tai.org.au,  titled Victoria's Greenhouse Policy: The moment of truth. The paper is available online or as a downloadable pdf under the 'What's New' tab

The paper discusses the mooted plan of the Victorian Government to extend to 2031 the operating life of the 40-year old Hazelwood Power Station, the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia. A four paragraph summary is provided below. 

1. The Victorian Government is considering extending the operating life of the 40-year old Hazelwood Power Station to 2031. The power station is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in Australia, and its brown coal allocations would run out in 2009.
2. About 340 million tonnes of CO2 would be emitted from Hazelwood during the period of extended operation – far more than will be saved by national efforts to increase the energy efficiency of household appliances and industrial equipment.
3. The electricity that Hazelwood would produce could be generated with far lower emissions. The alternatives, mainly involving fossil fuels, could be somewhat more expensive, but the costs per tonne CO2 avoided would be modest, and could be distributed equitably within and beyond Victoria.
4. The Victorian Government claims to be committed to reducing emissions, and already imposes mandatory solar water heating requirements, which save far less emissions at far higher cost than any of the alternatives to Hazelwood. The true test of its greenhouse commitment is whether it acts to prevent the extension of Hazelwood’s operation.

LET THEM EAT CAKE - LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Let Them Eat Cake

Can you imagine your family sharing a cake and the hungriest among you being given a piece 10 times smaller than the others?

That is what the budget is proposing.  Richer people will receive tax cuts of over $60 a week, poorer $6.  It’s hard to imagine treating members of our family in the way we allow our politicians to treat our less fortunate folk.

In the coming weeks, as politicians wrangle over the budget in Parliament and ordinary Australians argue in the tearoom about what it means to them, we will be standing around the cake.  

What we really want is not to be divided into those deserving icing or crumbs.

Australia is a lucky country and its people fair.  By ticking off a budget that gives the rich more money and the poor more blame, many of our political and opinion leaders seem to have given up on a fairer Australia.The political game of ‘divide and conquer’ is unwelcome.  Ordinary good-hearted Australians know better. 

Wouldn't it be better if we treated our fellow Australians with the fairness we want for our own family?

David Risstrom, Greens Senate Candidate

FOREST TORTURE

Prime Minister Howard's promise to protect Tasmania's old growth forests has turned out to be two parts poison to one part champagne, Greens Senator Bob Brown said today."In the election campaign, he said: 'I would like to see, I think most Australians would like to see, an end to the logging of old growth forests' but today he backs old growth destruction to beyond 2010.

There is only 58,000 hectares of real forest protection - the remaining 94,000 hectares is largely unloggable, or the inevitable leftover of logging required by law such as streamside reserves.

Not one acre of forests gets national park protection. And Mr Howard has the gall to follow Mark Latham belatedly to the Styx with an announcement that means most of it goes to the loggers.

Mr Howard will feed Styx and Weld forests, of world heritage value, to the proposed forest furnace power generator at Southwood and call it 'green power'.

While this sets up the prospect of a wiser future government nominating the Tarkine rainforest for the world heritage status it deserves, the tiny gem of Southern Tasmania, Recherche Bay is not rescued from imminent clump clearfelling, "Senator Brown said.

"This is such a lost opportunity. A great Prime Minister would have put and end to this 'obscene' erosion of the nation's forest heritage in Tasmania.

SENATE OPPOSES BURMESE CHAIR OF ASEAN

The Senate today passed a motion calling for the government to raise Australia's concerns with the impending transfer of the chair of ASEAN to Burma given the Burmese regime's appalling human rights and anti-democracy record.

"The Greens will continue to put pressure on the Government to do more to promote democracy and human rights in Burma," Senator Nettle said.

"Today's motion has added to the record the Senate's view that Burma's upcoming chair of ASEAN is a matter of serious concern given the Burmese regimes appalling human rights record.

"The Greens recognise the importance of the work of the Australian Coalition for Democracy in Burma who supported today's motion."

That the Senate;

(a) Notes that 27th of May marks the 15th anniversary of the last election in Burma
(b) Express concern at the recent bomb blasts in Rangoon and the deteriorating conditions of the Burmese people.
(c) Express continue support for Committee Representing People's Parliament (CRPP) to implement the democratically elected Parliament of Burma
(d) Calls on the Burmese ruling regime to resume the reconciliation process with National League for Democracy and Ethnic Nationalities in co-operation with United Nation Special Envoy for Burma Mr Razali Ismail
(e) Calls on the Burmese ruling regime to cease the military offensive against the Shan, Karen, and Karenni ethnic minorities.
(f) Restates its call for the unconditional release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners in Burma.
(g) Calls on the Government to express concerns to our regional neighbours regarding the Burmese regime's imminent qualification for the ASEAN chair in 2006.

