Addendum # 1 - Letter to the Editor of Business Review Weekly
A common technique in dispute resolution is for both sides to look for issues they agree upon. In the climate change debate, this has not yet happened.
Climate change skeptics and supporters should gather in one room and discuss their areas of agreement. Most would agree that our planet is warming up, rainfall in southern Australia is diminishing and sea levels are rising. Regardless of the cause of these climate changes, both parties should agree that we are consuming our limited resources of fossil fuels (oil, gas, coal) at rates which will cause shortages at some point in the future. Actions providing cost-effective economic and meaningful environmental benefits should also gain support.
A range of policy initiatives then becomes clear once these higher level agreements have been reached. Solar hot water systems and ceiling insulation (via a properly planned and implemented incentive program) provide economic pay-back periods of less than 10 years; most diesel-fueled cars are cost-effective after 60,000 km; green building regulations reduce energy and water usage by 50% or more; energy and water audits for businesses; and so the list goes on.
Government would not need to introduce 'a great big new tax' to achieve any of these mutually agreed upon outcomes, instead offering taxation incentives such as accelerated depreciation, year of purchase write-off or return of the GST payments.
The lack of any attempt to reach agreement between opposing climate change groups shows that ideology and politics still remain their primary motivations. No wonder the public is losing faith in political parties who want higher tax income and environmental groups who want a return to the dark ages.
Addendum # 2 - Policy Initiatives arising from Path # 3
If we're prepared to act on issues which people with a concern about the future can agree on, then the following email to someone who asked for my views on 'relevant economic solutions' to climate change may be of interest:
The best economic solutions to environmental problems will be those that have a reasonable economic pay-back period (say, less than 10 years for the big, long term expenditures or less than 5 years for solutions with a shorter working life) which also deliver useful or important environmental benefits. Some examples include:
* solar hot water system - 15 to 20 year life, with a 3 to 6 year pay-back period depending upon the type of hot water system that is being replaced. Current government increases in electricity prices to reflect the actual cost of generating and supplying electricity can only help shorten the pay-back period and hence make solar hot water systems more attractive.
* ceiling insulation in houses - in spite of Peter Garrett making a complete mess of the scheme, the principles behind it were fine. 50+ year life, pay-back period of 4 to 10 years depending on how home heating is generated.An added benefit is that Perth's highly inefficient domestic air conditioners won't need to work so hard in summer, hence reducing the amount of electricity Synergy has to supply each afternoon/evening on a hot summer's day to meet the air conditioning load.
* compact fluorescent lights
* energy audits - the businesses and industries that I've worked in over the years have paid little attention to fine tuning their energy use. This was in spite of energy consultants promising a one year pay-back on the cost of their advice (although you had to also pay for new equipment, etc)
* passive solar energy heat-gain design in dwellings. In theory, design and construction costs impose no extra costs with energy savings of half or more, although occupants need to accept behavioural change to open windows when cool sea breezes are blowing, close curtains when outside air temperatures go up, open curtains in winter when sun is shining into the north-facing rooms, etc.
If electric cars consume less energy (assuming a common basis for comparison exists between electric and liquid fuel motor vehicles) than other cars, then government could encourage their use by eliminating motor vehicle registration fees or refunding GST on equipment purchases.
I'm certainly not a supporter of the concept of trading in older vehicles that may be giving 12 litres per 100km fuel consumption just to buy a new car that might be giving 10 litres per 100 km. A $30,000 motor vehicle loses 20% (at least) in value the second it leaves the dealer's yard, so $6000 in lost value may take 10 or 15 years for an economic pay-back derived from the small fuel saving.
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Friday, July 09, 2010
The Climate Change debate - what path do you want to be on?
Our climate is changing. Media reports from around the world are showing us on a daily basis the truth of our changing climate. Locally, when Carolina and I first moved to south west Western Australia in the mid 1970s, the Scott River area on the south coast was receiving almost two metres of rainfall each year. Today, the annual rainfall has halved, with rain gauge recordings proving that the climate in this part of the world has changed profoundly in less than 40 years.
What then is causing the climate to change? Scientists believe that the large high pressure cells in the northern part of the southern hemisphere have become larger, in turn pushing the low pressure cells which contain rain-bearing cold fronts further to the south. This then causes these cold fronts to drop most of their rain 200 or 300 kilometres further south than before, resulting in much lower rainfall for the most parts of the south west of the state.
We then need to ask why are these high pressure cells larger than they once were. The obvious answer, once again confirmed by scientific data, is that the world is getting warmer. As air heats up, it expands and this is a plausible explanation of why our climate is changing.
But now we come to the hard part. Why is planet earth warming up? Here, there are many theories, the most popular one being a human-caused increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: it traps heat from the sun that would otherwise escape back out into outer space after being reflected off clouds and the surface of the planet. However, water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and it is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It plays critical roles in regulating global climate, yet the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) division admits that "though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor." NOAA further states "The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
We also know that the burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels from about 280 parts per million to about 370ppm. Since CO2 is a greenhouse cause, it is reasonable to accept that the higher CO2 levels are trapping more heat. Unfortunately, as NOAA has implied, there are still many important uncertainties about the exact level of warming we should attribute to different components of our atmosphere.
To summarise, we have excellent scientific records to show that climate change is occurring; we know that CO2 levels have gone up; we know that water vapour is a greenhouse gas; and we know that we don't know all the answers.
At this point in the climate change debate, we can choose to go down one of several different paths.
Path # 1: we can accept the widely held scientific view that the human-induced rise in CO2 is the cause of the problem and agree to reduce our burning of fossil fuels. This has profound economic and social consequences for billions of people in developing countries who aspire to a standard of living close to that enjoyed by most Australians, Americans and Europeans. To date, no global agreement on reducing CO2 levels has been reached (forget about the Kyoto agreement - it never had a chance of making a difference to global CO2 emissions). Even so, the lack of meaningful action to date has not stopped many scientists and environmental activists from urging radical change to the way in which we live on this planet.
Path # 2: we can accept that rising CO2 levels are just one cause of global climate change and that other factors such as water vapour and heat from the sun are equally or far more important. Since human beings have virtually no control over the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere nor over the amount of heat put out by the sun, there seems to be no action we can take to make any difference to global warming and to all the adverse social and economic consequences which are likely to manifest themselves over the next century or two.
Path # 3: we can accept that climate change is occurring, that we human beings don't know all the possible causes and, as a result, we can't know all the possible solutions, but that we can act now to minimise the impacts of climate change on the millions or billions of people who will be adversely impacted by a warming planet over future years. People who accept this path believe it is a waste of time to enter into long and spiteful debates about whether one is a climate change denier or skeptic or supporter: these are just labels which define or denigrate people and which ignore the need for action, whatever that action might need to be. Instead, people on path # 3 accept that we need to conserve our fossil fuels which exist in finite amounts on the planet and which we should not be wasting in ways that will disadvantage future generations. These people also believe that we should be planning for a hotter, dryer future with higher sea levels. By planning ahead, we can mitigate or reduce the severity of future impacts on human beings if the worst of the climate change predictions come about.
At present, we have people such as Hrimnir Benediktsson from Dalyellup who, as politically motivated environmental activists, want everyone to accept path #1, regardless of how difficult it is to achieve a political solution to rising CO2 levels - just ask former PM Kevin Rudd how hard it was. We also have the so-called deniers such as Professor Ian Plimer who believe no action is needed by human beings since the climate will continue to change no matter what we do.
