GreensBlog
End the shame of locking up Indonesian children
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 15th November 2011, 10:27am
by ParisLord in
- Human Rights & Justice
- Family & Community
- International Issues
- Access to Justice
- Alternatives to Prison
- Bill of Rights
- Children
- Community Legal Centres
- Detention Centres
- Disabled Rights
- Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC)
- Immigration
- Judicial Independence
- Judicial System
- Justice System
- Legal Aid
- People with a Disability
- Policing
- Refugees
If an intellectually-disabled Australian boy was detained in an Indonesian prison without charge for two years before being quietly released and deported, Australians would be fuming. They'd be as upset as they are over the boy in a Bali prison on drugs possession charges.
The carbon price is law. Now begins the campaign for serious climate action!
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Tuesday 8th November 2011, 3:12pm
by ChristineMilne in
Today we celebrate a huge achievement, with the passage of the Clean Energy Future legislation that finally puts a price on pollution and gets us ready for historical investments in clean, renewable energy, energy efficiency and protection of landscape carbon.
But, in a very real way, today's vote is a new beginning for the campaign for serious climate action, not the end.
This package of bills was designed carefully to have as many points of review as possible, as many opportunities for campaigning as possible, and as much independent expert advice as possible. Critically, it is designed with complete upward flexibility: there is no limit to our ambition if we are ready to aim high.
The challenge now is to build the political will for ambitious, science-based action over the years ahead.
Red-letter day in fight against warming
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 8th November 2011, 8:12am
by ParisLord in
- Environment
- Climate Change & the Zero Carbon World
- Alternative Fuels
- Arctic Ice Melt
- Baseload renewables
- Biodiversity
- Bioenergy
- Carbon accounting
- Climate & Social Justice
- Climate Change Adaptation
- Climate change and agriculture
- Climate Change Impacts
- Climate Change Science
- Climate Refugees
- Dams
- Drought
- Emissions Targets
- Emissions Trading and carbon tax
- Energy
- Energy Efficiency
- Environment & Planning Issues
- Feed-in Laws
- Fossil fuels
- Garnaut Review
- Geothermal Energy
- Great Barrier Reef
- Green Carbon
- Hydro, Wave & Tidal Energy
- Infrastructure
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC)
- Just Transitions
- Mandatory Renewable Energy Target
- Murray Darling
- National Parks and related
- Natural Resource Management
- Pollution
- Renewable Energy
- Sea Level Rise
- Solar Photovoltaic Energy
- Solar Thermal Energy
- Sustainable Cities
- Trading
- Waste
- Water
- Wind Energy
- Zero Carbon
Today will be a great day for Australians who have waited years for their government to take our warming planet seriously.
An historic vote
Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown
Wednesday 2nd November 2011, 10:51am
by DavidParis in
Great excitement! Last night the House of Representatives passed my private member’s bill to remove federal ministerial veto power over Territory laws*.
It is the first Australian Greens bill ever to pass Parliament and become law.
No longer will a single federal minister be able to step in and --with the stroke of a pen and without reference to Parliament -- dismiss laws passed by the democratically elected representatives of the Territory Assemblies (as the Howard government did when it overrode the civil partnerships laws passed by the ACT Assembly five years ago).
This bill has passed thanks to you and the 1.6 million Australians who voted Greens last election and thanks to the support of the Chief Ministers of the Territories, the Gillard government and the Independents, and the four Greens elected to represent Canberrans in the ACT Legislative Assembly.
It is a great day for the Australian Greens and great day for democracy! Raise a glass!
If you are near Canberra next Tuesday, please come to the Senate to see the historic carbon price package pass into law. Click here to rsvp or for details to watch online.
* Territories Self-Government Legislation Amendment (Disallowance and Amendment of laws) Bill 2011
Tasmanian forest conservation under threat
Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown
Wednesday 2nd November 2011, 9:55am
by AlisonHetherington in
Yesterday in parliament the Minister for Forestry, Senator Ludwig, confirmed to Christine Milne what has been apparent from months of inaction: the Tasmanian and Australian governments do not intend to uphold all the conservation goals of the Tasmanian forests intergovernmental agreement.
