Recently in State Politics Category

My few regular readers know I'm concerned with the effects of climate change. I have little doubt in the science that points to the detrimental effects of loading the atmosphere with carbon.

Despite the current wet spell, Sydney's dams are only 60% full and half the state is still drought effected. We'll have to wait and see if the current La Nina phenomenon lasts long enough to further improve the situation, but trends show that the dryer El Nino periods are getting longer and consequently, the countryside dryer.

Why then, you may well ask, haven't I subscribed to "green" electricity and installation of water tanks? Both are within my means. The answer is that I'm reluctant to make it easier for the authorities to shirk their responsibilities for the provision of basic infrastructure and the imposition of charges to tackle climate change.

Consumers who take the laudable action of paying extra for green power or pay hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to install water tanks deserve praise, but their effects are puny in the larger scheme of things and make it easier for the government to abrogate their responsibilities.

The effects of climate change are felt by everyone and the mitigation costs should also be borne by the community at large. More so than the provision of small subsidies as happens now.

Electricity authorities should have fixed and mandated levels of green energy generation, with the extra costs met by all consumers. Why should the concerned few pay extra and still wear the effects of coal fired power?

Water tanks installed on private property should be no different from the public dams, water mains, pumping stations and (dare I say it) desalination plants. They should be paid for and maintained by the water authorities from the revenues collected from water consumers. Water taken from the tanks should be metered or calculated by some other mechanism, and added to the householders water bill.

I'm sure that many more households would be willing to install tanks if an equitable scheme was devised, perhaps saving the authorities the huge sums needed to expand existing facilities. Not very altruistic sentiments, I know, but I'm willing to donate land for water storage and pay increased costs for power if the conditions are acceptable.

And that reason's called "Value Adding."

Australia has an appalling record at adding value to it's primary exports. From wool exported decades ago, to present day minerals and, in this case, trees. Just load it on a ship, wave it goodbye and receive a fraction of its processed value.

I know there are issues with the mill regarding its siting, pollution and the source of its raw material. If all those meet acceptable standards, then the thing should go ahead.

If the trees are going to be cut down regardless, then we should ensure we get the maximum value for them.

I couple of years ago I wrote about (arguably) the worst ever example of a Private / Public infrastructure project, Sydney's Airport Rail Link. The only positive thing I can say about the debacle is that it was signed off by a Conservative government.

A quick recap ... the government built a railway from the city to the airport, and contracted a private consortium build the airport stations, to be paid for by adding a surcharge on top of the price of the ticket. Our great conservative economic managers wrote into the contract that if passenger numbers didn't allow the consortium to make a profit, the government would stump up millions to pay them out.

With the surcharge at a level that made a taxi fare competitive, it wasn't surprising that passenger numbers never approached the predicted levels. The consortium collapsed, leaving the government holding the debt.

The government recently sold the stations to a new consortium for an unknown amount. Where it was expected that the new owners would reduce the fares to increase patronage, they've done the opposite.

You can only assume that the new owners bought the asset for a song. They know that the core users are mainly wealthy or expense subsidised individuals who don't care about the cost, and will keep using it regardless of the price.

By not taking control of the facility, the government has ensured that motor vehicles will remain the primary method of traveling to the airport, and that an expensive public transport asset will remain under utilised.

Total stupidity.

I still find it ironic that in the aftermath of the 1996 Port Arthur massacre which claimed 35 lives, John Howard, Australia's ultra-conservative Prime Minister, took a politically brave stand against the Australian gun lobby and forced the states to restrict the ownership of semi-automatic weapons.

At the same time, he provided millions of dollars to buy back newly banned weapons, removing them from the community.

Critical as I am of Howard and his miserable conservative government, this is an action that earned my grudging respect. Popular political wisdom stated the gun lobby was untouchable. Howard proved that the lobby didn't have much support in the wider community.

I'd like to think, but I'm not convinced, that a Prime Minister from the other side of politics would have made the same stand.

Now, over ten years later, and after yet another firearm massacre in the US, it seems that Howard's action has shown a quantifiable benefit.

THE tough gun controls introduced after the Port Arthur massacre have probably saved about 2500 lives, economists say.

Debunking a widely reported study to the contrary, their analysis suggests that removing 600,000 guns from circulation has sharply reduced suicide and murder rates ...

... Andrew Leigh, at the Australian National University, and Christine Neill of Canada's Wilfrid Laurier University found a sharp, statistically significant reduction in murder and suicide.

"There were on average 250 fewer firearm deaths per year after the implementation of the National Firearms Agreement than would have been expected," they said.

Using deaths data since 1915, the authors estimated gun control had led to about 35 fewer murders and 247 fewer suicides annually since 1997. They calculate slightly smaller numbers when their statistical model is restricted to data after 1969.

It's heartening that there's empirical evidence supporting what many suspected. Restricting firearms in the broad community saves lives.

Background: For readers unfamiliar with Australian gun laws, here is a Wikipedia article that gives a good overview.

Faced with the incompetent and the more incompetent, the electorate in NSW has little choice. It's either vote for the Greens, or, if you're lucky enough to have a competent example running in your area, an independent.

All governments have a 'use by date' and this NSW Labor government is well past the mark. They need a period in opposition to rebuild and refocus.

Let me say that this sentiment doesn't come lightly from a person that (normally) votes Labor. The last time I felt this way was during the woeful Labor administration of Barry Unsworth.

It's a pity that the opposition is so much worse than the incumbents. A conservative government that doesn't have the numbers in the upper-house should be nearly bearable, but the powerful conservative-religious elements have so reduced the moderates in the Liberal party that giving them control to any degree is unacceptable.