 

RECHERCHE BAY MORE DOWNED BY LABOR, LIBERAL IN CANBERRA

A move by Greens Senator Bob Brown to have the failure of the federal government to protect Recherche Bay from logging has failed in the Senate, Greens Senator Bob Brown said today.

"However the Labor Opposition, which, with Greens backing, successfully moved a separate motion to inquire into roadwork's damage at Anzac Cove, Gallipoli, voted with the government against the Greens' motion," Senator Brown said.

Senator Brown's proposed Senate inquiry read:

That the following matters be referred to the Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee for inquiry and report by 9 August 2005:
(a) whether the new National Heritage List is protecting places of national significance given that only seven places have so far been entered on the list;
(b) the reason behind the National Heritage Council being granted extensions of time, beyond the initial 12 months, to assess 10 sites nominated for the list, including Recherche Bay and ANZAC Cove;
(c) the need to apply the precautionary principle when considering emergency listings of a place; and
(d) the damage or threatened damage to ANZAC Cove and the north-east peninsula of Recherche Bay and the need for any action to stop further degradation.

"It is totally inconsistent of Labor," Senator Brown said.

"Clearly the Tasmanian state Labor Government is dictating policy here," Senator Brown said.

TIME FOR A LITTLE STEADY STATE ECONOMICS BEFORE THE BUDGET HYPE BEGINS

THE STEADYSTATE ECONOMY: TOWARD A POLITICAL ECONOMY OF PIOPHYSICAL EQUILIBRIUM AND MORAL GROWTH

There is nothing in front but a flat wilderness of standardization either by Bolshevism or Big Business. But it is strange that some of us should have seen sanity, if only in a vision, while the rest go forward chained eternally to enlargement without liberty and progress without hope." G. K. Chesterton

Originally titled "The Stationary State Economy: Toward a Political Economy of Biophysical Equilibrium and Moral Growth," From The University of Alabama Distinguished Lecture Series, No, 2, 1971, Reprinted by permission of The University of Alabama, This version has been revised and expanded,

GROWTH MANIA

The fragmentation of knowledge and people by excessive specialization, the disequilibrium between the human economy and the natural ecosystem, the congestion and pollution of our spatial dimension of existence, the congestion and pollution of our temporal dimension of existence with the resulting state of harried drivenness and stress - all these evils and more are symptomatic of the basic malady of growthmania.

"Growthmania" is an insufficiently pejorative term for the paradigm or mindset that always puts growth in first place, the attitude that there is no such thing as enough, that cannot conceive of too much of a good thing. It is the set of unarticulated preconceptions which allows the President's Council of Economic Advisers to say, "If it is agreed that economic output is a good thing it follows by definition that there is not enough of it."

As a sop to environmentalists the Council does admit that "growth of GNP has its costs, and beyond some point they are not worth paying."2 But instead of raising the obvious question "What determines this point of optimal GNP, and how do we know when we have reached it?" the Council merely pontificates that "the existing propensities of the population and the policies of the government constitute claims upon GNP itself that can only be satisfied by rapid economic growth." That of course is merely to restate the problem, not to give a solution. Apparently these "existing propensities and policies" are beyond discussion. That is growthmania. Brezhnev, Castro, and Franco receive much the same advice from their respective Councils of Economic Advisers. Growthmania is ecumenical.

The answer to the avoided question "When do the costs of growth in GNP outweigh the benefits?" is contained in the question itself. This occurs when the decreasing marginal benefit of extra GNP becomes less than the increasing marginal cost. The marginal benefit is measured by the market value of extra goods and services - i.e., the increment in GNP itself in value units. But what statistical series measures the cost? Answer: none! That is growthmania; literally not counting the costs of growth.

