Speeches

From global crisis to Green future

leerhiannon — 2010-07-14T22:57:43Z

I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay tribute to their history, their culture and their ongoing contribution to our community. Also thanks to the SEARCH foundation for organising this event.

The left's strategic direction is not just in need of an oil and grease. It needs a thorough tune up as we need the left's engine running at full steam.

I imagine most of us would agree that left strategy has been missing in action for quite a long time. Now the good news is there’s been lots of action. There have been excellent campaigns and I’m sure many of them have been discussed and chewed over this weekend. Your Rights at Work, saving Sydney’s ferries, we had the excellent outcome last week with River Red Gums, and there’s been so much work around renewables.

But, our left strategy has been light on, and I’m referring here to a lack of planning; a lack of coordination; a lack of vision for advancing the far reaching changes which I believe we are all committed to in terms of progressing our society. For the Greens, a left strategic direction is about transition plans for an ecological sustainable future that encompasses a fair distribution of wealth, equality and participatory democracy. Fairness to future generations has to be a framework to our strategy and for our day to day campaigns.

So, what to do? We need to do the organising so clearly spelt out by David. We need to identify where we have unity. We need to get on the front foot and be confident about what we’re putting forward. We must stick by our principles when the inevitable attacks come on us and we need a theoretical base to our strategy.

In recent years you’d have to say the left's influence on the public debate on key issues has been largely muted in the face of conservative commentators. The shift to the right is real in terms of public discourse and outcomes. Neo-liberalism successfully advanced many of its key tenets – downsizing governments with the accompanying privatisation of public services and institutions, casualisation of the workforce and dominance of individualism.

What we are working for - transforming society into a fairer and a more just community - directly challenges these neo-liberal changes and the corporations that are used to getting their way.

In essence, when the left is strategic we court a powerful enemy. The intensity of the criticism of the Federal Labor Government’s recent mining tax is a reminder of where these attacks come from and how they play out, and certainly how quickly they can be unleashed against us. The attacks we will face as we become more strategic are a reminder of why we need to build our numbers.

History tells us that it is mass movements that drive progressive change. I think we all know that. We know that we need to build those mass movements, and we need to determine what the issues are that we work on. Before I get down to the how and the what of left strategic action I did want to explore the need for theoretical understanding of the political, economic and social influences that shape our society and impact on the use of power, determine the significance of the new media and lots more.

One of the speakers on this panel is Ben Eltham, from New Matilda. This week we’ve heard the regrettable news that New Matilda is going to fold, which is a setback for our movement. I wish to thank Ben and the New Matilda team for all that they’ve achieved.

We have lost a platform that assisted the progressive end of the political spectrum reflect and analyse the trends in society, the forces we are up against. We need more platforms for theoretical analysis. This is key to the left re-establishing influence in public discourses and assessing the many challenges we face.

The Australian left has rarely embraced progressive intellectuals and that needs to change. If anything, our collective attitude mirrors the mainstream in favouring the overseas imports rather than the local product, and I’m thinking about the 1990s when Noam Chomsky would come to town and thousands would turn up to see him. That was excellent but I reckon many of us would be uncertain who our homegrown intellectuals are who can assist us to reflect and analyse our struggle. I am giving emphasis to this point because without a theoretical basis to our work it is much harder to move past the reactive process of developing campaigns to this and that cause.

Our society and our planet need a lot more than just saving what we have. On the ground action is obviously critical but our organising, our actions need a theoretical framework and right now we are lacking in that area. This problem has dogged the left for most of its existence in this country.

Moving onto the how and the what of our strategic direction, we need to do more to successfully integrate our work for ecological sustainability and social justice. I acknowledge that considerable work has been done in this area by left groups and the standout is obviously the Green Ban movement.

However, we all know that integration between our environmental, social justice and industrial relations wings is still minimal and that has to change. The environmental crisis is with us, and the disadvantaged here and in other countries bear the brunt of air and water pollution, climate change induced sea-level rises amongst many other environmental issues.

When we advance measures to reign in greenhouse gas emissions or protect the natural or the built environment part of our campaign must address industry restructuring that include measures to ensure that no-one is out of a job. That was part of the successful River Red Gum agreement just concluded with environment groups, the Greens, and Labor – industry restructuring including jobs for displaced workers was part of the deal. Now this provides a very good model.