And then we have the least vocal group - path # 3 - of which I happen to be a member, where we accept that climate change is occurring, we admit that we don't know for sure what's causing it, but we agree to act appropriately to conserve our limited supplies of fossil fuels and to reduce the adverse impacts of the climate changes which we believe will occur over the coming centuries.
What then is causing the climate to change? Scientists believe that the large high pressure cells in the northern part of the southern hemisphere have become larger, in turn pushing the low pressure cells which contain rain-bearing cold fronts further to the south. This then causes these cold fronts to drop most of their rain 200 or 300 kilometres further south than before, resulting in much lower rainfall for the most parts of the south west of the state.
We then need to ask why are these high pressure cells larger than they once were. The obvious answer, once again confirmed by scientific data, is that the world is getting warmer. As air heats up, it expands and this is a plausible explanation of why our climate is changing.
But now we come to the hard part. Why is planet earth warming up? Here, there are many theories, the most popular one being a human-caused increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is no doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas: it traps heat from the sun that would otherwise escape back out into outer space after being reflected off clouds and the surface of the planet. However, water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and it is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. It plays critical roles in regulating global climate, yet the US government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) division admits that "though the basics of the hydrological cycle are fairly well understood, we have very little comprehension of the complexity of the feedback loops. Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries, though satellite measurements, combined with balloon data and some in-situ ground measurements indicate generally positive trends in global water vapor." NOAA further states "The feedback loop in which water is involved is critically important to projecting future climate change, but as yet is still fairly poorly measured and understood."
We also know that the burning of fossil fuels has increased CO2 levels from about 280 parts per million to about 370ppm. Since CO2 is a greenhouse cause, it is reasonable to accept that the higher CO2 levels are trapping more heat. Unfortunately, as NOAA has implied, there are still many important uncertainties about the exact level of warming we should attribute to different components of our atmosphere.
To summarise, we have excellent scientific records to show that climate change is occurring; we know that CO2 levels have gone up; we know that water vapour is a greenhouse gas; and we know that we don't know all the answers.
At this point in the climate change debate, we can choose to go down one of several different paths.
Path # 1: we can accept the widely held scientific view that the human-induced rise in CO2 is the cause of the problem and agree to reduce our burning of fossil fuels. This has profound economic and social consequences for billions of people in developing countries who aspire to a standard of living close to that enjoyed by most Australians, Americans and Europeans. To date, no global agreement on reducing CO2 levels has been reached (forget about the Kyoto agreement - it never had a chance of making a difference to global CO2 emissions). Even so, the lack of meaningful action to date has not stopped many scientists and environmental activists from urging radical change to the way in which we live on this planet.
Path # 2: we can accept that rising CO2 levels are just one cause of global climate change and that other factors such as water vapour and heat from the sun are equally or far more important. Since human beings have virtually no control over the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere nor over the amount of heat put out by the sun, there seems to be no action we can take to make any difference to global warming and to all the adverse social and economic consequences which are likely to manifest themselves over the next century or two.
Path # 3: we can accept that climate change is occurring, that we human beings don't know all the possible causes and, as a result, we can't know all the possible solutions, but that we can act now to minimise the impacts of climate change on the millions or billions of people who will be adversely impacted by a warming planet over future years. People who accept this path believe it is a waste of time to enter into long and spiteful debates about whether one is a climate change denier or skeptic or supporter: these are just labels which define or denigrate people and which ignore the need for action, whatever that action might need to be. Instead, people on path # 3 accept that we need to conserve our fossil fuels which exist in finite amounts on the planet and which we should not be wasting in ways that will disadvantage future generations. These people also believe that we should be planning for a hotter, dryer future with higher sea levels. By planning ahead, we can mitigate or reduce the severity of future impacts on human beings if the worst of the climate change predictions come about.
At present, we have people such as Hrimnir Benediktsson from Dalyellup who, as politically motivated environmental activists, want everyone to accept path #1, regardless of how difficult it is to achieve a political solution to rising CO2 levels - just ask former PM Kevin Rudd how hard it was. We also have the so-called deniers such as Professor Ian Plimer who believe no action is needed by human beings since the climate will continue to change no matter what we do.
And then we have the least vocal group - path # 3 - of which I happen to be a member, where we accept that climate change is occurring, we admit that we don't know for sure what's causing it, but we agree to act appropriately to conserve our limited supplies of fossil fuels and to reduce the adverse impacts of the climate changes which we believe will occur over the coming centuries.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Politics is a game, and rotten to the core - Time for Independents?
The following article appeared on the ABC's The Drum website on 10 June 2010. I don't agree with Hewson's comments about mining companies and big polluters manipulating government but I totally agree with his views on the poor quality of the typical modern politician. So I wonder if the time has now arrived for Australian voters to start sending good quality independents free of political party affiliations into Parliament as their elected representatives?
Politics is a game, and rotten to the core
John Hewson
In a recent blog Peter Martin has provocatively suggested that, in relation to the Rudd Government's mining tax, what is at stake is the idea of government.
It is a very real question whether our governments can actually govern anymore, with the power of vested interests, the shrillness of minorities, short-termism, and the superficiality of much of the media.
It is even more significant to ask whether those who are elected are actually capable of governing.
So much of what we call "governing" today is more about winning and keeping government, than it is about actually governing, more about politics and the politics of governing, than "the idea of government".
Politics today is little more than a "game" played out in a 24-hour media cycle. The players will now virtually say or do what they believe is required to win the media on the day, or influence next week's polls.
In this world, our politicians feel that they have to be seen, on any day, to be doing "something", to be responding to "the crisis", even if of their own making.
Moreover, politics now increasingly attracts "apparatchiks" as key players, to whom the game is their "end", and many of those who seek to gain personally in terms of the monetary rewards and the trappings of office, rather than those who bring a particular skill set or experience of relevance to "governing".
Few of those appointed as ministers, for example, have any particular experience or expertise in the portfolios to which they are appointed, or in actually managing anything, let alone a well-entrenched, change-resistant bureaucracy.
In this world, principles are cheap, policy promises are a means to an end, and too, even ephemeral, and policy detail and genuine debate can be a severe disadvantage. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
To the punter, daily media reports of the contest are often little better than Hollywood gossip.
It is little wonder that they increasingly tune out, feel disenfranchised and become disillusioned.
Problems don't get "solved", real needs are not addressed, and "bad (political) behaviour" is expected, but perhaps ultimately not yet excused.
Hasn't all this, and more, all come together in the current political contest over the mining super profits tax?
Powerful, multinational, well funded, mining giants, fearful that this may be the thin end of the wedge from the point of view of the taxation of their global mining activities, hell-bent on intimidating a government out of "governing", where they and their narrow interests are concerned.
Why shouldn't they give it a go? There is clear, recent evidence, that both sides of Australian politics can be "bullied" or "bought", as demonstrated by the success of the "big polluters" in the climate change "debate", over the Howard, Rudd and Abbott teams.
The time couldn't be better, with Rudd on the back foot on so many fronts, having backed off, or failed to deliver on, so much, and the ultimate opportunist in Abbott, the master of the negative.
With a complex, conceptual issue, driven by a Treasury that clearly understands and believes in the concept, but is largely incapable of advising on its implementation, or even on how the issue can be managed. They can see it working in practice, but wonder how they can improve its workings in theory.