The Tasmanian government as part of the agreement was supposed to stop ALL logging in the 430,000 hectares of forests identified by environment groups. This area was supposed to have been placed in informal reserves immediately.
Independent experts were brought in to look at the options for logging outside the 430,000 hectares but had very narrow instructions on how to do so. In response, a meeting of the governments, unions, environment groups, sawmillers and industry representatives asked the experts to take a more expansive view on stopping logging in the 430,000 hectares and to report back to the group.
If the government cannot find areas to log outside of this area then it is supposed to pay out the contracts for the wood.
But in parliament this week Senator Ludwig revealed that the government intends to agree on a list of areas that can continue to be logged in the 430,000 hectares. This is a direct breach of the intergovernmental agreement signed by the Prime Minister and Tasmanian Premier (see Christine Milne's Senate question and speech: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/dailys/ds011111.pdf).
The intergovernmental agreement was negotiated in good faith and should be adhered to. This about face on the conservation goals of the agreement is not acceptable. Both governments need to ensure all the conservation goals of the intergovernmental agreement are observed, just as those measures aiding unemployed workers, contractors, Forestry Tasmania, and Gunns have been.
On the war in Afghanistan. Senator Scott Ludlam
Blog Post | Blog of Scott Ludlam
Tuesday 1st November 2011, 3:17pm
by GiovanniTorre in
Senator LUDLAM (Western Australia) (October 31st, 17:04):
I rise to add my condolences to those of my colleagues on all sides of the chamber concerning the horror that occurred on the weekend and to pay my respects to the three fallen Australians whose sacrifice is appreciated by all of us. Also to the Afghan interpreter, who was killed, and the many who were terribly injured, our thoughts are with them and their families. It is worth noting in passing, with a sense of sadness, that we do not speak to the names of each of Australia's fallen troops now because there are so many. We stand in silence in acknowledgement of their sacrifice but simply do not have time as a parliament to speak to them all as we used to-32 in a decade and a third of them fallen in only the last 12 months. If there has been such progress, if things look as wonderful on the ground as Senator Feeney has been describing, it appears that the violence that our troops have been exposed to is only getting worse.
Qantas ignores passengers in union-busting tactics
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 1st November 2011, 7:56am
by ParisLord in
For years Qantas has marketed itself to the world with the Peter Allen song, "I still call Australia home."
Tasmanian forest conservation – are we there yet?
Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown
Monday 31st October 2011, 12:41pm
Nearly 20 years after the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was declared a group of environment groups, forest industry representatives and workers' unions signed on to the Statement of Principles: a set of agreed principles that aimed to guide the transition of the forestry industry to a more sustainable base and to protect the high conservation value forests across Tasmania.
Following the principles process the signatory groups worked with the Tasmanian and Australian governments to come up with a Heads of Agreement, and then on 7 August 2011 an Intergovernmental Agreement was signed off by both governments and all the signatories.
Government shouldn't be taking sides on Qantas
Blog Post | Blog of Adam Bandt MP
Sunday 30th October 2011, 7:08pm
by DamienLawson in
In 2001, when Ansett was placed into administration and the entire fleet subsequently grounded, I spent weeks working around the clock to help get the airline flying again and preserve as many jobs as possible.
I was a lawyer for some of the key unions involved and one of our first tasks was to help install an administrator that would get the planes back in the air. It was widely accepted that grounding the planes was a very bad business move, as goodwill and brand image can be irreparably damaged.
The exigencies of Ansett, though, saw decisions made where an airline was near insolvent. I never thought I'd see a profitable airline ground its entire fleet as an industrial tactic, nor see a Labor government step in so willingly to complete the second act of a well thought out industrial strategy.
Industrial disputes cannot last forever. There does come a time when government should step in and intervene. And when an airline chief grounds the fleet of a national carrier as an industrial tactic, that time has come. There can be no qualms with the government approaching Fair Work Australia to help resolve the current Qantas dispute.
But while the differences in the various ways a government can get involved may seem technical to an outsider, they make a world of difference to the participants and to the outcome.
