Greenwash Political Action Party and Urban Grassroots Movement for the Green Party

Friday, June 30, 2006

Rescuing the Senate - the Magic 43%

One year ago tomorrow, the Australian political earth moved in a way it hadn’t for three decades - the Coalition gained control of the Senate.

Some have suggested that this was the fault of poor campaigning by the Opposition parties at the 2004 election. To some extent this is true, but it was not for a complete want of trying. You might remember the Magic 38 piece that Crikey ran in June 04 warning of the possibilities of Government Senate control, and Bob Brown pursued the issue relentlessly during the campaign. But there was scant coverage of the Senate issue in the mainstream media, with a few notable but isolated exceptions. This suited the Coalition of course, and they snuck in control of the Senate. Certainly a more engaged electorate would have been less likely to deliver the 39 seats they won.

Some commentators have suggested that the Coalition Senate control is here to stay for a while yet – that because Senators are elected for 6 years there is nothing much that can be done to prevent Coalition Senate control for at least another 5 years or more.

However if Coalition numbers were reduced by two seats to 37 seats at the next election it would not be able to pass legislation even with the support of Family First’s Senator Fielding. Although a tough ask, this is possible and needs just two things to happen at the 2007 poll:
- Firstly - a repeat of the Queensland 2004 result needs to b prevented (Coalition win of four out of the six seats).
- Secondly - Coalition wins must be limited to two out the six seats in at least two states.

While over the last decade the Coalition has typically won three out of the six seats in each state, there are precedents for this not happening. In 1998, the Coalition won only two seats in both Queensland and NSW (partly attributable to One Nation splitting the conservative vote) and in NSW in 1990 (with nearly in the same result in 1993).

The most likely states for the Coalition vote to go below the critical 43% needed for any chance avoiding a 3-seat win are Victoria and Tasmania, followed by NSW. The strength of the coalition Senate vote in WA, SA and QLD would make it considerably more difficult, but not impossible. And of course, the other possibility is for Gary Humphries to lose his Seat in the ACT (a strong incentive perhaps for his recent crossing the floor).

To fall below this magic 43% requires a swing of less than 5% away from the Coalition to, the Greens, Labor and Democrats. Given the likely increased focus on the Senate race in 2007, and voters’ reluctance to give any side of politics control of the Senate (if informed), this is far from impossible.

So a year on, the campaign to Rescue the Senate is slowly gaining momentum as people are realising that it’s possible to move the political earth back.

Ben Oquist

This is an edited version of a piece first published by crikey.com.au

posted by Ben Oquist # 12:42 PM 1 comments

Monday, June 26, 2006

Indonesia Treaty could and should go to Parliament

Thanks to crikey.com.au for publishing the following

If, as expected, John Howard and Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono today formally agree to a proceed with developing a new security treaty or pact, the Australian Parliament should take a look at it before it is finalised.

For the last ten years, the Joint Senate and House of Reps Committee on Treaties has regularly reviewed treaties signed by the AustralianGovernment. But this is usually after the relevant Minister has alreadypublicly committed to such international agreements. As Devika Hovell pointed out in The Age recently, the Government dominated committee invariably gives any such treaties the thumbs up.

John Howard’s justified criticism of Paul Keating’s secret treaty negotiations with Suharto are well known. Upon winning office the Howard Government made much of its Treaties committee initiative arguing that it would open up foreign policy to a measure of democracy and accountability.

The reality is that the committee has acted more as a rubber stamp. Yet, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties terms of reference do include ‘any question relating a treaty or other international instrument whether or not negotiated to completion’.

So what better opportunity for the Government to show that it is serious about democratic review of its foreign affairs work than to allow the Treaties committee to investigate, with public hearings and submissions, the proposed Indonesian treaty before it is finalised.

And what better opportunity for the Government to prove that it hasn’t nobbled the Senate Committee system than to allow a controversial, but unarguably important reference, to proceed.

posted by Ben Oquist # 1:25 PM 1 comments

Monday, June 19, 2006

Removal truck seeks to relocate Canberra to Jakarta

On the eve of the parliamentary debate on the Government's controversial asylum seeker legislation, an 8-tonne truck arrived at Parliament House symbolising the Howard Government's apparent desire to relocate Canberra's law making role to Jakarta.

Colin Handley and I (we are pictured here just before our drive up to Capital Hill) drove up in the truck at lunchtime today. Thanks for the great driving Colin!