Another area where we need to inject left strategy into the debate is how we manage our oil-constrained future. Australia is very vulnerable to peak oil because there is a high level of car dependency. We very much rely on imported oil, so we need to build a public discourse on how we handle oil supply shortages and consideration of how we reduce that car dependency and promote public transport. Cycling and pedestrian facilities, and how we build our homes and plan our communities in ways that address our oil vulnerability.

Relevant to this debate is our wider vision for a just society as public transport is an essential component of social equity and rail and bus manufacturing projects can provide jobs particularly in regional areas. Right now the New South Wales government is sending contracts for rail infrastructure overseas.

Within all of our campaigns we need to look for how we can address environmental, social justice, human rights, and job creation as well as participatory democracy. This lays the basis for a more representative set of demands and helps attract a diverse set of allies which is always critical to building our campaigns and our movements for social change.

The shift from coal mining and coal fired power, one of the most critical changes needed to address climate change, provides enormous opportunities for workplace democracy as well as developing and helping communities and there are some really excellent initiatives. One that we don’t hear so much about in New South Wales is with the CFMEU Victoria where they have a project called Crisis in Power that promotes the development of a business plan for solar powered hot water systems. This is actually a social enterprise model supported by the union - a few decades ago that would have been called a workers cooperative now the language has changed but the intent is still there. This project has many of the themes that are so central to our vision around the environment and social justice.

So our industrial campaigns need an environmental justice component, and our environment work needs to interface with human rights and equity demands. These integrated campaigns need to be a foundation of our strategic direction.

At the start of the 21st Century I do think the left is well placed to more successfully influence public debate. There is a diverse range of public movements active on the ground as well as utilising a myriad of social networking options. Over all there is a positive and respectful relationship between progressive movements and somewhat between left political parties.

For the first time in Australia’s history there is a party to the left of Labor, the Greens, that is building a parliamentary presence while continuing to work with a range of activist groups.

This plays out in obviously different ways and we’ve got some challenges coming up with the coming federal election. While the Greens could certainly improve our strategising I believe the key to ensuring left parties maintain a principled position on all the challenges that political life throws up is the active role of strong social movements.

I can’t emphasise that enough having been in the Greens for 10 years. The challenge to keep the Greens left is huge and I’m convinced social movements are the key to that. This is the way to keep the pressure on left parliamentarians so that they work to advance the social objectives of our movement not just their party's political interests.

Differences between our movements and the Greens and Labor are part of the political landscape. Positive outcomes can evolve from these differences. The key is that we resolve the differences in a respectful and constructive way not in an antagonistic way.

So we need to build our cooperative approach, because the challenges are enormous. Part of the challenge is how we live within the ecological limits of our planet. We need to think about and foster a prosperity that goes far beyond our material needs to address our relationships, our work satisfaction and our ability to participate fully in the decision making about our future.

Thank you very much.
---

Relationships Register Bill 2010

leerhiannon — 2010-05-13T05:18:25Z

The Relationships Register Bill 2010 is welcome, and whilst the New South Wales Government has been slow off the mark introducing this legislation, its significance is not reduced as a result. New South Wales needs a relationship register. The bill is modelled on existing legislation in Tasmania, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. It could be said that tonight the New South Wales Parliament is catching up with public opinion. At the start of the twenty-first century we have witnessed an enormous increase in support for formal recognition of a range of relationships, and indeed acceptance that people's love and intimacy can be expressed in a variety of ways. Tolerance and respect have become the hallmark of how so many people live their lives and interact with each other. So the Greens support the bill.

There is both a social and political context to the bill. The social context is that there is now a wide acceptance of people having significant relationships outside marriage. Our work tonight is to finalise legislation that gives legal recognition to those relationships. The Parliamentary Secretary noted in his agreement in principle speech in the lower House that marriage cannot be legislated at State level. Marriage provides the political context for this issue, and there is wide political acceptance of marriage and quality. The result of a galaxy poll conducted last year was that 60 per cent of Australians support marriage equality.