But the worst is yet to come. We take the real costs of increasing GNP as measured by the defensive expenditures incurred to protect ourselves from the unwanted side effects of production, and add these expenditures to GNP rather than subtract them. We count the real costs as benefits, this is hypergrowthmania. Since the net benefit of growth can never be negative with this Alice-in-Wonderland accounting system, the rule becomes "grow forever" or at least until it kills you and then count your funeral expenses as further growth. This is terminal hypergrowthmania. Is the water table falling? Dig deeper wells, build bigger pumps, and up goes GNP! Mines depleted? Build more expensive refineries to process lower grade ores, and up goes GNP! Soil depleted? Produce more fertilizer, etc. As we press against the carrying capacity of our physical environment, these "extra-effort" and "defensive" expenditures (which are really costs masquerading as benefits) will loom larger and larger. As more and more of the finite physical world is converted into wealth, less and less is left over as nonwealth i.e., the nonwealth physical world becomes scarce, and in becoming scarce it gets a price and thereby becomes wealth. This creates the illusion of becoming better off, when in actuality we are becoming worse off. We may already have passed the point where the marginal cost of growth exceeds the marginal benefit. This suspicion is increased by looking at who absorb the costs and who receive the benefits. We all get some of each, but not equal shares. Who buys a second car or a third TV? Who lives in the most congested, polluted areas? The benefits of growth go mainly to the rich, the costs go mainly to the poor. That statement is based on casual empiricism - we do not have social accounts which allow us to say precisely who receive the benefits and who absorb the costs of growth, a fact which is itself very revealing. Ignorance, if not blissful, is often politically expedient.

Growthmania is the paradigm upon which stand the models and policies of our current political economy. The answer to every problem is growth. For example:

Poverty? Grow more to provide more employment for the poor and more tax revenues for welfare programs.
Unemployment? Invest and grow to bolster aggregate demand and employment.
Inflation? Grow by raising productivity so that more goods will be chased by the same number of dollars and prices will fall.
Balance of payments? Grow more and increase productivity in order to increase exports. Cutting imports is seen only as a shortrun stopgap, not a solution.
Pollution and depletion? Grow so we will be rich enough to afford the cost of cleaning up and of discovering new resources and technologies.
War? We must grow to be strong and have both guns and butter.

The list could be extended, but it can also be summarized in one sentence: The way to have your cake and eat it too is to make it grow.

Growthmania is the attitude in economic theory that begins with the theological assumption of infinite wants, and then with infinite hubris goes on to presume that the original sin of infinite wants has its redemption vouchsafed by the omnipotent savior of technology, and that the first commandment is to produce more and more goods for more and more people, world without end. And that this is not only possible, but desirable. .

Environmental degradation is an iatrogenic disease induced by economic physicians who treat the basic malady of unlimited wants by prescribing unlimited economic growth. We experience environmental degradation in the form of increased scarcity of clean air, pure water, relaxed moments, etc. But the only way the growthmania paradigm knows to deal with scarcity is to recommend growth. Yet one certainly does not cure a treatment-induced disease by increasing the treatment dosage! Nevertheless the usual recommendation for combating pollution is to grow more because "a rising GNP will enable the nation more easily to bear the costs of eliminating pollution."3 Such a view is patently inept.

The growth paradigm has outlived its usefulness. It is a senile ideology that should be unceremoniously retired into the history of economic doctrines. In the terminology of Thomas Kuhn's book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the growth paradigm has been more than exhausted by the normal science puzzle-solving research done within its confines. Political economy must enter a period of revolutionary science to establish a new paradigm to guide a new period of normal science. Just as mercantilism gave way to physiocracy, physiocracy to classical laissez faire, laissez faire to Keynesianism, Keynesianism to the neo-classical growth synthesis - so the current neoclassical growthmania must give way to a new paradigm. What will the new paradigm be? I submit that it must be very similar to an idea from classical economics that never attained the status of a paradigm, except for a brief chapter in John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy. This idea is that of the steady-state economy. .

THE STEADY STATE

What is meant by a "steady-state economy"? Why is it necessary? How can it be attained? The first two questions are relatively easy and have been dealt with elsewhere.4 Hence they will be treated rapidly. The third question is extremely difficult, and will be the main focus of attention.

The steady state is defined as an economy in which the total population and the total stock of physical wealth are maintained constant at some desired levels by a "minimal" rate of maintenance throughput (i.e., by birth and death rates that are equal at the lowest feasible level, and by physical production and consumption rates that are equal at the lowest feasible level). The first part of the definition (constant stocks) goes back to John Stuart Mill, and the second part ("minimal" flow of throughput) goes back to 1949 vintage Kenneth Boulding. Minimizing throughput implies maximizing the average life expectancy of a member of the stock.5

Why is the steady state necessary? Not for the reasons given by the classical economists who saw increasing rent and interest eliminating profit and thus the incentive for "progress." Rather, the necessity follows immediately from physical first principles. The world is finite, the ecosystem is a steady state. The human economy is a subsystem of the steady-state ecosystem. Therefore at some level and over some time period the subsystem must also become a steady state, at least in its physical dimensions of people and physical wealth. The steady-state economy is therefore a physical necessity. One may counter this by arguing that we always have the alternative of extinction, and that therefore the steady state is a moral choice, not a physical necessity. But even this is mistaken. Extinction itself is a steady state, the special case of zero stocks maintained by a zero throughput. The choice of stock levels and rates of maintenance throughput requires value judgments, but the attainment of a steady state at some level IS a physical necessity.