The truck was emblazoned with the words:

DON'T MOVE CANBERRA
TO JAKARTA
HUMANITY NOT APPEASEMENT

The truck was commissioned by businessman Ian Melrose, who last week released a Newspoll showing 74% of Australians would prefer to keep the current laws rather than change them in order to improve relations with Indonesia.

The truck starts an advertising campaign from Mr Melrose with a newspaper ad, targeting Senator Humphries and all coalition senators, to appear in the Canberra Times tomorrow.

ALP shadow Immigration spokesperson Tony Burke (TBC), Greens leader Bob Brown, Independent Peter Andren and Democrats leader Lyn Allison were there to greet the truck.

The police and security moved in and forced us away but not before the politicians had said their piece and our point was well made. The Police took Colin's and my details but no charges were laid.

posted by Ben Oquist # 3:49 PM 3 comments

Sunday, June 18, 2006

Help stop the anti-West Papuan asylum seeker law

Now is the time to lobby your Coalition MP and Senator. Urge them not to pass the new asylum seeker laws introduced after the 42 West Papuans were granted temporary protection visas.

Coalition Senators contact details can be found here. Coalition House of Representative MPs contacts can be found here.

A Senate Committee handed down a report that slammed the legislation. Over 130 submissions were received and all expect the Immigration Department were critical of the legislation. Testimony made during two days of public hearings in Canberra and Sydney was also damning of the Government's proposed Bill

A Newspoll commissioned by businessman Ian Melrose found that 74% of Australians didn't want to change the laws in order to improve relations with Indonesia.

Click here to see the full details of the poll

posted by Ben Oquist # 1:16 PM 0 comments

Buy Bob Brown for a day

Check out the ebay auction of a special one day VIP trip to the Styx Valley in Tasmania with Bob Brown. Airfares to Hobart, accommodation and travel to the forests included.

With Bob as your guide see the tallest hardwood trees on the planet and visit the tree that Mark Latham was taken to by Senator Brown.

The auction is part of the Canberra Press gallery's mid winter ball promotions. The auction closes on Tuesday 20 June. You don't need to be at the ball to bid. Proceeds to charity.

posted by Ben Oquist # 1:11 PM 0 comments

Friday, June 16, 2006

Why it was good for John Howard that Gary Humphries crossed the floor

This post was first published by crikey.com.au

There is little doubt that Humphries' motivation for crossing the floor was political as well as ideological.

If there is one Coalition Senator whose seat is almost certainly under threat at the next election it is Mr Humphries.

As a result of 3 years of conservative Senate control there will likely be increased focus on the Senate race in 2007. There is a real prospect that the politically educated ACT senate electorate will move against their Coalition Senator.

It is unlikely that the ALP could get near the 66% of the vote required to win 2 Senate seats but, with preferences, the Greens could go close to picking up Mr Humphries' seat.

This would likely have a huge effect on the overall make up of the Senate.

In the ACT and the NT, Senators face election every three years, not six as is the case for the states. It is highly unlikely that the "fluke" result that returned 4 Coalition Senators for Queensland will be repeated again. Since the Coalition's majority is only one seat wide, if it were to lose a seat in the ACT it would likely loose control of the Senate.
That is not to say losing Humphries' seat will automatically result in Howard losing control of the Senate. He has the insurance of the Labor Party's preference decision which put Steve Fielding in the Senate for a full six year term.

The late Ric Farley went close to becoming a Democrat Senator for the ACT a few years ago, and with the right candidate the Greens could go close in 2007. Imagine the platform the Greens would have hand to stand on if Mr Humphries had voted to allow Howard to overrule his home town. It would have been game over. And maybe game over for the Coalition's Senate control.

Perhaps this is why Howard had no comment yesterday on Humphries crossing the floor. Perhaps it was with a wink and a nod that Howard, knowing he had Family First on side, allowed Gary Humphries to cross without fear of reprisal.

posted by Ben Oquist # 1:29 PM 0 comments

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Labor's Family First Senator helps ban ACT civil unions

While the Labor party eventually voted with the Greens and Democrats in an attempt to overturn the Howard-Ruddock ban on gay and lesbian civil unions in the ACT they are also to blame for the motion failing.

Yes Labor.

The voted was lost 32-30 even though ACT Liberal Senator Humphries crossed to floor.

Steven Fielding’s (Family First) vote was crucial in helping the Government gain the momentum to win them the vote.