Understandably Labor is coming under increasing criticism for its failure to legislate for marriage equality. In some ways I was pleased that the debate of this bill was postponed last night until tonight; overnight I was given a leaflet that is being distributed about the city by Australian Marriage Equality, and I would suggest that members consult that organisation's website if they want to know more about this issue. The leaflet is titled "Labor does not support equality. Do You?" It sets out a number of concerns expressed by people working on this issue, and I congratulate this organisation for the voice it is bringing to an issue that is troubling more and more people.

Sooner or later Australia will have marriage equality legislation reform, and when that day comes many of us will join together in celebration. It is important to keep in mind that it is only a matter of time—hopefully it will be sooner rather than later. Many people see this bill as a cover for Labor. Months out from Federal and State elections Labor is working hard to manage what some people regard as controversial issues in its various constituencies, and the way that Labor has handled this bill has strengthened that view. The key intent here is to manage what some senior Labor people see as a difficult issue for them: marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples. That perception could have easily have been laid to rest if this bill had been used by New South Wales Labor as a means to call on its Federal counterparts to do the job properly and to change the Federal law to grant marriage equality. That could have been so easily done.

The agreement in principle speech in the other place should have put the case for marriage equality. All that was needed was a couple of sentences recognising that the relationships register is no substitute for marriage equality and that New South Wales Labor backs marriage equality. That is what we needed to hear, but that has not come through in this debate. A gentle call from the Minister to his Federal colleagues to change the marriage legislation would have given much encouragement to those backing a change in the law, such as Australian Marriage Equality and the thousands of people who gather at the many protests and rallies that are being held about this issue.

Such a statement from senior Labor figures would show that New South Wales is truly behind the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community. Many Labor members—and many of them are members of this House—hold a similar position to that of the Australian Marriage Equality and the Greens on this issue, but unfortunately officially Labor as a party and a government has adopted a go-slow approach to reform. That is the only way one can describe it. Many people think that key Labor leaders are not supportive of marriage equality. Labor members should be aware of the political perceptions around this issue, which the Government is feeding by the direction it has taken with this legislation.

The Minister, in his second reading speech, gave an example of a number of countries that have relationship registers. Unfortunately, the Minister did not mention the number of countries that have marriage equality within their statute books. It is nine countries, as well as a number of States of the United States of America. I was interested to know how long the countries have had this legislation in place. The Netherlands was the first country to introduce the legislation in 2001, then Belgium in 2003. Legislation was passed in Spain in June 2005 and marriage equality became legal on 3 July 2005, amid great celebrations. In 2005 Canada introduced marriage equality under the Civil Marriage Act. A matter of fascination for many people, on 1 December 2005 the constitutional court of South Africa ruled unanimously that it was unconstitutional to prevent same-sex couples marrying when marriage was permitted for people of the opposite sex. That was most significant. Norway legislated marriage equality in 2008 and Sweden in 2009.

Then it was introduced in Mexico. I am unsure whether that applies to the whole country or only Mexico City. However, it is still significant that the jurisdiction has moved forward in such a progressive way. Argentina joined its Mexican brothers and sisters and then it was introduced in five States in the United States, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, with that shift in legislation starting in 2003. The shift is occurring around the world with more countries considering marriage equality. Australia has to catch up. The Minister made a mistake in his second reading speech in the lower House. He drew a distinction between relationship registers and civil union schemes. On my understanding, that is a false construct. Relationship registers, civil partnership schemes and civil union schemes, whilst they are different terms, are in fact the same concept.

At the many rallies I have attended in support of marriage equality, I have been struck by the passion of the people. The rallies are dominated by young people in their twenties. They are not only gay and lesbian couples. When they first become politicised about this issue, they are shocked that the law is unequal. They think because it is the twenty-first century it has all been worked out, we all have equality. When they find out that is not the case, that their brothers and sisters in different relationships are unable to get married, they become irate. This movement has become a driving force. It is a big deal to them that people are denied a legal right to marry. It should not be a big deal. People should be allowed to marry, irrespective of who they fall in love with. The Greens welcome this legislation. There is a perception that this law is more than it appears on paper and that the Government has another agenda. Even if that is the case, and I believe it is, the Greens still welcome this legislation. We look forward to celebrating marriage equality legislation in this country and call on more Labor and Coalition members of Parliament to back the campaign.