So it comes down to the Greens and local independents. A term or two of minority government would protect us from the worst elements of both parties, and would likely bring some long needed reforms to NSW. I'm hoping that the good sense of the electorate will prevail in three weeks time.

Hearing Peter Beattie resurrect the idea, first proposed 70 years ago, of diverting rivers in Queensland's north to augment flows in the Murray Darling river system took me back to my yoof in the late 60s. Then, the idea of using large engineering projects to 'tame nature' were common.

The nearly completed Snowy Mountains hydro project was the inspiration for other, sometimes wacky, schemes being proposed. One of the more silly ones was a proposal to use an atomic explosion to create an artificial harbour in the country's north-west. Madness!

The environment was seen as a limitless resource that could be altered at will for human advantage.

We now know that these grandiose schemes often result in unintended environmental consequences. It could be land degradation due to salination, the destruction of animal habitat, or accelerating climate change due to the creation of greenhouse gasses during construction and operation. It's fair to say that all these projects have an environmental downside.

As a engineer, I'm not against sensible engineering projects, as long as a favourable cost / benefit ratio can be demonstrated. I suspect that Beattie's proposals would have been built by now if the benefit was there.

I've just returned from a Christmas family gathering in Melbourne. The drive was an eye opener. It's not until you get out of Sydney that you realise how devastating the drought's been. Brown land as far as the eye can see, populated by emaciated live stock.

Sydney is in the grip of drought, to the extent we have Stage 2 water restrictions, but the city's had local rain and the place is relatively green. Sydney's problem is the rain isn't falling in the dam catchments.

(How building an extra dam, as put forward by some noisy commentators, would help in this situation is beyond me. But that's another story.)

It's no better in Victoria. Melbourne went on to Stage 3 restrictions on New Years Day.

Phillip Island, which we visited to view the penguins, is on Stage 4 restrictions. Forget washing the car or watering plants. It can't be done.

Melbourne's and Sydney's water reserves are at similar parlous levels. What does the NSW State Government do in this situation?

WHILE other states are tightening water restrictions and considering drinking recycled water, NSW is steadfastly refusing to do the same, preferring to spend $1.3 billion to build a desalination plant.

The big difference between here and Victoria is a state election is immanent in NSW. The decision to delay water restrictions is a tawdry political decision by a timid and tired government.

Similarly motivated is the decision to spend $25 million of tax payers money to delay the road closures associated with the opening of the Lane Cove Tunnel.

Most voters see the sense in restricting water usage during periods of extreme shortage. In fact, most would regard not to do so an act of extreme irresponsibility.

Readers of this blog would know that I tend to vote Labor, but I'm wondering whether I can vote for this rabble.

I believe that governments have a 'use by' date. The present NSW government is giving off a serious pong.

Recent decisions indicate the incumbents don't deserve another term.

Perhaps I could live with a change of government, as long as the miserable conservatives don't control the Legislative Assembly.

Governments love industries like coal mining. They're low tech and profitable. They don't need an educated work force, (at the blunt end, at least), sophisticated infrastructure or investment in R & D. You simply dig the stuff up and load it onto a ship, then sit back and watch the royalties roll in.

The public's concern regarding climate change is a headache for governments of both persuasions. How do they mitigate the environmental damage, while protecting the vested interests?

The latest setback for those vested interests (government, mining companies and unions) is the recent court decision that stipulates that Environmental Impact Studies for new mines must take into account the environmental damage from the burnt coal's emissions.

The argument that it's the importing country's problem obviously doesn't wash as the CO2 won't stay within national boundaries.

So we have the federal government pushing the hope of viable carbon capture technology to argue that mining should go on unabated ...

"The solution to greenhouse gases is to stop carbon going into the atmosphere from burning coal, not stopping coal mines.

"What we need to do as a world is keep mining coal.

Pity that the technology is decades away, can't be easily bolted on to old power stations, will severely effect the station's generating efficiency and that carbon capture can only be done in certain geological areas, which doesn't include the NSW Hunter Valley.

In the mean time, scientists are warning that the rise in CO2 concentration is accelerating.

The situation reminds me of tobacco companies that knew of the health risks of smoking when marketing their product, and asbestos miners who likewise put their workers at risk well after the link between breathing asbestos fibres and cancer was established.

Unfortunately, I won't be alive in 40 years to see the victims of climate change take the energy companies to court.

An interesting situation.

On one side you have the government, under political pressure to do something, but knowing that the Tunnel Consortium is bleeding financially. Up to $5 million per month, by one estimate.

On the other side, the consortium knows that the government is on the nose with the voters, and an election is only a year away.

Both sides are under stress. The question is, "Who will blink first?"

The government hopes the consortium's creditors will not put up with the losses for too long and force tunnel management to lower the toll to under $3, in the vain hope that this will increase patronage.

The consortium hopes that political pressure will cause a cave in similar to that over the M4 and M5 tolls many years ago. To shore up western suburb seats, the government introduced a cash back scheme to subsidise motorway users.

It comes down to who can wait the longest.

Knowing the political imperative, and how governments react when under threat, my money's with the Tunnel Consortium. They don't have an election looming.

Friday's SMH, page 2. Andrew Fraser (bloke who had a go at Joe Tripodi in NSW State Parliament):

"Look, I might change my mind again tomorrow, but I give you an absolute vow that I will not drink again while parliament is sitting."

Fantastic. Where do they learn this stuff?