Let’s remember Steven Fielding is only in the Senate because Labor put him there. The Family First Senator, who only got 2% of the vote in Victoria, gained his Senate place because the ALP preferenced him. While the Greens candidate David Risstrom secured 8%, he lost out because of the ALP’s decision to preference the Christian right.

So if, as it should have been, a Greens rather than Family First Senator from Victoria was in the chamber today, the vote would have notionally been 31-31. While this would have been one vote shy of what was required (tied votes are lost), I am sure that with so much on the line there would have been another Liberal who would have at least abstained allowing the Greens-Democrat-ALP disallowance motion to pass. The ACT civil unions law would have been reinstated.

Let’s remember all this when it comes to the Senate battle in 2007. The great challenge will be to rescue the Senate and the 2004 election experience in Victoria shows Labor can not be trusted.

For more information on the campaign to rescue the Senate see here.

posted by Ben Oquist # 4:24 PM 0 comments

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

How Australia has already been helping to enrich uranium

An edited version of this post was first published by crikey.

The great unspoken in the nuclear debate is not the danger posed to residents by reactors in backyards, but the dangers to all of us from enriching uranium and its inseparable link to nuclear weapons.

When it comes to Iran it is accepted that there is an inherent connection between nuclear power and weapons. However in Australia, where we propose exporting uranium to rogue nuclear powers and where we are already developing weapons capable enrichment technology, it seems the topic can not be discussed. Witness Alexander Downer’s dismissal of the topic on when it was raised by Stephen Crittenden on Radio National on Monday morning.

Even leaving aside the great dangers of adding to nuclear weapons proliferation by selling uranium to India and China, we need look no further than current activities at the ANSTO research reactor at Lucas Heights to know what is at stake.

Silex Systems Ltd has been developing cutting edge laser uranium enrichment technology for years (see Greenpeace report) and just last month it sold the technology to the US energy giant GE (media release here).

This cheap form of enriching uranium, which could be used for nuclear power and weapons, is small scale which makes it much harder to detect and monitor in rogue states. No US spy satellite pictures like those we see from Iran would do the job.

Laser enrichment has been tried by a range of risky states: South Korea, Iran, Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Romania, Russia, South Africa, and Yugoslavia for 30 years but only now, as a result of the GE- Silex deal, do we know that its potential is really on the horizon.

The current edition (out yesterday) of the normally reliable The Monthly has short very one sided article about Silex. It reads more like a public relations piece with seemingly no attempt to acknowledge the real proliferation dangers of the technology.

In a post 9/11 world where terrorist weapons, including nuclear ones, can get smaller and more concealable, any chance that more nuclear material and technology can proliferate is a nightmare just waiting to happen.

We need a full nuclear debate that covers not just climate change, economics and nibyism. All the risks, particularly those associated with uranium enrichment, nuclear proliferation, foreign policy and regional security need to be on the table.

posted by Ben Oquist # 6:01 PM 1 comments

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

The real nuclear debate part 2

Exporting uranium to China and India and domestic enrichment

See below for Part 1 of the 'real nuclear debate'

As well as distracting the country from the real solutions to climate change, the nuclear power debate is more insidiously softening Australians up for something potentially far more unpopular - exporting uranium to China and India.

Ignoring the very dodgy Morgan poll (which asked one of the most leading questions on the topic I’ve ever seen), some polling is showing that exporting uranium to China is hugely unpopular in Australia - far more unpopular than nuclear power.

In fact while The Australian recorded it as an increased in support for nuclear, the Newspoll published in The Australian May 30th showed a massive 66% of Australians wanted no new mines or no uranium mines at all. Only 22% supported the Howard government policy of no restrictions on the number of uranium mines.

So issues (ie. exporting uranium to the communist authoritarian regime in China and to India who hasn’t signed the Non Proliferation Treaty) that would normally have sparked public outrage in Australia are relegated to second tier issues. In fact, it seems there won’t be a debate about uranium exports at all - already being presented as a fait accompli within Labor and the country as a whole.

So with uranium presented as a finished debate, the Hawks can get on with their next plan – a dangerous domestic mega bucks uranium enrichment industry.

Indeed, Barry Cassidy summed it up when talking with Virginia Trioli on local ABC radio 702 on June 5, when he said that he thought the Coalition would come forward with a united position – perhaps not on nuclear power, but certainly on enrichment.

And on the question of an international nuclear dump in Australia, favoured by some including former Prime Minister Bob Hawke, the news is even worse for the nuclear lobby. An SBS commissioned Newspoll found that 83% of Australians were opposed to the idea even when the uranium was initially mined domestically.