With a media, little better than Google experts on the subject, and probably with even less genuine interest, but now fascinated at the prospect of a one-term Rudd Government, the first since Scullin in the 30s, the possible demise of the angry, control freak.
It matters little, indeed, it may even be something of a badge of honour, that they previously helped "make" him, putting him on a pedestal, promising genuine "change" and "reform", a new "vision".
Unfortunately, it's the contest that matters, not the policy substance, not the governance!
It is said that a fish rots from the head. Our "governance" is rotting through a distinct lack of effective leadership, and delivery, in a political system that is in desperate need of reform, on so many fronts.
But, unfortunately, those in the game have no incentive to really change.
Dr. John Hewson was the federal leader of the Liberal Party of Australia from 1990 to 1994.
Politics is a game, and rotten to the core
John Hewson
In a recent blog Peter Martin has provocatively suggested that, in relation to the Rudd Government's mining tax, what is at stake is the idea of government.
It is a very real question whether our governments can actually govern anymore, with the power of vested interests, the shrillness of minorities, short-termism, and the superficiality of much of the media.
It is even more significant to ask whether those who are elected are actually capable of governing.
So much of what we call "governing" today is more about winning and keeping government, than it is about actually governing, more about politics and the politics of governing, than "the idea of government".
Politics today is little more than a "game" played out in a 24-hour media cycle. The players will now virtually say or do what they believe is required to win the media on the day, or influence next week's polls.
In this world, our politicians feel that they have to be seen, on any day, to be doing "something", to be responding to "the crisis", even if of their own making.
Moreover, politics now increasingly attracts "apparatchiks" as key players, to whom the game is their "end", and many of those who seek to gain personally in terms of the monetary rewards and the trappings of office, rather than those who bring a particular skill set or experience of relevance to "governing".
Few of those appointed as ministers, for example, have any particular experience or expertise in the portfolios to which they are appointed, or in actually managing anything, let alone a well-entrenched, change-resistant bureaucracy.
In this world, principles are cheap, policy promises are a means to an end, and too, even ephemeral, and policy detail and genuine debate can be a severe disadvantage. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
To the punter, daily media reports of the contest are often little better than Hollywood gossip.
It is little wonder that they increasingly tune out, feel disenfranchised and become disillusioned.
Problems don't get "solved", real needs are not addressed, and "bad (political) behaviour" is expected, but perhaps ultimately not yet excused.
Hasn't all this, and more, all come together in the current political contest over the mining super profits tax?
Powerful, multinational, well funded, mining giants, fearful that this may be the thin end of the wedge from the point of view of the taxation of their global mining activities, hell-bent on intimidating a government out of "governing", where they and their narrow interests are concerned.
Why shouldn't they give it a go? There is clear, recent evidence, that both sides of Australian politics can be "bullied" or "bought", as demonstrated by the success of the "big polluters" in the climate change "debate", over the Howard, Rudd and Abbott teams.
The time couldn't be better, with Rudd on the back foot on so many fronts, having backed off, or failed to deliver on, so much, and the ultimate opportunist in Abbott, the master of the negative.
With a complex, conceptual issue, driven by a Treasury that clearly understands and believes in the concept, but is largely incapable of advising on its implementation, or even on how the issue can be managed. They can see it working in practice, but wonder how they can improve its workings in theory.
With a media, little better than Google experts on the subject, and probably with even less genuine interest, but now fascinated at the prospect of a one-term Rudd Government, the first since Scullin in the 30s, the possible demise of the angry, control freak.
It matters little, indeed, it may even be something of a badge of honour, that they previously helped "make" him, putting him on a pedestal, promising genuine "change" and "reform", a new "vision".
Unfortunately, it's the contest that matters, not the policy substance, not the governance!
It is said that a fish rots from the head. Our "governance" is rotting through a distinct lack of effective leadership, and delivery, in a political system that is in desperate need of reform, on so many fronts.
But, unfortunately, those in the game have no incentive to really change.
Dr. John Hewson was the federal leader of the Liberal Party of Australia from 1990 to 1994.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Threats to Western Democracy
In a recent edition of Quadrant, Professor James Allen outlined some of his observations on how democracy is declining in many parts of the world. However, he didn't address the issue of the major causative factors which are helping to weaken democracy. In the following letter that I sent to the editor of Quadrant, I suggest what some of these factors are.
James Allen's valuable article on "Intimations of the Decline of Democracy" (Quadrant May 2010) correctly points out how democracy has been weakened in various ways. He appears not to have asked himself why or how these changes have come about? Had he done so, I would have suggested three of the major reasons as being: the power of the media; government being all about the leader rather than the team and its policies; and the almost unbelievable level of wealth within those democracies.
The media's ability to control and direct public opinion has never been stronger, in spite of the diversity of media types, with the internet and world wide web being the most recent. As people's lives in most free (i.e., democratic) countries become even more complex and time poor, so they turn to the all-pervasive media not just for the news from which to form an opinion about an issue but to adopt opinions already prepared for public consumption by the media. Countless examples exist of important but complex issues being synthesised down into simple, one dimensional 15 second statements on radio or TV or encapsulated within a single emotionally-charged photo in newspapers or on the internet. Here in Australia, human-caused climate change, logging of native forests, saving the whales, illegal immigrants in leaking boats, the expected high achievement by a new prime minister being replaced by realisation of his and his ministerial team's short-comings plus the proposed Resources Super-Profits Tax are just some of the issues where the media doesn't just present the news as a source of objective information. Instead, the media quickly chooses its position and then attempts (usually with success) to sell that position to the Australian public.
In a similar vein, the media has to accept much of the blame for Australia's state and federal elections being turned into little more than presidential campaigns. Whether our prime minister has broken every promise or not; whether the leader of the opposition ever speaks the truth: these are relatively unimportant issues compared to what the Rudd government has actually achieved in its two and a half years and compared to the policies that Abbott will be taking into government, should he win the next election. Focusing on the person rather than the policies trivialises the intent of what the democratic process is trying to achieve: good governance by an honest, competent government, yet the media can't seem to stop itself focusing on personalities.
So, in turn, this begs the question of why the media behaves this way. I believe the key determinant that controls media behaviour is also what motivates 99% of people around the world: money and the desire to own all the things that money can buy. The media doesn't need to be relevant or accurate or even responsible to make money for itself. It only needs to sell more newspapers or have more people watch its TV programs or subscribe to its online services. If it dumbs down the message so that even a 12 year old enjoys and understands the news, the photo, the video or the TV program, it's not the media's problem if this causes the population at large to ignore important issues or events happening in the world around them or to vote at election time on the basis of which leader is better looking or has involved him or herself in more media-savvy but irrelevant campaign stunts.
The third cause of weaker democracies in many countries is financial: our modern society seems to have an unthinking and unyielding determination for individuals to make an amount of money that is beyond what is necessary for the sustenance of a comfortable life (admittedly, 'comfortable' is a relative term but most people can quickly visualise what it means and how it should be unnecessary to go beyond a certain comfortable level of existence). The recent global financial crisis can be simply described as an excess of financial capital wanting to be traded on as many new, different but often artificial financial constructs as can be created by human imagination. Long ago, the name of the game ceased to be investment for long-term economic and societal reward, instead replaced by short-term speculative gambling, in part to create even more wealth even though the actual need for more wealth was absent, as exemplified by the excessively large bonuses paid to investment bankers, for example. The end result of this financial fanaticism includes perverse outcomes such as the investment in speculative holdings of crude oil contracts being twelve times larger than the actual value of the world's annual production of and trade in crude oil. The physical market has been overwhelmed by the artificially constructed, non-material market.
