Gillard's sleight-of-hand on extremism

Friday's edition of The Age carried my letter responding to Julia Gillard's opinion piece the day before calling for the rejection of "extremists" following Wednesday's rally in Canberra against the proposed carbon tax.

The rally, attended by federal Coalition leader, Tony Abbott, featured offensive placards attacking the prime minister. Abbott has drawn much deserved criticism for his attendance, including Friday's Age editorial.  However, Julia Gillard used the opportunity to label as extreme not only those who attended the rally, but those opposing them who are urging stronger, science-based action than is currently being proposed by the Australian Government. Here's my letter:

Gillard lumps all in the extreme basket

IN CALLING for the rejection of extremists, Julia Gillard tries to create a single negative category including not only the ilk of Wednesday's ignorant and offensive rally against a carbon tax, but also those who urge stronger science-based action to achieve a safe climate (Comment, 24/3).

A valid critique of Australia's present weak emissions reduction targets does not render the holders of such a view extreme. They base their case on the same science referenced by Professor Garnaut in his climate review for the federal government. Perhaps Ms Gillard would like to explain her government's more than $12 billion in annual subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, or the recent approval of the largest open-cut coal mine in the southern hemisphere at Wandoan in Queensland?

It is just those kinds of actions that will work against household and industry assistance to choose low-emissions alternatives. This debate shouldn't be about some "fine Australian" calling the Prime Minister a "witch", or worse.

 Comments welcome!

Combet must unite the science and economics of warming

Today's edition of The Age carries my letter ("Unity on warming") responding to an opinion piece by Barry Jones in yesterday's edition of the paper.

Jones made an important point about the need to link the separate economic and scientific approaches to climate change - something that, despite its progress on the climate issue, the federal government is still failing to do, including in a recent speech by climate minister Geg Combet in the week before the latest international climate talks in Cancun.

My letter makes the additional point that the two-degree "guardrail" limit to additional global warming to which Combet refers in the speech is increasingly thought unsafe by the latest research, which also considers that the measures proposed by developed nations are unlikely to achieve it anyway.

First, the published version:

Unity on warming

IT'S hard to agree with Barry Jones that it's probably too late for Australia to lead in setting stronger greenhouse targets (Comment, 7/12). But we still need him on the new federal climate committee.

His most urgent message for government is the perils of the ''two-cultures approach that separates scientists and economists''.

Climate Minister Greg Combet showed remarkable bias to economists and blindness to science in an address on November 30.

First, he claimed our weak 2020 target was comparable with international efforts on a per capita basis and given our dependence on fossil fuels. He missed the point that action needs to be distributed according to a scientifically determined global carbon budget, not by futile promises by recalcitrant nations.

Second, Combet continued to claim that Australia was committed to working towards an agreement to keep average global warming within 2 degrees of pre-industrial levels. Not only will our proposals fail as a contribution to that goal, it is a level of warming increasingly deemed unsafe.

The two cultures must come together: there can be no economic solution to climate change that is not fundamentally calibrated against the science of ''what needs to be done''.

Now, the version submitted:

It's hard to agree with Barry Jones that it's "probably too late" for Australia to lead in setting stronger greenhouse targets, but we still need him on the new federal climate committee.

His most urgent message for government is the perils of the "'two cultures' approach that separates scientists and economists" in framing climate action.

Set to depart for the latest climate talks in Cancun, climate minister Greg Combet showed remarkable bias to the economists and blindness to the science in a 30 November address at the Australian National University.

Firstly, there was his economic sleight of hand in "justifying" Australia's climate stance. Our weak 2020 target was comparable with international efforts on a per capita basis and given our dependence on fossil fuels, he claimed - missing the vital point that action needs to be fairly distributed according to a scientifically determined global carbon budget, not on the lowest common denominator of futile promises by recalcitrant nations.

Secondly, he continued to claim that Australia was committed to working towards an agreement to keep average global warming within two degrees of pre-industrial levels. Not only will our current proposals fail as a contribution to that goal, it is a level of warming increasingly deemed unsafe by the latest findings of the UK's Royal Society.

The two cultures must come together: there can be no economic solution to climate change that is not fundamentally calibrated against the science of "what needs to be done".