Our definition of "steady state" is much closer to the classical than to the neoclassical definition of the term. The neoclassical definition of steady state assumes constant wants and technology (nonphysical parameters) and investigates the adjustment of physical variables to the nonphysical parameters. Our definition assumes constant physical wealth and population (physical parameters) and inquires how the non-physical variables of wants (including the ethical want for "better wants") and technology can be sensibly adjusted to the physical parameters. Furthermore, the neoclassical concept is an epistemological fiction useful mainly as a first step in the analysis of a growing economy. It is in no sense a target for policy or a real state toward which the economy actually tends. Our concept is not an epistemological fiction, but an attempt to describe in broad outlines a real and necessary future state of society.

The above differences represent a paradigm shift in the sense of Thomas Kuhn. The steady-state paradigm will not be easily accepted by those who have been trained in and worked within the growth paradigm. But the arguments are too logical and too simple to be resisted for long, and the weight of anomaly under which the old paradigm is groaning will eventually crush it. An example of a simple argument that cannot be long resisted is the following. All reasonable men by now accept the ultimate necessity of zero population growth. But in addition to the population of human bodies (the stock of endosomatic capital) we must consider the population of extensions of the human body (exosomatic capital). Bicycles and automobiles are extensions of man's legs; hammers and pliers are extensions of his arms and hands; pots and pans and ovens are extensions of his digestive system; the telephone and phonograph extend man's ears; the TV extends his eyes; clothing and buildings extend his skin, etc. Both endosomatic and exosomatic capital are necessary to maintain life. More importantly both endosomatic and exosomatic capital stocks are physical open systems that maintain themselves by continually importing low entropy matter-energy from the environment and exporting high entropy matter-energy back to the environment.6 The same physical laws that limit the population of organisms apply with equal force to the population of extensions of organisms. If the first limitation is admitted, how can the second be denied?

In sum the steady state is necessary. It must be the norm. But once we have attained a steady state at some level of population and wealth, we are not forever frozen at that level. As values and technology evolve we may find that a different level is both possible and desirable. But the growth (or decline) required to get to the new level is a temporary adjustment process, not a norm. At present the momentum of growth in population and capital pushes our technological and moral development. In the steady-state paradigm, technological and moral evolution would precede and lead growth instead of being pushed. Growth would always be seen as a temporary passage from one steady state to another, not as the norm of a "healthy" economy.

When we raise the third question, how to attain the steady state, things become more difficult. First we must give operational definitions to the specific goals contained in the definition of steady state. Second, we must specify the technologies, social institutions, and moral values which are in harmony with and supportive of the steady- state.

To define more clearly the goal of the steady state we must face four questions.

1. At what levels should the stocks of wealth and people be maintained constant? Specifying the stock of wealth and of people also specifies the wealth per person or standard of living. In other words the question becomes the old one of what is the optimum population? So far no-one has given a definite answer, and I certainly cannot. However, it is sometimes argued that it is vain to advocate a stationary population unless one can specify the optimum level at which the population should become stationary. But I think that puts it backwards. Rather it is vain to speak of an optimum population unless you are first prepared to accept a stationary population, unless you are able and willing to stay at the optimum once you find it. Otherwise knowing the optimum merely enables us to wave goodbye as we pass through it. Furthermore, the optimum population is more likely to be discovered by experience than by a priori thought. We should attain a stationary population at some feasible nearby level. After experiencing it we could then decide whether the optimum level is above or below the current level. Also the optimum may be a welfare plateau spanning a whole range of populations and not just one. It is more important to be able to attain a steady state (at any level) than to know in advance which level is optimal.

2. What is the optimal level of maintenance throughput for a given level of stocks? For the time being the answer is probably ''as low as possible" or at least "less than at present." If it is good for people to live longer and for goods to last longer, then it is good to reduce the rate of throughput. Under the constraint of present technology perhaps we could advocate minimizing throughput, but as technology increases the potential life expectancy of people and goods we will surely reach a point where optimum life expectancy is less than maximum - or, what is the same thing, optimum throughput is greater than the minimum. But for the present, minimizing throughput makes vastly more sense than the current practice of maximizing it.