One only has to look at the unbelievably large amounts of money that have been lost as a result of the global financial crisis: trillions of dollars. The amount of money promised by the European Community and the IMF to help sustain the financial and psychological crisis caused by Greece's debt problems is far greater than that country's total private and public debt. Yet this crisis money is primarily required because the developed world (which is mostly democratic) has too much money to profitably put into medium- and longer-term, nation-building investments, so speculation becomes the only alternative. In fact, the amount of money is so great that, when things go wrong, virtually no single country is economically large enough nor financially secure enough to save itself. Instead, as has happened in Europe, rescue is required from multiple countries, not just one or two near neighbours or those with strong cultural links.
To conclude on this final point about the amazing wealth held within democratic countries, Adam Smith correctly pointed out that the invisible hand of the market, guided by the aspirations and dealings of the billions of people in both local and global marketplaces, was the ultimate determinant of an individual's and a nation's wealth. Today, however, the concentration of money into a relatively small number of very wealthy hands has allowed short-term speculation to dominate and control the decision-making processes of democratically elected governments. Personally, I see no merit in 'naked' short selling - offering to sell something I don't own. I see no merit in computer-controlled market purchases and sales of shares or commodities carried out in micro-seconds for profits of a fraction of one percent. The artificiality of these transactions and the almost total lack of on-ground outcomes able to improve national economic outputs or provide social benefits (buildings, roads, ports, schools, services to people, etc) should suggest that they're not really needed in a modern wealthy society. Yet these types of financial activities are now so large and so important to government through the employment they generate and the taxes they pay that meaningful regulation (or bans if appropriate) by government or its regulators is almost impossible to countenance. Our democratic processes are simply not up to the task of standing up to these people and institutions with their incredible wealth.
Professor Allen's article describes the indisputable weakening of democratic processes within countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand and within supra-national bodies such as the new Europe. If my explanations of why democracies are now under threat are correct, then we now face the hardest task of all: arriving at solutions to the problems posed by a dominant media, the presidential nature of modern politics, and the power and influence of enormous amounts of money largely surplus to the day-to-day needs of its personal, corporate or national owners.
James Allen's valuable article on "Intimations of the Decline of Democracy" (Quadrant May 2010) correctly points out how democracy has been weakened in various ways. He appears not to have asked himself why or how these changes have come about? Had he done so, I would have suggested three of the major reasons as being: the power of the media; government being all about the leader rather than the team and its policies; and the almost unbelievable level of wealth within those democracies.
The media's ability to control and direct public opinion has never been stronger, in spite of the diversity of media types, with the internet and world wide web being the most recent. As people's lives in most free (i.e., democratic) countries become even more complex and time poor, so they turn to the all-pervasive media not just for the news from which to form an opinion about an issue but to adopt opinions already prepared for public consumption by the media. Countless examples exist of important but complex issues being synthesised down into simple, one dimensional 15 second statements on radio or TV or encapsulated within a single emotionally-charged photo in newspapers or on the internet. Here in Australia, human-caused climate change, logging of native forests, saving the whales, illegal immigrants in leaking boats, the expected high achievement by a new prime minister being replaced by realisation of his and his ministerial team's short-comings plus the proposed Resources Super-Profits Tax are just some of the issues where the media doesn't just present the news as a source of objective information. Instead, the media quickly chooses its position and then attempts (usually with success) to sell that position to the Australian public.
In a similar vein, the media has to accept much of the blame for Australia's state and federal elections being turned into little more than presidential campaigns. Whether our prime minister has broken every promise or not; whether the leader of the opposition ever speaks the truth: these are relatively unimportant issues compared to what the Rudd government has actually achieved in its two and a half years and compared to the policies that Abbott will be taking into government, should he win the next election. Focusing on the person rather than the policies trivialises the intent of what the democratic process is trying to achieve: good governance by an honest, competent government, yet the media can't seem to stop itself focusing on personalities.
So, in turn, this begs the question of why the media behaves this way. I believe the key determinant that controls media behaviour is also what motivates 99% of people around the world: money and the desire to own all the things that money can buy. The media doesn't need to be relevant or accurate or even responsible to make money for itself. It only needs to sell more newspapers or have more people watch its TV programs or subscribe to its online services. If it dumbs down the message so that even a 12 year old enjoys and understands the news, the photo, the video or the TV program, it's not the media's problem if this causes the population at large to ignore important issues or events happening in the world around them or to vote at election time on the basis of which leader is better looking or has involved him or herself in more media-savvy but irrelevant campaign stunts.
The third cause of weaker democracies in many countries is financial: our modern society seems to have an unthinking and unyielding determination for individuals to make an amount of money that is beyond what is necessary for the sustenance of a comfortable life (admittedly, 'comfortable' is a relative term but most people can quickly visualise what it means and how it should be unnecessary to go beyond a certain comfortable level of existence). The recent global financial crisis can be simply described as an excess of financial capital wanting to be traded on as many new, different but often artificial financial constructs as can be created by human imagination. Long ago, the name of the game ceased to be investment for long-term economic and societal reward, instead replaced by short-term speculative gambling, in part to create even more wealth even though the actual need for more wealth was absent, as exemplified by the excessively large bonuses paid to investment bankers, for example. The end result of this financial fanaticism includes perverse outcomes such as the investment in speculative holdings of crude oil contracts being twelve times larger than the actual value of the world's annual production of and trade in crude oil. The physical market has been overwhelmed by the artificially constructed, non-material market.
One only has to look at the unbelievably large amounts of money that have been lost as a result of the global financial crisis: trillions of dollars. The amount of money promised by the European Community and the IMF to help sustain the financial and psychological crisis caused by Greece's debt problems is far greater than that country's total private and public debt. Yet this crisis money is primarily required because the developed world (which is mostly democratic) has too much money to profitably put into medium- and longer-term, nation-building investments, so speculation becomes the only alternative. In fact, the amount of money is so great that, when things go wrong, virtually no single country is economically large enough nor financially secure enough to save itself. Instead, as has happened in Europe, rescue is required from multiple countries, not just one or two near neighbours or those with strong cultural links.
To conclude on this final point about the amazing wealth held within democratic countries, Adam Smith correctly pointed out that the invisible hand of the market, guided by the aspirations and dealings of the billions of people in both local and global marketplaces, was the ultimate determinant of an individual's and a nation's wealth. Today, however, the concentration of money into a relatively small number of very wealthy hands has allowed short-term speculation to dominate and control the decision-making processes of democratically elected governments. Personally, I see no merit in 'naked' short selling - offering to sell something I don't own. I see no merit in computer-controlled market purchases and sales of shares or commodities carried out in micro-seconds for profits of a fraction of one percent. The artificiality of these transactions and the almost total lack of on-ground outcomes able to improve national economic outputs or provide social benefits (buildings, roads, ports, schools, services to people, etc) should suggest that they're not really needed in a modern wealthy society. Yet these types of financial activities are now so large and so important to government through the employment they generate and the taxes they pay that meaningful regulation (or bans if appropriate) by government or its regulators is almost impossible to countenance. Our democratic processes are simply not up to the task of standing up to these people and institutions with their incredible wealth.