Sydney Marriage Equality Rally

leerhiannon — 2010-04-22T05:16:46Z

Lee spoke at the Marriage Equality Rally in Sydney on March 20. Other speakers included Geoff Field from 2DayFM, Norrie mAy-welby, and Gina Wilson from Oll Australia.

Stop the Northern Territory Intervention Speech

leerhiannon — 2010-08-22T06:54:49Z

The video of Lee's speech

I do acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay tribute to their history, their culture and their ongoing contributions to our communities.

Two years ago, I think we could all remember where we were. The apology that came from Prime Minister Rudd, I actually believe was sincere at the time. It was an apology that had to be stated. It was an apology from the nation to aboriginal people, of the current generations and past generations, (marking) a shameful period from our history.

But two years later when we gather on that anniversary we don’t have anything to celebrate with regard to that apology. Because two years later, what we know with what the labor the labor government has done, actually amplifies how shameful their acts are.

And let’s remember where all this started. When the intervention was first called, it was by the Howard Government. It was John Howard’s attempt in the dying days of his government to find another Tampa, to try and wedge and divide Australia.

It was shameful that labor supported it at the time; and shameful that they have again, once in government, allowed their policy to continue and if anything made it worse.

So right now we do have a big challenge before us, but I think we do need to remember key aspects of that intervention.

Having been an activist since I was 15 and being on so many actions against military intervention in overseas countries something that shocked me to this day is how little Australia has risen up to object to the military going into the Northern Territory.

It’s something that we need to raise our voice again, because so many Australians today actually are not even aware of it. It’s still happening, it’s happening on the Labor government, and it must be reversed.

I strongly endorse Jeff’s remarks about aboriginal parents. As a parent myself, the thought of losing one’s child is just something that is an unbearable thought. But to add to that what has happened to aboriginal men, who in a blanket way have been vilified for charges, and let’s remember, have never been proven.

The crime commission was given enormous powers to go out there and find these pedophile rings. Virtually nobody was charged and arrested. Again that has now been glossed over, white washed and again it’s something that we need to remember and rectify.

Because right now what is happening two years after that apology is that the policies that are continuing to be put in place, and even worse than the Howard Government’s, means that in 10 or 20 years time there could well be another Prime Minister who gives another apology.

Now we don’t want to have to wait that long, we have got to defeat those rotten policies now.

Now if Prime Minister Rudd happened to turn up to an event like this or they sent along a Labor representative; quite seriously what they would be doing up here on stage is making out how they are out there doing all these projects for aboriginal people.

But this is where we need to dissect Labor’s own arguments. Because what they are doing is a top down process that’s delivering projects, a few projects, to remote communities.

It’s in no way engaging with aboriginal people across the country and empowering those people.

And that’s where we need to just turn around what Labor is doing. Because, yes, labor have put more resources in, but its how those resources have been used that is in fact worsening the hardship.

And again, I reiterate, will require a future generation to again apologize for what’s happening to current generations of aboriginal people.

I do bring you greetings from The Greens conference, Greens New South Wales conference being held, fortunately for us, and that’s why were are able to join you, just down in Redfern. And we are here today meeting, and we shortly will need to go back to that conference.

But this morning we passed an urgent resolution in support, and we do congratulate the Stop the Intervention Coalition for today’s fantastic action. For your ongoing work to spread the word about the intervention, to build a strong movement.

So congratulations to the Stop in the Intervention Coalition.

And that motion, that was passed unanimously, called on the Rudd Government to change its policies to get the army out of the Northern Territory.

To wind back these so-called welfare measures of the income management that will bring hardship to aboriginal communities across the country as it’s enforced with so much indignity.

And what was particularly well received at our conference the urgent need to reinstate the Racial Discrimination Act.

The Greens, at this conference, are represented by local groups around the country, around the state. And we will be taking the message that you are fighting for back to our communities.

Thank you very much and congratulations.

Learning the lessons of history - building global peace

alisono — 2009-11-05T04:08:20Z

Public Forum: Learning the lessons of history - building global peace

Bangalow

7 October 2009

I acknowledge the traditional owners of the land on which we meet and pay tribute to their history, their culture and the ongoing contribution to our communities.