3. What is the optimal time horizon or accounting period over which population and wealth are required to be constant? Obviously we cannot mean day-to-day constancy and probably not even year-to-year constancy. Related to this is the question of the optimum amplitude of fluctuation around the steady-state mean during the accounting period.

Again, I cannot pretend to be able to answer this question. But it must be pointed out that the question of the proper accounting period is a very general one which applies in equal force to standard economic theory. The fundamental assumption of profit maximization is meaningless unless one specifies the length of the accounting period. Surely we do not maximize daily profits, and often not even yearly profits. Behaviour that is "rational" (consistent with profit maximization) over one time period is irrational over another. My favourite example is that of the village idiot who, when offered the choice between a nickel and a dime, always chose the nickel, much to the villagers' continuing amusement. Finally one day a villager said to him, "Look, I know you are not that stupid; you know a dime is worth more than a nickel - why do you always take the nickel?" To which the "idiot" replied "It's obvious - if I took the dime they would stop making the offer!" Idiocy on one time horizon is cleverness on another. But somehow we manage to choose an accounting period and muddle through, and so we could also in a steady state.

Once we have fixed an accounting period, one may then ask how many accounting periods the total system should last. Obviously the carrying capacity of the ecosystem depends not only on the size of the stocks and the rate of maintenance throughput, but also on the length of time over which the stocks are to be carried. This question must at least be implicitly considered in answering questions 1 and 2, since those answers plus the given endowment of non-renewable resources will determine how long the system can continue.

4. What is the optimal rate of transition from the growing economy to the steady state? We can never attain a steady state in the long run if our efforts to do so kill us in the short run. In the case of population there are interesting trade-offs between speed of attainment of a stationary population versus size of the stationary population and the amplitude of fluctuations in the birth rate induced by the current non-equilibrium age structure.7

Once again I do not know the optimum rate of transition. But I think we are very unlikely to exceed it. In any case the sooner we begin deceleration to zero growth the longer we can afford to take and the less disruptive that adjustment will be. The important thing from all points of view is to begin deceleration now. Later we can argue about the optimum rate.

The fact that these four optima cannot be well defined should come as no surprise. In social science all our concepts are dialectical and necessarily imprecise. We may make use of analytical models in which all concepts are given analytically precise definitions that allow logical and mathematical manipulation. But these models are analytical similes or analogies, sometimes useful and sometimes not. They do not remove the dialectical imprecision of our concepts, they merely abstract from it.

As for the above four questions, the immediate directions are clear enough though the optimum magnitudes are vague. We are sometimes too clever in exploiting the imprecision of our knowledge in order to evade moral responsibility for our comfortable inaction.

The questions raised so far seek clearer definitions of the goals of the steady state. A more important set of questions follows concerning the means for attaining the steady-state goals: the appropriate technology, the appropriate social institutions of control for maintaining constant stocks of physical wealth and people and for distributing the constant wealth among the constant population.

The main aim of production technology must, in the steady state, become more analogous to the legitimate aim of medical technology. Just as medical technology seeks (or should seek) to increase average life expectancy, so must production technology seek to increase the durability or "life expectancy" of physical commodities. How? By making individual commodities more durable and designing them for easy repairability, and also by designing for easier recyclability either through man made closed loops or natural material cycles (biodegradability). High biodegradability may seem to contradict "durability" and in a physical sense it does. But what we are interested in is durability as a part of the stock of wealth, not the durability of garbage. Maximizing durability means maximizing the time matter spends as wealth and minimizing the time it spends as garbage. Our current technology does not aim at maximizing durability. It comes closer to minimizing it, in order not to spoil the market for replacement demand.

One extremely interesting technological possibility from the steady state perspective is the "fusion torch" idea being pursued by William Gough and Bernard Eastlund of the AEC.8 An ultrahigh temperature plasma held in a magnetic field is used to provide energy for electric power generation. Garbage is thrown into the plasma, which reduces any material to its basic elements. The elements are then separated and collected electromagnetically and made available for reuse. Although this closes the material cycle there is still the unavoidable problem of thermal pollution. But the idea is to mimimize it by cascading heat downward to lower and lower grade uses. For example the waste heat of power generation would be used for space heating, replacing fossil fuels. There are many technical problems which remain and I am not competent to assess them. But the idea of a fusion torch fits the steady state par