 Comments welcome

Northcote won, but Labor set to lose Government

With yesterday's Victorian State election raising the prospect of a hung Parliament or, more likely, a Baillieu Coalition Government, counting is basically complete in Northcote. Fiona Richardson is set to retain the Labor stronghold - it would appear just needing those Liberal preferences that would have made things very close if they'd gone instead to the Greens.

My own result has been pretty modest, but I'm glad I had a go. I ran a stronger and more organised campaign this time around, with better media coverage - particularly in the Northcote Leader (thanks!) - as well as a lot of support from family, friends and climate campaigners - thank you to all.

From voters I managed to reach and who were therefore aware of my policies, the reception was very positive, and I was heartened by the people who were supportive of an independent running in the seat in their kind words to me on the day.

On the whole, the challenge for an independent running in Northcote is the lack of party affiliation, the inability to blanket the electorate several times over with campaign material, paid billboards and other advertisements, and the reality of being able to cover only a fraction of polling booths for a few hours each on polling day. That's the deal you agree to going in, and it's one that I accepted.

Despite Labor holding the seat, Northcote hasn't been immune from the big statewide swing against the Brumby Government, despite the resources devoted here to a largely negative Labor campaign. I put that overall swing down to arrogance, and to a string of Labor failures on key issues - myki and public transport, planning, services, and the dismissal of the community's voice - just to name a few.

Again the Greens increased their vote (well done to Anne Martinelli and her team). I would like to think this reflects community sentiment for strong action on climate change. However, a lot more work still needs to be done not only by the Greens, but by everyone in the climate change campaign community. The importance of urgent action on climate change must be an issue shared across a range of political perspectives if we are to address the threat it poses.

The challenge now will be to forge a new campaign in the context of a hung Parliament or a Baillieu Government. The Coalition's policies on climate change are not strong compared even to the weak policies offered by Labor, and the promise of some progress at the federal level must be used to argue for stronger action here in Victoria, including the rapid phasing out of coal and the replacement of Hazelwood with renewables by 2014.

I am committed to contributing further to this work and, where I can, to the broader life of the Northcote community, despite my modest result in this election. Participation by ordinary people in the democratic process is never failure.

Vote 1 for an independent voice for Northcote

So tomorrow is election day, and it's time for everyone to consider very carefully how they are going to vote. For me the campaign has been about climate change, about traffic, about big developments looming over us without a say for residents, about stopping the damage from poker machines, and about many other local issues on which I have clear policies.

I've worked hard to reach as many voters as a I can, delivering as many of my flyers to your letter-boxes as I have been able to with the support of family and friends (thanks!). Now it's up to you, the voters of Alphington, Northcote, Thornbury, Fairfield and parts of Preston who together make up the Lower House District of Northcote.

If you want an independent MP who can raise important issues in the Parliament and fight for better results without being controlled by a political party, if you want to be represented directly, then please consider voting "1" for me.

In asking this, I would like you to consider that I am the only independent in this seat who has offered a clear picture of what I stand for from the very first day nominations opened on 3 November. 

My flyers include a how-to-vote card, and this shows how I will be voting myself, based on what I think of the other candidates, whether I know who they are, and on the policies they have put forward in time for me to consider them.

The order I have given is a suggestion only, and if you decide to give me first preference, I ask that you then carefully consider how you number each of the other candidates. No political party can actually "direct" preferences if voters decide the order for themselves.

Tomorrow I will be out at polling booths handing out my how-to-vote cards together with my volunteers. Please feel free to say hello and to ask me any questions you may have.

Finally, my how-to-vote cards are printed on 100% recycled paper, but there aren't that many of them. If you have received one in your letter-box, please use it again when you go to vote. If you haven't received one, feel free to print out the web version. Some will also be available at voting centres, and I ask that these be returned to the person who handed them out to you wherever possible.

That's it. It's time to let democracy take its course!

Cheers, Darren Lewin-Hill

Northcote planning needs an independent voice

I've written a lot about climate change on this blog, but voters should know that I started campaigning back in 2003 with Save Westgarth Village to fight planning changes that were being forced through with too little community say.