The Fair Work Act gives employees and their organizations legal rights to take industrial action. Those rights are not unlimited: the action must meet certain tests to be 'protected'. But even too much of this protected action can bring an end to the protection, which is why many unions will often do things that will not bring a business to halt, like the pilots at Qantas who wore red ties and made announcements over the PA.
This kind of low-level action is designed to pressure the other side to reach an outcome but prevent the matter from attracting the sanction of the law. Unless one party oversteps this limit, then the other party cannot go to Fair Work Australia and ask FWA to resolve the dispute. Keep bargaining, FWA will say. The legislation is based on parties reaching agreement amongst themselves and FWA will only arbitrate in exceptional circumstances.
Ever since John Howard's WorkChoices, the spirit of which still lives in the current legislation, many unions have sought to bargain for an outcome and avoid arbitration. Why? Because the outcomes you're likely to get in an arbitration are widely thought to be less than what you might get in bargaining. Especially over matters that impinge on managerial prerogative. Like job security clauses, a key claim of the unions in the Qantas dispute, because they are concerned about 'offshoring' and contracting out of their work.
Qantas clearly didn't think the unions had done anything unlawful, because it didn't apply to FWA to remove the unions' protection. Something else would be needed if Qantas wanted the dispute to be resolved by FWA. Something like the grounding of an airline.
Qantas' decision to ground the fleet forced the government's hand. The government now effectively had four choices. It could seek to terminate Qantas' action only. It could seek to terminate all parties' action, even the pilots who'd done nothing more than hangs their clothes and make announcements. Or they could seek to suspend industrial action and force the parties back to the bargaining table. Or, lastly, they could have just demanded FWA roll up its hands and conduct serious negotiations.
The government took the second option when they should have taken the third (or the fourth, though the government clearly thought things had gone too far for that). Why? By terminating industrial action, the parties are put on a conveyor belt to arbitration.
However, if action is suspended (and not terminated) the industrial action still stops and the planes start flying again and negotiations can take place, including under the auspices of Fair Work Australia. Neither side is advantaged and there is no looming threat of arbitration, but industrial peace continues.
Qantas is publicly and before FWA calling for action to be terminated, not suspended. Qantas knows this a sure route to arbitration, where they will chance their arm on the issue of job security.
If it felt so strongly that things had become intolerable, the Government should have sought a suspension of industrial action. And it should have entered the negotiating fray itself, helping bang heads together.
As it is, a Labor government has tipped its hand and sided with Qantas. Whatever Fair Work Australia decides, Qantas now knows the government will help it get to arbitration.
Had the unions grounded the airline, all hell would have broken loose and they wouldn't have been rewarded. As it is, it was Qantas who made the biggest threat and they're now just where they want to be.
The issues surrounding Qantas are complex. It is competing with government owned and subsidised international airlines in a way that may not be sustainable. Employees are also legitimately concerned about job security.
A Labor Government should be helping reach a negotiated outcome by supporting the whole of the airline, management and employees, with an eye to the country's long-term interests. The government should not be siding with whoever is prepared to make the biggest threat.
Ten Years On and Still No Answers
Blog Post | Blog of Christine Milne
Tuesday 25th October 2011, 11:45am
by JeffDonne in
On 19th October 2001, at the height of the Howard government's election campaign based on the mantra, "We will decide who comes to this country.." the SIEV X sank on its way to Australia with the shocking loss of 353 lives including 142 women and 146 children. 41 adults and three children survived. The truth about what happened to the SIEV X has never been told as no judicial inquiry or coroner's inquiry was ever held because the ship apparently did not sink in Australian waters. Huge questions remain:
Why were the asylum seekers on the SIEV X transported to the boat in buses with blacked out windows and forced to board by Indonesian police carrying guns?
What did Australian authorities know about the SIEV X before it departed given that Australia was involved in or knew about "disruption" activities in Indonesian ports at that time?
Did the Shoal Bay tracking station know where the SIEV X was and where it was sinking? Was a tracking device on the ship?
Coalition tied in knots over gay marriage
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 25th October 2011, 9:16am
by ParisLord in
Reports that Prime Minister Julia Gillard may allow Labor MPs a conscience vote on marriage equality have given hope to those of us advocating a change to the Marriage Act so same-sex couples can tie the knot.