War is the enemy of humanity.

So I am very pleased to participate in tonight's discussion on world peace and congratulate the organisers of tonight's forum.

War robs humanity through death and destruction and robs our communities of billions of dollars; money that is urgently needed to meet the challenges our planet faces – reducing greenhouse gas emissions, providing clean water and food security to all peoples, ensuring free education and health services in all countries.

Military expenditure is obscene. Today it stands at $1.464 trillion a year. In just the past ten years this amount has increased by 45 per cent. Military spending now represents 2.4 per cent of GDP and is equal to $217 per person per year.

The USA is the driver of the global arms race. 41.5 per cent of the $1.4 trillion world arms budget is spent by the US on the military industrial complex.

An increasing amount of this money is going on the US war in Afghanistan.

It is worth remembering what was the catalyst for the latest western war against the people of Afghanistan.

Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the USA we have been subjected to a propaganda bombardment such as no other that I can recall.

Remember the former prime minister John Howard was in the US when the attack occurred. Howard and the then US president George Bush milked this crime in ways that have contributed to crimes of similar magnitude.

We were told that our governments had incontrovertible evidence that Osama bin Laden, holed up in an Afghanistan cave, had ordered the attacks. But no such evidence was produced. What the public have been subjected to is a patchwork of a few facts, propaganda, prejudice and conjecture.

Howard was the first national leader to commit Australian troops to join the US contingent in the invasion of Afghanistan. And a few weeks after committing Australia to this war the Prime Minister announced the 2001 federal election.

These events unfolded just a few weeks after the notorious Tampa incident that saw 438 asylum seekers victimised. Now we can view these episodes as part of a Coalition election strategy that has moulded Australia's recent history. But these electoral tactics continue to play out for the Afghan people who have endured centuries of foreign invaders attempting to take over their country.

I have revisited the background to Australia's involvement in this war as it reminds us that so often wars are waged for very different reasons than those that are presened to the public.

While John Howard is now two years out of office the people of Afghanistan are still dieing as a result of the war now being waged by NATO powers and their allies. Yes we need to work to dismantle terrorism but the war in Afghanistan will not achieve that.

It is worth remembering that controversy still surrounds how Australian troops were committed to this war. The federal parliament never debated the decision to send troops to this overseas war.

Many commentators have suggested that the former prime minister stepped around the constitution usurping the role and function of the federal parliament.

The Australian Greens are calling for a constitutional change so future governments are required to submit any plans for foreign military operations to the federal parliament to determine.

But right now we are involved in this foreign war and our government is under pressure to commit more troops. We need a nationwide debate about this war. The Greens position is that our troops should be withdrawn. We recognise that this is not about to happen. What we need to work on is raising the debate on the Afghan war to help build support for the withdrawal of our troops..

And that debate needs to cover two critical and little known aspects of modern warfare – the increasing privatisation of war operations and the use of unmanned military machines. These trends are well advanced and are changing the face of war and are very relevant to the much needed public dialogue on Australian's involvement in Afghanistan.

Pilotless warplanes are coming to an army near you. At a fraction of the cost they appear to be the must have item for modern armies. The irony needs to be noted that as with other weapons of war the drones as these planes with no pilots are called could also quite quickly become the favoured weapon of terrorists.

These weapons are already used extensively in the air space over Pakistan and Afghanistan by US forces. A quick search of the web reveals many examples where civilians as well as armed militia have been killed by drones.

The best-known US military drone is the Predator, capable of carrying two laser guided missiles and it can stay in the air for 40 hours. Where this becomes highly relevant to the debate on the Afghan war is when it comes to the proposed future troop build up.

We need to widen this debate to cover the use of these unmanned war machines. Right now we could be subject to the pretence that the US and NATO authorities make out that the war is being contained by limiting the increase in troop numbers while the real escalation is occurring with the new generation of killing machines, unmanned aircraft.

An examination of expansion plans for US military hardware suggests that Afghanistan and Pakistan and for that matter any country that finds itself at odds with the USA could have drones silently operating high above its land.

We need to understand how these weapons operate to assess this troubling trend of modern warfare. A drone operator is under no threat of death from any terrorist operating outside the US or anyone fighting against the occupation of their country.