Professor Allen's article describes the indisputable weakening of democratic processes within countries like the USA, Australia and New Zealand and within supra-national bodies such as the new Europe. If my explanations of why democracies are now under threat are correct, then we now face the hardest task of all: arriving at solutions to the problems posed by a dominant media, the presidential nature of modern politics, and the power and influence of enormous amounts of money largely surplus to the day-to-day needs of its personal, corporate or national owners.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
CRIKEY and the member for Vasse
The following article appeared in the 29 April 2010 online edition of Crikey.com. I don't know the author Luke Walladge - a former staffer for premiers Gallop and Carpenter - so his comments are entirely his own. However, I thank him for the supportive comments made about me and leave it to you to make up your own mind on the other issues he's raised.
NEVER MIND BUSWELL - BLAME THE CLOTS WHO PICKED HIM
by Luke Walladge
How Bernie Masters must be enjoying this.
In its inestimable wisdom, the Liberal Party went out of its way five years ago to shaft a popular, long-standing MP with a track record of service and integrity in favor of a boorish yob, a local mayor with more question marks than achievements next to his name.
Masters fought the blitzkrieg tooth and nail, but as is the way of these things, lost in the end. And for WA’s sins, one Troy Buswell was dumped into the state’s lap, baggage and all, bellowing and boozing and generally behaving like a provincial come to town for a spree. Which, of course, he was.
Should we be surprised that Buswell cheats on his wife, or that he cheated the taxpayer to pay for it? Should we really express any shock that a man who treats woman so appallingly as to s-xually harass them in Parliament House itself, should treat his wife with such contempt? Is all this really any more — or less — than we had a right to expect?
All political parties have their idiots, their embarrassments, their lapses of judgement. But this one’s a cracker.
Senior figures in the Liberal Party, old enough to know better, have been touting this fool as a future Premier for years. What that says about their political nous is obvious to anyone with a newspaper and the ability to read; if, that is, the choices of first Matt Birney and then Paul Omodei as leaders left anyone in any doubt to begin with.
Colin Barnett, the only man who could win an election (and we know that, because he did) was so far on the outer with his own party three years ago that he was the only state MP not to attend their planning and strategy session. Kim Hames, now deputy Premier, was such a decent, honest and hard-working MP that in the leadership ballot that elevated Buswell the first time he could only garner one vote — his own.
In racing parlance, it’d be fair to say the WA Liberals aren’t much judges of horseflesh.
Even as late as Tuesday morning, the foolishness continued. After Buswell’s press conference saw him admit to not merely adultery and deceit but also fraud and potential corruption, the recently deposed Treasurer still saw fit to argue that he should remain in his position. In this he was backed up by state Liberal president Barry Court, a professional descendant and political legatee if ever there was one. It was left, again, for Premier Barnett to state the screamingly obvious and demand Buswell’s resignation in Cabinet.
What a crew.
Barnett is an unlikely candidate for the position of sympathetic figure. Brusque, harsh and not overburdened with social graces, he’s the sort of politician who could leave the charm out of a charm offensive. But even he must be wondering what he’s done to deserve this; his premiership’s been distinguished more by putting out political spot fires than actually achieving anything. Be careful what you wish for, and all that sort of thing.
Is this the best the Liberals can do? Is Troy Buswell really the best they could offer WA? And if he wasn’t, why was he appointed in the first place?
The WA Liberal Party is one step away from descending into a rabble. With judgement such as theirs, you wouldn’t have much faith in their choice of federal candidates or state ministers, would you?
If Barnett cannot get his government’s act together and fast, he will find his support eroding very quickly. The electorate has a very good nose for scoundrels, fools and incompetence; better, it seems, than WA Liberals, who are now down one Treasurer and a whole lot of public trust.
How Bernie Masters must be enjoying this.
NEVER MIND BUSWELL - BLAME THE CLOTS WHO PICKED HIM
by Luke Walladge
How Bernie Masters must be enjoying this.
In its inestimable wisdom, the Liberal Party went out of its way five years ago to shaft a popular, long-standing MP with a track record of service and integrity in favor of a boorish yob, a local mayor with more question marks than achievements next to his name.
Masters fought the blitzkrieg tooth and nail, but as is the way of these things, lost in the end. And for WA’s sins, one Troy Buswell was dumped into the state’s lap, baggage and all, bellowing and boozing and generally behaving like a provincial come to town for a spree. Which, of course, he was.
Should we be surprised that Buswell cheats on his wife, or that he cheated the taxpayer to pay for it? Should we really express any shock that a man who treats woman so appallingly as to s-xually harass them in Parliament House itself, should treat his wife with such contempt? Is all this really any more — or less — than we had a right to expect?
All political parties have their idiots, their embarrassments, their lapses of judgement. But this one’s a cracker.
Senior figures in the Liberal Party, old enough to know better, have been touting this fool as a future Premier for years. What that says about their political nous is obvious to anyone with a newspaper and the ability to read; if, that is, the choices of first Matt Birney and then Paul Omodei as leaders left anyone in any doubt to begin with.
Colin Barnett, the only man who could win an election (and we know that, because he did) was so far on the outer with his own party three years ago that he was the only state MP not to attend their planning and strategy session. Kim Hames, now deputy Premier, was such a decent, honest and hard-working MP that in the leadership ballot that elevated Buswell the first time he could only garner one vote — his own.
In racing parlance, it’d be fair to say the WA Liberals aren’t much judges of horseflesh.
Even as late as Tuesday morning, the foolishness continued. After Buswell’s press conference saw him admit to not merely adultery and deceit but also fraud and potential corruption, the recently deposed Treasurer still saw fit to argue that he should remain in his position. In this he was backed up by state Liberal president Barry Court, a professional descendant and political legatee if ever there was one. It was left, again, for Premier Barnett to state the screamingly obvious and demand Buswell’s resignation in Cabinet.
What a crew.
Barnett is an unlikely candidate for the position of sympathetic figure. Brusque, harsh and not overburdened with social graces, he’s the sort of politician who could leave the charm out of a charm offensive. But even he must be wondering what he’s done to deserve this; his premiership’s been distinguished more by putting out political spot fires than actually achieving anything. Be careful what you wish for, and all that sort of thing.
Is this the best the Liberals can do? Is Troy Buswell really the best they could offer WA? And if he wasn’t, why was he appointed in the first place?
The WA Liberal Party is one step away from descending into a rabble. With judgement such as theirs, you wouldn’t have much faith in their choice of federal candidates or state ministers, would you?
If Barnett cannot get his government’s act together and fast, he will find his support eroding very quickly. The electorate has a very good nose for scoundrels, fools and incompetence; better, it seems, than WA Liberals, who are now down one Treasurer and a whole lot of public trust.
How Bernie Masters must be enjoying this.
Friday, March 12, 2010
WILDERNESS - Politics and Policy within the WA LIberal Party
Like most political parties, the Liberal Party in WA is a complex organisation, with lay and parliamentary members of varying abilitities and expertise acting to further their own or the party’s ambitions. After joining the party in 1984, I was elected the state MP for Vasse (a rural seat centred on Busselton in the south west of the state) in 1996, serving as a backbencher in the Richard Court government until the 2001 election when the Labor government was elected. Having a background in the environmental sciences, I was then appointed by then opposition leader Colin Barnett as the Liberal spokesman on science and the environment.