Fast-forward to 2010, and the electorate of Northcote is under the same threat from big developers, and a Victorian Labor Government that has received large political donations from the industry. That's why I am calling for political donation disclosures on applications for all major developments. Voters deserve to know, and good developers will have nothing to hide.

But there's a lot more than that to the question of development in our community. As we go to the election, uncertainty looms over at least three large developments where locals have so far had only a small voice in shaping the future of their communities.

Amcor's Fairfield plant will give way to large-scale development when it closes in 2012. A development of more than 90 units and townhouses at the Northcote Bowl site is hanging over locals' heads, and the Arthurton Road site will see a massive development overshadow local residents.

A number of common themes emerge from these proposals - firstly, the lack of community say. The Northcote Leader reported that in August the Labor-dominated Darebin Council moved to exclude third-party appeal rights to VCAT for the Arthurton Road site. Why, when this will exclude the right of residents to have a proper say on a development that will profoundly affect them?

The unreliability of planning laws also features among resident concerns. As many as 12 storeys have been proposed for the Arthurton Road site, and residents are made to feel as if they should be grateful it has been scaled back to five, when even that height may well be excessive for a development of that scale.

Running through each of the proposals is the fear of locals that the traffic implications of large-scale development simply haven't been thought through. Heidelberg Road, Victoria Road and Arthurton Road are already stretched and pressured, yet the Government's approach seems to be that the traffic will look after itself.

If elected as an independent MP for Northcote, I would fight for all of these issues to be robustly addressed, and for better protections for residents living with developments that are already underway.

There is more that could be done to resolve disputes between developers and residents, and more to ensure that developers make good any impacts they impose on their way to profiting from the sale of their apartments - this includes cracking of neighbouring buildings, exposure to potential hazards during demolition, loss of solar generating capacity through overshadowing, and loss of amenity due to the presence of developers and their machinery.

It's not a choice between no development and over-development. We can achieve a balance that will meet economic, social and environmental needs by including the community's voice. No-one wants endless urban sprawl that will bring more cars (with their emissions) through Northcote from outside the city. On the other hand, no-one wants excessive development driven only by developer profits.

Voters in this election need to ask what sort of advocacy they are going to get on planning issues from Northcote MP Fiona Richardson, who is part of the Government that set the planning policies leading to such poor outcomes. An independent with sound planning policies can offer a voice that is not beholden to the development industry, or to a political party - an independent voice whose only task is to represent you in the Parliament.

Here's how to move to renewables

The Victorian Government likes to downplay the practicality of a rapid transition away from coal to renewable power generation, but has never responded in detail to the innovative Zero Carbon Australia Stationary Energy Plan produced by Beyond Zero Emissions.

In short, the plan calls for a ten-year transition to 100% renewables using 60% concentrated solar thermal (CST), which can produce baseload power, and 40% wind. 

Full video is now available of the University of Melbourne launch by the Melbourne Energy Institute back on 14 July. To see it, go to the university's Live@Melbourne website.

It's a long video, but you can skip forward as needed, and to answer the question: "Who is that climate campaigner challenging the federal government to produce any sort of plan to justify the pipedream of carbon capture and storage?" (@106 mins 28 secs)

Secret ballot the answer to Labor's secret files

Yesterday's revelations in The Age that the Brumby Government is keeping secret files on citizens should be at the forefront of voters' minds when they go to the polls on Saturday. The secret files - also apparently kept by the Coalition - have no purpose in serving the public interest, but are there to protect the interests of the major political parties.

In the case of Labor, the files should be seen in the context of a Government that has already made deals to provide personal details to large corporations. It is also a Government already under fire for its dirt unit tactics against political opponents. The combination of Labor's propensity for dirty campaigning and its gathering of personal information should be distressing to anyone concerned with open, accountable democracy.

In Northcote, we have already seen smear tactics employed against a local climate campaigner by Northcote MP, Fiona Richardson, who is on Labor's campaign committee.

I would be curious to see if the campaigner recently smeared by Richardson in the Melbourne Times Weekly appears on the ALP's secret database, but we may never know.

There's a simple antidote to Labor's secret files - it's called a secret ballot, and it's coming up on Saturday.