US Drone operators in the main live in Nevada and Arizona where the bases that operate these weapons are located. These people would live fairly regular lives - drop the kids at school in the morning, maybe go for a jog; go to work; fire a few missiles from a drone parked over western Pakistan; and then go home to help the kids with their homework.

Meantime the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan struggle to survive. Two-thirds of Afghanis live on fewer than two US dollars a day.

The US Independent Institute estimates that in 2009 the US administration will spend between $925 billion and $1.14 trillion on the military. That is so obscene. That is what we need to object to. This is an easy message to take to our communities as we work to lift debate on the Afghan war. No one could justify such an extreme level of war spending.

And the unmanned aircraft will receive a sizeable allocation from this budget. The names of these drones are straight out of Hollywood. The current pilotless planes are known as Predators and they will shortly be replaced by Reapers.

Reapers will carry 14 missiles and there are plans to keep them in the air for months at a time if not years by in-air refuelling and as the aircraft can be programed to conduct self repairs.

These weapons are also attractive to politicians because the price is so much lower than piloted war planes. The new Reaper drone will cost $15 million compared with $351m for a Raptor jet fighter.

Just a quick comment on the big picture here. So many aspects of warfare are deeply disturbing – the loss of life, the obsecene waste of public money and also the misuse of human talent.

Human beings are ingenious. Look at the great developments our planet has seen and so urgently needs and here we have scientists and engineers developing such complex killing machines. It is a tragic waste of expertise on weapons that kill people. For someone clever enough to build a pilotless plane image what beneficial achievements they could work on.

But back to the drones – many are operated and maitained by non-military personnel working for private companies.

Which is the appropriate lead in for the second point I wanted to make about the Afghan war and the nature of modern warfare.

Today there are more private military contractors involved in the Afghan war than there are US uniformed personnel. In March this year the numbers were just over 68,000 for the private operators compared with just over 52,000 for the regular soldiers. It is likely that many of these contractors will face combat situations, particularly in outposts, distant from populated areas.

A Guardian investigation has found that private corporations are now the second biggest contributor to coalition forces in Iraq. The 10,000 private military contractors just outnumber the 9,900 troops that make up the British contingent.

This is a critical shift. For those committed to global peace the challenge is now more complex. If we thought we had it tough promoting disarmament and an end to warfare to elected governments we now have to factor in the rise of military corporations. The private sector is so entwined with western military operations and peacekeeping duties that many question if the US could undertake overseas wars without it.

Of the $US87 billion allocated by the US adminstration for the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, one third of that, nearly $US30 billion, will go to contracts with private companies.

Peter Warren Singer's book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry describes the unsettling reality of modern warfare: "When America launched its invasion (of Iraq) in March, the battleships in the Gulf were manned by US navy personnel. But alongside them sat civilians from four companies operating some of the world's most sophisticated weapons systems."

And today the unmanned Predator drones that I spoke about earlier along with the Global Hawks and the B-2 stealth bombers operating over Afghanistan and Pakistan are operated and maintained by non-military personnel working for private companies.

Although there are no front page headlines, few indepth articles or documentaries on this trend, at the start of the 21st century a massive shift in the nature of warfare is occurring. The partial privatisation of war has started. We need to be aware of this and resist this trend.

In Iraq private companies pick up lucrative contracts as the US scales back its front line operations. One US company is responsible for training the new Iraqi army while another trains the Iraqi police force. British companies also dominate in this area, with the biggest opertor, Global Risk International, supplying personnel from a range countries, whose military background could have been with Fiji peace keeping forces, former apartheid South African milita, or disbanded sections of the Russian Red Army. The end of the cold war meant that many soldiers from both sides were looking for work.

But what law do these private soldiers and related personnel operate under. The law of the country they have invaded is usually inadequate to deal with any abuses. Private contractors are not legally seen as mercenaries so they are not covered by international law.

What happens if a person involved with the military rapes a woman in Afghanistan. If he is a US GI he would be handled by the US judicial military code. If he works for a private company who is he answerable to – an Afghani legal system? Will employees literally get away with murder?