In the lead-up to the 2005 election, most shadow ministers were busy preparing policy or position statements that the Liberal Party could take to the election. In 2002 and 2003, I produced what I considered to be well-researched and argued documents on establishing an Invasive Species Council to tackle the problems of weeds and feral animals; a management strategy for the Ningaloo Marine Park and Cape Range National Park; a policy on reducing light emissions to the sky in urban environments (light spill); a proposal to introduce a levy to fund Natural Resource Management; a science policy; and a policy on wilderness in Western Australia.
Much to my surprise and frustration, several of these documents never saw the light of day. However, all became clear when I lost Liberal Party endorsement for the seat of Vasse in late 2003, to be replaced by Troy Buswell, a controversial figure who is now treasurer in the Liberal Nationals government that was elected in late 2008. Too late did I discover that certain of Buswell’s parliamentary supporters were actively working to deny me a public profile as a shadow minister, so that they could highlight my lack of public recognition as an argument against me during pre-selection, thereby encouraging delegates to vote for Buswell.
In early 2004, I resigned from the Liberal Party and stood against Buswell in the 2005 election, losing by 209 votes.
I produced the following draft position statement on wilderness in WA in September 2003. The reason why it remained hidden from public view may have been a result of the Liberal hierarchy believing it was not suitable to adopt as policy, although the most likely reason is as explained above – to deny me public exposure. Nonetheless, considering how little policy development has occurred on the important subject of wilderness in WA since the 2005 election, the issues outlined in the position statement remain valid today.
WILDERNESS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Defining the difference
Introduction
A strong economy is dependent upon a healthy and diverse environment, but human impacts on the Australian environment now require a strong economy to properly manage our environmental assets. The need to find the correct balance between economic and environmental imperatives is urgent.
The Liberal Party has a long-standing commitment to the conservation of Western Australia’s natural heritage. The previous Coalition Government established five new national parks, five conservation reserves and 59 nature reserves to expand Western Australia’s conservation estate by 920,000 hectares. In addition, 2.6 million hectares of pastoral lands were acquired for conservation in the Gascoyne-Murchison and Pilbara regions.
Important natural areas should be protected from development, such as in National Parks or nature reserves, or through the voluntary actions of private landowners.
Wilderness is internationally defined as an area which is large, remote and natural. Wilderness areas provide significant social and environmental benefits, such as preservation of valuable ecosystems and biodiversity, while providing people with the opportunity to escape from modern society and “experience” nature.
Wilderness also has important implications for human access, tourism, mineral resource development and biodiversity management. These implications need to be fully understood and widely debated before wilderness areas are dedicated and locked away.
The benefits of wilderness
Wilderness areas are a unique part of the conservation estate. National Parks and other conservation reserves require active management and intervention, coupled with controls on activities which could compromise ecosystems. In contrast, wilderness is essentially left alone so that natural processes can occur almost totally free of human disturbance.
It has been argued that simply creating National Parks is not adequate to produce true “wilderness” conditions capable of providing authentic wilderness experiences free of permanent human structures and disturbance.
Wilderness issues
Identification and protection
In Western Australia, the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 provides no criteria for wilderness identification. Classification of an area as wilderness can be made under the Act only if it is consistent with statutory management objectives for an area.
There is debate over the need to introduce dedicated wilderness legislation which would allow for the appropriate nomination, assessment, declaration, management and protection of wilderness areas. Such legislation exists in New South Wales and South Australia. However, controversy remains over identifying and protecting wilderness areas, with contention between conservation organisations and recreational groups, particularly with regard to levels of access and the amount of permitted disturbance.
Access
Wilderness is a very restrictive form of land use. The absence of roads is a basic condition of wilderness areas, with no motorised vehicles allowed, no recreational use of animal transport and restrictions on aircraft.
These restrictions create “equity of access” and elitist problems. The disabled, elderly and very young would find it extremely difficult to appreciate these areas as access must be by foot or non-motorised boat. Even during emergencies, access by vehicles is often opposed. In the eastern states, scientific research has been stopped as a result of new wilderness areas being created.
Restrictions on mining
Resource utilisation is usually banned from wilderness areas. With WA-derived mineral and petroleum exports worth some $30 billion annually to the Australian economy, the impact on mineral resource developments cannot be lightly dismissed in any discussions concerning wilderness areas.
The mining industry believes that, although some environmental impact is an inevitable consequence of most mining and mineral exploration activities, the actual effects on the land are very small. Post-mining rehabilitation ensures that such activities do not compromise long term conservation values.
Tourism
Western Australia is a unique holiday destination. According to the WA Tourism Commission, nature-based tourism generates around $3 billion annually for the State. About 60 per cent of visitors to WA travel to regional areas, supporting thousands of jobs in small and remote towns.
By restricting access to wilderness areas, tourism potential is also restricted. A vision for wilderness areas that allows for sustainable eco-tourism such as walk trails and other built features, but which otherwise enhances conservation of natural values, may be appropriate in some areas.
Management issues
While the “naturalness” of a wilderness area may suggest that a management plan is not needed, the existence of many threats to a wilderness area’s natural values will require on-going management. The potential for inappropriate fire regimes, feral animals and exotic weeds to affect wilderness areas has the capacity to irrevocably damage biodiversity and conservation values.
Access to wilderness areas is vital to undertake management actions such as fire suppression and pest control. Appropriate management actions would, however, be severely restricted by any limitations on the use of vehicles, as enforced in other wilderness areas.
Fire
It is generally accepted that the vegetation of Australia in 1788 was a result of complex Aboriginal burning practices, which had become a part of the natural system. Present day management of wilderness areas must therefore fully consider the future role of Indigenous people and fire in wilderness areas.
The loss to property, human life and natural areas through wildfires in Canberra and around Sydney has dramatically shown the impacts of wildfire in the Australian environment. In WA, last summer’s fire in the proposed Walpole Wilderness Park burnt out some 400 square kilometres.
Setting aside large tracts of land as wilderness without effective plans to deal with such situations invites the loss of natural values in both the short and long terms. Damage to habitats, whole ecosystems and surrounding property would be substantial.
The Labor approach
The Gallop Government’s recent draft wilderness policy statement, if implemented, would be bureaucratic, restrictive and expensive. It would also not protect most of the important natural values of wilderness areas since long-term management actions would be severely constrained.
For example, permission from the executive director of the Department of CALM would be required before a helicopter could gain emergency access to a wilderness area. Access for essential management actions such as fire control or weed eradication would require a costly and lengthy report to first be presented to the Conservation Commission.
Since no fire breaks would be allowed under this draft policy, the potential for the entire wilderness area to be burnt in a single wildfire would be high. In this situation, biodiversity and aesthetic values would be severely impacted, with localised extinction of species being highly probable.
Under Labor, establishment of wilderness areas would require closing and rehabilitating all vehicle tracks, walk trails, helipads and airstrips. Almost all recreational infrastructure would be removed, including campsites, signage and toilet facilities. Planes flying over wilderness areas would need to be at least 5,000 feet above the ground, while the question of a minimum distance from shore for boats moving past wilderness areas remains unanswered.
The way forward
A Liberal government would apply realistic priorities to the aims and management objectives of any wilderness area created in Western Australia. It would give highest priority to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity values. Wilderness areas would be carefully chosen to compliment the existing conservation estate, not replace it.
