Today will be a great day for Australians who have waited years for their government to take our warming planet seriously.

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.

For years Qantas has marketed itself to the world with the Peter Allen song, "I still call Australia home."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.