Proposals for nuclear power, which will never get up economically or politically in Australia, are a deliberate smokescreen from the real possibilities: enrichment, increased mining and nuclear dumps.

Why nuclear wont work

Even if the world doubled nuclear power output by 2050, the estimated reduction in greenhouse emissions would be only 5%. Yet even our Federal Government says the world needs 60% reductions by then. And in fact many argue that in the longer term we must aim for 100% reductions over the next 100 years.

Furthermore, new nuclear power plants take around 20 years to start operating from conception, with large quantities of greenhouse emissions produced in the extraction and enrichment of uranium and the building of the plants. So much so, that it takes 40 years of operation of the power plant to offset the emissions produced in construction.

And even then, if we doubled the world’s nuclear power output we face running out of high grade uranium in less than 25 years. Moving to lower grade uranium, means higher emissions during extraction, putting as much carbon into the atmosphere as a gas fired power station over its lifetime. Not exactly a great solution.

And just look at the economics of the massively subsided nuclear industry. John White, the chair of the Federal Government's own Uranium Industry Framework, said in Australian Financial Review a couple of weeks ago: "Once their true cost is known, the market for renewable energy will explode, because they are the only sustainable and relatively cheap energy option left for the planet."

Terrorism, proliferation and Chernobyl

But of course the real debate that the pro nuclear lobby will hate having, is the debate on nuclear proliferation and terrorism. Most reasonable people would have thought that the shut down of the nuclear industry was a no-brainer post-September 11. Nuclear reactors are undoubtedly prime new terrorism targets that would magnify the horror of any new large scale terrorist attack.

Expanding the nuclear energy industry will also expand the chances of nuclear proliferation. That is undeniable. And what about Iran? There is no mention of Iran’s nuclear push from the nuclear supporters in Australia.

And Chernobyl cannot be excluded from any rational discussion of the dangers of nuclear fuel cycle, regardless of how hard the proponents try to avoid the issue. Look how ridiculous the Federal Industry Minister, Ian Macfarlane sounded on the ABC Radio’s the World Today recently when he said “and if you set aside Chernobyl, which was a deliberate manmade intervention in the nuclear cycle to test safety, there has not been a nuclear disaster in the western world”. But you can‘t simply ‘set aside’ between 8000 (World Health Organisation estimate) and 100,000 (Greenpeace estimate) deaths.

According to a great environment group report:

“a nuclear weapon powerful enough to destroy a city requires a mere 10 kg of plutonium. The ‘peaceful’ nuclear power industry has produced 1,600 tonnes of plutonium - enough to build about 160,000 nuclear weapons. If 99% of this plutonium is indefinitely protected from military use, the remaining 1% would suffice for 1,600 nuclear weapons. Australia’s uranium exports, once irradiated in nuclear power reactors, have produced about 80 tonnes of plutonium enough for about 8,000 nuclear weapons.”

What we should be debating is how by selling uranium to China and India Australians, will help put more nuclear weapons on the planet.

Nuclear Indonesia

Bob Brown brilliantly put the arguments about the consequences of allowing our region to go nuclear in his opinion piece in The Australian, where he said:

Indonesia can now foster its own nuclear future, free of worries about chastisement from Canberra. The Suharto plan for 12 nuclear reactors, concentrated on earthquake-prone Java, is likely to resurface, and Megawati Sukarnoputri's interest in floating nuclear power stations from Russia almost certainly remains on Jakarta's drawing board.

When either or both options resurface, Australians will worry about some future reactor accident sending a pall of radiation across the populous islands to our north, as well as northern Australia. And the prospect of a future Indonesian leader opting for nuclear weapons will grow stronger.

Before Howard set out to wedge the divided Labor Opposition on nuclear power, he should have stopped to seriously consider his move, in light of the threat posed by religious extremists in Indonesia. The dangerous mix of jihadists and nuclear energy will stalk Australia's future long after he has left office.

posted by Ben Oquist # 3:47 PM 1 comments

Monday, June 05, 2006

The real nuclear debate

Finally we appear to be about to stop having a debate about whether to have a debate about nuclear power. It has been a clever tactic by Howard and his supporters to try label those opposed to nuclear power as opposed to even discussing the idea. To try and describe the anti-nuclear movement as almost religious for refusing to even talk about the topic.