Indigenous people who have maintained their links to wilderness areas would be given appropriate responsibilities in wilderness management, including the use of fire, control of feral animals and weeds, and tourism opportunities. It would also allow appropriate Indigenous usage of wilderness areas using traditional methods while always ensuring protection of environmental values.
Strategic firebreaks would allow wide bands of bush to be regularly burnt so as to allow better control of wildfires. Key infrastructure facilities such as existing campsites and walking tracks would be retained but rationalised to better manage their use. For people who would otherwise be unable to access and enjoy wilderness areas, some eco-tourism opportunities would be provided, such as access by a small number of off-road personnel carriers for wilderness tours.
Selection of any new wilderness areas and the preparation of their management plans would require wide-ranging community consultation, including the involvement of existing recreational and other users of the proposed wilderness areas.
A Liberal government would oppose the Gallop Government’s elitist, restrictive and bureaucratic draft wilderness policy.
Conclusion
The WA Liberal Party acknowledges that creating wilderness areas can provide important social benefits and can preserve valuable ecosystems and bio-diversity. However, the protection of wilderness areas does not end with their gazetting. Money and expertise are required for these areas if they are to retain their wilderness qualities due to the on-going threats from feral animals, exotic pests, inappropriate fire regimes and, on a larger scale, climatic change. Already, funding for the environment is below acceptable levels, so any new wilderness areas would need to be adequately resourced.
Specific guidelines for the identification, recognition and management of wilderness areas need to be prepared, with the protection of bio-diversity as the primary for setting aside these areas.
In the lead-up to the 2005 election, most shadow ministers were busy preparing policy or position statements that the Liberal Party could take to the election. In 2002 and 2003, I produced what I considered to be well-researched and argued documents on establishing an Invasive Species Council to tackle the problems of weeds and feral animals; a management strategy for the Ningaloo Marine Park and Cape Range National Park; a policy on reducing light emissions to the sky in urban environments (light spill); a proposal to introduce a levy to fund Natural Resource Management; a science policy; and a policy on wilderness in Western Australia.
Much to my surprise and frustration, several of these documents never saw the light of day. However, all became clear when I lost Liberal Party endorsement for the seat of Vasse in late 2003, to be replaced by Troy Buswell, a controversial figure who is now treasurer in the Liberal Nationals government that was elected in late 2008. Too late did I discover that certain of Buswell’s parliamentary supporters were actively working to deny me a public profile as a shadow minister, so that they could highlight my lack of public recognition as an argument against me during pre-selection, thereby encouraging delegates to vote for Buswell.
In early 2004, I resigned from the Liberal Party and stood against Buswell in the 2005 election, losing by 209 votes.
I produced the following draft position statement on wilderness in WA in September 2003. The reason why it remained hidden from public view may have been a result of the Liberal hierarchy believing it was not suitable to adopt as policy, although the most likely reason is as explained above – to deny me public exposure. Nonetheless, considering how little policy development has occurred on the important subject of wilderness in WA since the 2005 election, the issues outlined in the position statement remain valid today.
WILDERNESS IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Defining the difference
Introduction
A strong economy is dependent upon a healthy and diverse environment, but human impacts on the Australian environment now require a strong economy to properly manage our environmental assets. The need to find the correct balance between economic and environmental imperatives is urgent.
The Liberal Party has a long-standing commitment to the conservation of Western Australia’s natural heritage. The previous Coalition Government established five new national parks, five conservation reserves and 59 nature reserves to expand Western Australia’s conservation estate by 920,000 hectares. In addition, 2.6 million hectares of pastoral lands were acquired for conservation in the Gascoyne-Murchison and Pilbara regions.
Important natural areas should be protected from development, such as in National Parks or nature reserves, or through the voluntary actions of private landowners.
Wilderness is internationally defined as an area which is large, remote and natural. Wilderness areas provide significant social and environmental benefits, such as preservation of valuable ecosystems and biodiversity, while providing people with the opportunity to escape from modern society and “experience” nature.
Wilderness also has important implications for human access, tourism, mineral resource development and biodiversity management. These implications need to be fully understood and widely debated before wilderness areas are dedicated and locked away.
The benefits of wilderness
Wilderness areas are a unique part of the conservation estate. National Parks and other conservation reserves require active management and intervention, coupled with controls on activities which could compromise ecosystems. In contrast, wilderness is essentially left alone so that natural processes can occur almost totally free of human disturbance.
It has been argued that simply creating National Parks is not adequate to produce true “wilderness” conditions capable of providing authentic wilderness experiences free of permanent human structures and disturbance.
Wilderness issues
Identification and protection
In Western Australia, the Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 provides no criteria for wilderness identification. Classification of an area as wilderness can be made under the Act only if it is consistent with statutory management objectives for an area.
There is debate over the need to introduce dedicated wilderness legislation which would allow for the appropriate nomination, assessment, declaration, management and protection of wilderness areas. Such legislation exists in New South Wales and South Australia. However, controversy remains over identifying and protecting wilderness areas, with contention between conservation organisations and recreational groups, particularly with regard to levels of access and the amount of permitted disturbance.
Access
Wilderness is a very restrictive form of land use. The absence of roads is a basic condition of wilderness areas, with no motorised vehicles allowed, no recreational use of animal transport and restrictions on aircraft.
These restrictions create “equity of access” and elitist problems. The disabled, elderly and very young would find it extremely difficult to appreciate these areas as access must be by foot or non-motorised boat. Even during emergencies, access by vehicles is often opposed. In the eastern states, scientific research has been stopped as a result of new wilderness areas being created.
Restrictions on mining
Resource utilisation is usually banned from wilderness areas. With WA-derived mineral and petroleum exports worth some $30 billion annually to the Australian economy, the impact on mineral resource developments cannot be lightly dismissed in any discussions concerning wilderness areas.
The mining industry believes that, although some environmental impact is an inevitable consequence of most mining and mineral exploration activities, the actual effects on the land are very small. Post-mining rehabilitation ensures that such activities do not compromise long term conservation values.
Tourism
Western Australia is a unique holiday destination. According to the WA Tourism Commission, nature-based tourism generates around $3 billion annually for the State. About 60 per cent of visitors to WA travel to regional areas, supporting thousands of jobs in small and remote towns.
By restricting access to wilderness areas, tourism potential is also restricted. A vision for wilderness areas that allows for sustainable eco-tourism such as walk trails and other built features, but which otherwise enhances conservation of natural values, may be appropriate in some areas.
Management issues
While the “naturalness” of a wilderness area may suggest that a management plan is not needed, the existence of many threats to a wilderness area’s natural values will require on-going management. The potential for inappropriate fire regimes, feral animals and exotic weeds to affect wilderness areas has the capacity to irrevocably damage biodiversity and conservation values.
Access to wilderness areas is vital to undertake management actions such as fire suppression and pest control. Appropriate management actions would, however, be severely restricted by any limitations on the use of vehicles, as enforced in other wilderness areas.
Fire
It is generally accepted that the vegetation of Australia in 1788 was a result of complex Aboriginal burning practices, which had become a part of the natural system. Present day management of wilderness areas must therefore fully consider the future role of Indigenous people and fire in wilderness areas.
The loss to property, human life and natural areas through wildfires in Canberra and around Sydney has dramatically shown the impacts of wildfire in the Australian environment. In WA, last summer’s fire in the proposed Walpole Wilderness Park burnt out some 400 square kilometres.