Peter Singer argues that we are witnessing the first stage of modern nation states surrendering the state's monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

For the peace movement these are troubling times. Our task of working for disarmament and the non-violent resolution of conflict has always been massive. But with the entry of the private contractor into modern warfare our campaign objectives for global peace are changing.

What are we calling for and who are we targetting needs to be reassesed?

For the Greens these are challenges we need to meet. Although our international policy was written before we had become aware of the degree of military privatisation it is still useful in that it sets out a series of measures that apply irrespective of who is firing the missiles.

We support developing foreign affairs and defence policies that promote Australia's independent role in our region; peacemaking capabilities in new regional institutions and through a reformed UN; an increase in the share of GDP allocated to overseas aid; and support for a constitutional amendment that requires federal parliamentary endorsement for the deployment of the Australian military personnel overseas.

We also need to call on all countries to sign, ratify and implement outstanding human rights and disarmament agreements and to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation treaties.

And now we also need to oppose the privatisation of the military.

Thankyou and I look forward to the discussion.

Abolish the Game Council

Susie Gememll — 2009-09-02T02:59:14Z

The message from tonight's meeting is that the NSW Game Council has to go – we need a broad based campaign to wind up this organisation.

Mr Robert Brown presents himself as Mr Reasonable but we should be in no doubt that what he and his colleagues are about is using public money to promote their sporting interests. This is not about feral animal control - it is about going hunting with your mates.

The whole premise of the Game Council is a farce, born out of the reciprocal relationship between NSW Labor and the Shooters Party to exchange favours in the NSW parliament.

The Game Council would never have seen the light of day if it was judged on its merit.

The Game Council is an unaccountable body that:
·    sucks millions of dollars of public money
·    puts public safety at risk
·    inflicts unacceptable animal suffering, and
·    is a set back to the management of feral animals.

The amount of public money is considerable –
o    $3.5 million last year, and
o    $2.8 million is expected this year

The speakers tonight have set out a clear case of why the Shooters Party legislation - the Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill – is an ugly and unnecessary piece of legislation.

I would like to look at how it has come to this. How does a political party, which at the last election gained only 2.8 per cent of the vote, come to have so much sway with the NSW government? And let's not forget the opposition.

The establishment of the Game Council, the weakening of gun control laws and the other wins the Shooters Party has achieved have been won with both Labor and Coalition support.

Opposition to Shooters Bill

Firstly, some good news. The Game and Feral Animal Control Amendment Bill has not become a law already because of massive public opposition. My office received more than 1000 emails, faxes and letters from people deeply troubled by this push.

Your public outcry put the Labor government on notice that this Bill went too far. I had senior government ministers – and I am not referring to Carmel Tebbutt – say to me not just that the Bill should not pass but that the relationship between the government and the Shooters Party was too close.

I am certainly not saying we have won. We need to keep the pressure on and if you are opposed to this Bill I encourage you to let your local member know and let the Premier know your concerns.

Establishment of the Game Council

A frequently asked question is “How has NSW found itself in this position, where two members of the Shooters Party have so much power that they are able to win support of the government and the opposition to weaken gun control measures, gain millions of dollars for shooting complexes and the establishment of the Game Council?"

It is worth looking more closely at the relationship between the Shooters Party and the Labor government.

When Labor was elected in 1995 they had a majority in the Legislative Assembly, while in the Legislative Council a variety of independents held the balance of power. This was the election that saw the Shooters Party enter parliamentary politics.

Who knows if it is true, but the corridor talk in the 1990s was that the then premier Bob Carr and John Tingle, the Shooters Party MP, who had been colleagues when they both worked as journalists, had a weekly cup of tea.

I know of no evidence of what was discussed at these events but as the years rolled by two trends emerged.

·    Mr Tingle supported unpopular Labor legislation when the government struggled to gain the numbers.
·    From the mid 1990s the gun lobby enjoyed unprecedented success in winning:
o    millions of dollars for new shooting complexes,
o    support for their legislative program, and
o    the establishment of the NSW Game Council.

A major achievement for the shooters lobby was when John Tingle won Premier Carr's support for the establishment of a Ministerial Advisory Committee on Shooting Clubs (MACOSC). The purpose of the committee was to:
·    provide a whole-of-Government approach to issues affecting shooting clubs,
·    help clubs obtain Crown Land for shooting ranges, and
·    obtain government finance.

