|
March 18, 2004
Whilst John Howard's re-election strategy is centred on 'the economy and national security', Mark Latham is currently walking a tightrop between economic growth jobs and environment in Tasmania. Latham's ALP is trying to neutralize national security as an issue with a quick stir of human concern about children in detention centres.
We have been experiencing 3 days of John Howard here in South Australia. The PM is basically trying to shore up the marginal Liberal seats in Adelaide (eg., Makin, Hindmarsh, Adelaide) with some smoke and mirrors. This involves federal funding for a high tech hub for manufacturing in Elizabeth; more funding to improve the economic and environmental future of the Murray River in South Australia; and funding stormwater retention and new production methods for viticulture in the Adelaide Plains).
There is also a strong attack on the Rann Government's proposed workplace laws; and the standard 'Labor does not understand how to manage the economy' script at a SA business lunchen.
Meanwhile, Latham is trying to keep Tasmania for the ALP whilst trying to win the inner urban seats of Melbourne and Sydney with some green veneer. So far he has endorsed clear felling of old growth native forests, job protection, no changes to the regional forestry agreement, and an unwillingness to retrain forestry workers.
That poses a problem. The ALP strategy is an old one: to influence preferences in key seats in Melbourne and Sydney is going to need more than reassuring the timber industry and unions in Tasmania. Still, Latham has another day to learn the green talk, send the right messages to get those crucial green preferences and put together a coherent, sustained case for reform.
I do not expect much to come out of this Tasmanian visit. It's about political expediency. Latham's writings are neo-liberal in tone (roll back the bureaucracy, open up the market, foster social entrepreneurship) etc etc; and they show little understanding of the way that the economy is dependent on ecology. Latham sees resources not ecology. So he will miss the way the Gunn's veneer mill uses a miniscule fraction of forest destroyed by the unprecedented levels of woodchip destruction of the wild forests.
Oh, I've also heard about little about liberal corporatism in Tasmania from the federal ALP. Then, they always were corporatist, were they not? Hence their historical resistance to the democratic project. Today they serious about political power and willing to sacrifice substantive social and environmental reform.
Update
So Bob Brown endorses Mark Latham even though Latham endorsed the Tasmanian government position on logging. Latham did not concede an inch on forest policy.
Bill Leak
Leak is a bit tough. After all, Bob Browm has raised the profile of the issue from a state to a national issue. Good for him.
So what does Brown's endorsement of Latham mean?
A deal: Green preferences to go to the ALP in the House of Representatives; ALP preferences to go to the Greens in the Senate. That means the Democrats have been cut out. That means more Green Senators in the Senate.
Here's a question. If the Greens hold the balance of power in the Senate (as I suspect they might do) then will they work with the government of the day? Or will they say no as they have been doing throughout this term of Parliament?
|
All we ask is for an end to woodchipping and clearfelling of our old growth forests.
In return I suggest that you commit to building a 1Billion dollar paper mill in tasmania to replace the small number of jobs lost. The paper mill, using cutting edge technology, sources its timber from regrowth and plantations. Our old growth forests can then continue to be selectively felled for valued added products such as furniture and boat building. Why let Gunns take Tasmanias heritage away in some mcdonalds like, corporate wellfare "fast forest" industry?