So, if we’re going to have a debate, let’s have the real debate - the debate that puts the problem - climate change - not one supposed ‘solution ‘ - nuclear power - at the centre of the discussion. Because I think that Howard’s current nuclear push is in part his attempt to switch to the ‘good’ side of the climate debate without losing face from yet another backflip.

Since coming to office, both Howard like President Bush have been on the wrong side of the climate debate - lining up with the coal, aluminium and oil industries. Both right-wing leaders have at various times have denied aspects of climate change science, denied the seriousness of its impacts or denied their policies were responsible for the developing calamity that is engulfing our planet.

Yet all of a sudden both leaders are so concerned about climate change they want a nuclear debate. They are effectively being forced to switch sides, because their polling is no doubt showing the same thing that polling everywhere shows - that the vast majority of the population (somewhere between 80-95%) is deeply concerned about the consequences of the rapidly changing climate.

Of course the nuclear push is also an attempt to detract from the real debate that was just starting to heat up in Australia – whether to risk our future with coal or go renewable. But now the waters are being cleverly muddied by including the nuclear power option that Australia is never going to accommodate anyway.

I thought Lenore Taylor’s comments on Insiders on ABC TV on May 24 were spot on. She noted that Australia’s transport and industry sector greenhouse emissions were set to increase by 53% and that if Howard was really bringing on a debate about nuclear power because of climate change, then we should be seriously discussing those sectors.

Of course Howard had other reasons for bringing on nuclear debate, including wedging Labor (with Martin Ferguson’s help), the need for something to talk about on his recent overseas lap of honor, and overshadowing other troubling domestic issues like AWB and Costello’s leadership aspirations.

However with the PM determined to bring on the debate on nuclear we should take him head on, showing the insanity posed by any further expansion of any aspect of the nuclear fuel cycle in Australia and the urgent need to tackle climate change with renewable energy and energy efficiency.

So yes, let’s have a debate – but a debate about the real solutions to climate change and why nuclear power will not get us there.

Tomorrow: the real issues: uranium exports and enrichment, why nuclear wont help with climate change and the big one - the terrorist threat.

posted by Ben Oquist # 5:29 PM 0 comments

Friday, June 02, 2006

The great Snowy victory

Despite countless politicians and commentators saying it couldn’t happen, the great backflip by Howard and Iemma has happened.

It is worth reflecting that the story didn’t register much with the media when the Iemma government first announced the sale in December 2005 - but check out Ian Cohen’s media release on day one – 16 December 2005. At about 3pm that afternoon, I distributed the Greens media release attacking the plan but there was certainly no buzz about it coming from anyone else. The State Opposition for example were certainly not committing to oppose the sell off at that stage.

And then there was Bob Brown’s great contribution in the Senate when the issue was being voted on in the Federal parliament. That speech and Labor and the Coalition lining up together to vote against the Greens would have gone unreported if not for this great column by Alan Ramsay.

But a particular congratulations also to Greens MLC Sylvia Hale who has done so much in the NSW Upper House, with inquires, motions, and the release of confidential papers, to relentlessly pressure the Government on the issue.

This is a great lesson to those who say the Greens can’t achieve anything. In fact the effectiveness of our small party working with the community shows everything and anything is possible.

First there was the desalination plant, now Snowy Hydro. Never doubt that a small group of people working together can change the world.

posted by Ben Oquist # 11:20 AM 0 comments

Thursday, June 01, 2006

The Australian Newspaper and that conference

The most galling quote of the week must surely go to Denis Shanahan writing in The Australian on Saturday when he said:

“…the country has become a world leader in combating climate change…”

Yep, he was actually talking about Australia and he wasn’t laughing.

I cant find it on-line but he really did say it in the second sentence of an article entitled “PM in charge of the nuclear debate”. It was one of the most sycophantic, Howard-worshiping pieces I have seen in a long time, and was riddled with distortions and inaccuracies. Combine that with the hysterically pro-nuclear editorial of the same day and you will want to vomit.

But did you also notice on the same page an article (or was it an advertisement - it wasn’t clear) for a pro-nuclear power conference coming up in October? Given the list of names that seem to have signed on, it looks like it’s been in the planning for some time. And guess what? The Australian newspaper is a ‘media partner’ in the conference. Given the paper’s pro nuclear posturing and closeness to the Howard Government it is hardly surprising, but one would imagine it sure isn’t going to make for good journalism.

posted by Ben Oquist # 10:47 AM 1 comments