Setting aside large tracts of land as wilderness without effective plans to deal with such situations invites the loss of natural values in both the short and long terms. Damage to habitats, whole ecosystems and surrounding property would be substantial.
The Labor approach
The Gallop Government’s recent draft wilderness policy statement, if implemented, would be bureaucratic, restrictive and expensive. It would also not protect most of the important natural values of wilderness areas since long-term management actions would be severely constrained.
For example, permission from the executive director of the Department of CALM would be required before a helicopter could gain emergency access to a wilderness area. Access for essential management actions such as fire control or weed eradication would require a costly and lengthy report to first be presented to the Conservation Commission.
Since no fire breaks would be allowed under this draft policy, the potential for the entire wilderness area to be burnt in a single wildfire would be high. In this situation, biodiversity and aesthetic values would be severely impacted, with localised extinction of species being highly probable.
Under Labor, establishment of wilderness areas would require closing and rehabilitating all vehicle tracks, walk trails, helipads and airstrips. Almost all recreational infrastructure would be removed, including campsites, signage and toilet facilities. Planes flying over wilderness areas would need to be at least 5,000 feet above the ground, while the question of a minimum distance from shore for boats moving past wilderness areas remains unanswered.
The way forward
A Liberal government would apply realistic priorities to the aims and management objectives of any wilderness area created in Western Australia. It would give highest priority to the protection and enhancement of biodiversity values. Wilderness areas would be carefully chosen to compliment the existing conservation estate, not replace it.
Indigenous people who have maintained their links to wilderness areas would be given appropriate responsibilities in wilderness management, including the use of fire, control of feral animals and weeds, and tourism opportunities. It would also allow appropriate Indigenous usage of wilderness areas using traditional methods while always ensuring protection of environmental values.
Strategic firebreaks would allow wide bands of bush to be regularly burnt so as to allow better control of wildfires. Key infrastructure facilities such as existing campsites and walking tracks would be retained but rationalised to better manage their use. For people who would otherwise be unable to access and enjoy wilderness areas, some eco-tourism opportunities would be provided, such as access by a small number of off-road personnel carriers for wilderness tours.
Selection of any new wilderness areas and the preparation of their management plans would require wide-ranging community consultation, including the involvement of existing recreational and other users of the proposed wilderness areas.
A Liberal government would oppose the Gallop Government’s elitist, restrictive and bureaucratic draft wilderness policy.
Conclusion
The WA Liberal Party acknowledges that creating wilderness areas can provide important social benefits and can preserve valuable ecosystems and bio-diversity. However, the protection of wilderness areas does not end with their gazetting. Money and expertise are required for these areas if they are to retain their wilderness qualities due to the on-going threats from feral animals, exotic pests, inappropriate fire regimes and, on a larger scale, climatic change. Already, funding for the environment is below acceptable levels, so any new wilderness areas would need to be adequately resourced.
Specific guidelines for the identification, recognition and management of wilderness areas need to be prepared, with the protection of bio-diversity as the primary for setting aside these areas.
Tasmania's Overland Track - 8 exhilarating days!
After hiking into Lake Pedder in the autumn of 1972 immediately prior to the winter in which this iconic lake was flooded, I have wanted to walk the Overland Track in central Tasmania’s highlands. Covering just 65 km from Cradle Mountain to Lake St Claire, descriptions of the track’s glacial-derived rugged scenery, cool temperate vegetation (especially the deciduous Notofagus bush) and highly variable weather fired my imagination. On April 13, 2009, our group of 9 began the adventure.
Boardwalks now allow walkers to avoid the worst of the deep mud across the button grass plains, but worse conditions were to test us. In the 40 or 45 km without boardwalks, the track consists of loose rock, a network of slippery tree roots, sunken timber from 40 year old track improvements and, after rain, pools of muddy water of indeterminate depth. While hiking poles were useful, the care needed to prevent spills, slips and twisted ankles often reduced the pace to just two kilometres per hour. Walkers had to stop before looking up to enjoy the scenery. Even the timber boardwalks were a hazard after rain or snow, with the non-slip central wire mesh usually just 30 cm wide.
Nonetheless, the experience was totally rewarding. We chose to stay in the government huts each night rather than brave the cold and wind of the tents. With the first day arguably being the hardest (10.8km, 700 metres of ascent and descent, a heavy pack and lacking fitness), we awoke after 11 hours sleep to snow, rain, hail and sleet. The West Australians amongst us loved the falling snow, with the two Belgians amused by our reaction to it!
Of the six huts we stayed in, four were basic but well designed, consisting of one large room, with benches and tables at one end and sleeping platforms at the other. Pelion hut was relatively new, able to hold up to 60 people in rooms separate from the cooking/eating room. Worst was the very new Windy Ridge hut, with numerous stairs, cold rooms and a vast main eating hall that discouraged socialising with other walkers (e.g., the benches and tables were bolted to the floor).
Wildlife along the track was minimal: wallabies at a couple of huts at dusk, leeches close to rivers, a few birds high in the tree tops. But the fungi were spectacular – every colour and shape imaginable. Even the teenagers in our group admired them.
Equally spectacular was the scenery. Ancient forests dripping in lichens; hill sides green with fields of moss; mountain sides covered in broken rock which in turn was covered by variably coloured and patterned lichens. Everywhere were smoothly glaciated valleys or jagged basalt hills which once stood above the ice. Large boulders of sandstone lay scattered on the button grass plains, having been dropped from melting glaciers.
At the end of our leisurely 7 nights and 8 days, we caught the ferry to the Lake St Claire visitor centre rather than walk the final 17 km along the lake’s edge – a boring exercise, we were told, in comparison with the 65 km of main track. We found hiking poles essential (one for me and two for Carolina). Dry socks at night rejuvenated the feet for the next day’s walk. Ear plugs in the crowded huts were needed to protect against the inevitable snorers, although there was no escape from the head cold that freely passed between walkers who shared the huts. Although we carried too much food, the excess was useful insurance against emergencies.
Prior to departure, Kevin Rudd’s stimulus payment helped pay for upgraded equipment, especially back packs and a good quality waterproof jacket for Carolina. We bought many items on eBay or via the internet from camping stores based in the east. Pre-packaged hiking food was very expensive (and our trial meals were small and bland) so we purchased packets of dried food – pasta, rice, noodles – from a Launceston supermarket.
The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service website only contained active links to or email addresses of a limited number of the various service providers needed to plan for the walk. Fortunately (and this is the first of only two commercials in this article), staff in the Launceston store of Paddy Pallin were excellent and gave freely of their time and useful advice. We were also greatly appreciative of the help given to us by the Bunbury Mountain Design store where we purchased our backpacks.
The Overland Track was the hardest physical challenge I’ve yet faced but the pain was worthwhile. Side tracks up nearby mountains or down to beautiful waterfalls added to the scenic variety of the overall track. Our fellow hikers were good company, always helpful for advice or assistance. Rangers were present at most huts and were likewise friendly and helpful, always with emergency stocks of the most requested item which people run out of – rolls of toilet paper!
The scenery and challenge of the track completely outweighed the difficulties caused by the track’s poor condition. Overall, the Overland Track deserves its title as one of Australia’s ‘iconic’ walks. Do it before you get too old.
Bernie and Carolina Masters, with 2 Belgians Vincent and Robin Keunen and a family of 5 (including 3 teenagers) from Perth: Dan, Beth, Danii, Bethanii and Brodie Heeris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)