It costs less to be humane
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 18th October 2011, 7:45am
by ParisLord in
Last week there was an important, positive step in asylum seeker policy for progressive Australians and those who have long-yearned for a better use of their taxpayer dollars.
Today Melbourne delivered
Blog Post | Blog of Adam Bandt MP
Wednesday 12th October 2011, 10:23am
by DamienLawson in
Today I voted to pass the comprehensive Clean Energy plan through the House of Representatives – and together we have delivered on our commitment for climate action.
This legislation will help build a strong clean economy, drive investment in renewable energy and create thousands of new jobs.
Without the voters of Melbourne, we know that action on climate change would have been off the national agenda for years.
The bigger picture
Blog Post | Blog of Bob Brown
Tuesday 11th October 2011, 4:42pm
by MarionRae in
Australian Greens Leader Bob Brown made the following remarks during the Environmental and Social Taxes session of the Tax Forum, on 4 October 2011:
"The carbon pricing effort now is to reduce costs down the line, as Nicholas Stern has pointed out, 1 per cent diversion of GDP now to deal with carbon price is going to save our grandchildren five to 20 per cent diversion of their GDP to deal with the onrush of destruction of climate change, including the loss of the Great Barrier Reef, which is a six billion dollar annual business, in the lifetimes of some people in this room on current projections.
"That said, the issue of transport, we come to a huge fossil fuel rebate system which should be removed. This on various estimates is in the area of five to ten billion dollars per annum. Yet a fossil fuel rebate system which has perverse outcomes, it may lead through the deaths of cancer of 300 people in our bigger cities per annum and that's not factored in and it should be.
Labor all at sea over refugee processing
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 11th October 2011, 8:17am
by ParisLord in
In the past few weeks, increasing numbers of prominent and ordinary Australians have been putting up their hands for a fairer treatment of asylum seekers. It's a welcome change from the usual distortions and negative language we hear from the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader.
Last week, former prime minister Malcolm Fraser and former Australian of the Year Patrick McGorry were among signatories to a letter urging the government return to onshore assessments of asylum seekers' claims. They also want the federal government to increase its humanitarian intake and ensure all 4000 assessed refugees in Malaysia will be transferred to Australia, regardless of the fate of the Malaysian people swap arrangement.
It won't happen overnight but it will happen
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 27th September 2011, 11:45am
by RobertSimms in
Last week Tasmania made history as the first state in Australia to pass a motion in favour of marriage equality for same-sex couples. It is testament to the power of social change that the last state to decriminalise homosexuality is now leading the way on positive law reform.
In 1997 Tasmania finally moved to amend the law so that homosexuality was no longer criminalised in that state. In just under 15 years, it seems the debate in Tasmania has moved full circle - from whether homosexuality is illegal to how we can give same-sex relationships the same legal and social status as other relationships. This is something that opponents of marriage reform should keep in mind.
Both sides are wrong on refugees
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 20th September 2011, 7:48am
by ParisLord in
Who was it who told the Australian Parliament in August 2006: "This is a bad bill with no redeeming features"? Who went on to say: "The people who will be disadvantaged by this bill are in fear of their lives, and we should never turn our back on them. They are people who could make a real contribution to Australia."
Why, none other than Chris Bowen, who is now Immigration Minister. Back then, he was speaking against the former Howard government's plan to take a tough stance against asylum seekers from West Papua who had paddled to Australia seeking our protection.
Is our News Limited?
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 13th September 2011, 8:59am
by ParisLord in
In Britain, the phone-hacking scandal has put Rupert Murdoch's media empire under unprecedented scrutiny.
High Court decision presents an opportunity to start afresh
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 6th September 2011, 9:46am
by ParisLord in
Last week, the High Court brought some reality back to the increasingly negative debate on asylum seeker policy where both major parties beat up on already vulnerable people.
Parenting by numbers
Blog Post | Blog of Sarah Hanson-Young
Tuesday 30th August 2011, 9:51am
by ParisLord in
Ducking into my local supermarket on Saturday five minutes before closing time, I was reminded by my four-year-old just how mutual our teaching of each other is.