This is some achievement – shooters having their own ministerial advistory committee that has a whole of govt approach – I think we read that to mean all ministers doors are open to you and its works on obtaining government finance and obtaining public land for the sport of shooting.

MACOSC has delivered for shooters but there is no publicly available information on who sits on this committee, no minutes, no transparency.

Money for Shooting Complexes

Let's look at what has been won for the shooters lobby since the first Shooters MP was elected to the NSW parliament.

·    From 1998 to 2001 the Shooters Party secured over $5 million in additional funding for shooters clubs.
·    An average 20 clubs per year were given funding ranging from $2,000 to $45,000 for specific projects.
·    Overall shooting clubs received a huge increase in public funding and several new shooting ranges and regional shooting complexes were built.

John Tingle in his newsletter 22 June 2001 said:

“Sport and Rec has some $4 million to distribute amongst all sporting bodies in the state, and the demand is heavy.    Approximately $100,000 is tagged each year for shooting clubs.   I’d like it to be more, but we try to place it where it will do the most good.     The fact that we’ve managed to persuade the Government to allocate well over $2.5 million extra in the last 3 years, in addition to the standard Sport and Rec grants makes up for the shortfall, I believe.”
https://www.ssaa.org.au/newssaa/political%20archive/documentsofinterest/australianz/nswspnewsletter.doc.

Land for shooting complexes

The Shooters Party, through MACOSC:
·    gained 540 hectares for the Illawarra Shooting Association in the Dharawal Nature Reserve.
·    played a key role in establishing or extending shooting complexes at Cessnock, Emmaville, Inverell-Glen Innes, Mudgee, Bodalla, Port Macquarie, Kempsey, Hilltop and Hornsby.
·    obtained Crown Land for the Far South Coast Hunting Club at Bodalla.
·    started lobbying for the Southern Highlands Regional Shooting Facility.

John Tingle was very proud of his achievements and set them out in his many newsletters.

Shooters Party support for government bills

Shooters Party MPs in the Upper House have provided reliable support to the Labor government:
·    in tight votes to have bills passed,
·    to block the release of secret government documents, and
·    against potentially embarrassing parliamentary inquiries.

Legislation backed by Shooters Party MPs

·    Law and order bills - Crimes Act, various amendments
·    Weakening of Workers Compensation Legislation. (2001)
·    Planning laws - Environmental Planning and Assessment Act amendments (Part 3A) and Environmental Planning Legislation Amendment bills. Part 3A allows large developments, like shooting complexes, to more easily proceed. (2005)
·    Gene Technology (GM crop moratorium) Bill. (2003)
·    Biodiversity Banking Bill, set to cause loss of high conservation areas. (2005)
·    Stopped the public release of documents relating to the Sydney desalination plant and the proposed M4 East motorway. (2007)
·    Helping the government avoid a public inquiry into how planning laws have delivered the planning system to the big developers who donate millions to the Labor Party. (2007)
·    Keeping the Greens off the Political Funding Inquiry, which had been initiated by the Greens. (2007)
·    Blocking the Greens private members bill to ban mining on prime agricultural land. (2009)
·    V8 supercar race at Homebush. (2009)
·    Repco rally in northern NSW. (2009)

Why do 2 Shooters Party MPs have so much power?

In the NSW Legislative Council:
·    Total number of MPs - 42
·    One MP becomes President
·    Majority needed to win vote - 21

From 2003-2007:
·    The government had 18 votes and needed at least 4 additional votes to get a majority, however it had a cross bench of 11 to work with.
·    There was only one Shooters Party MP.

After the 2007 election:
·    The government has 19 MPs – one MP is President leaving 18 government votes.
·    Cross benches
o    Four Greens MPs
o    Two Shooters MPs
o    Fred Nile – Christian Democrat
o    Gordon Moyes – independent
·    The government needs three of these votes to secure a vote.
·    Fred Nile regularly votes with the government.

Current state of play in NSW Upper House

·    The Shooters MPs have been reliable supporters of the government for unpopular legislation.
·    Shooters Party MPs Robert Brown and Roy Smith and Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile have voted with Labor in over 60% of divisions in which they voted.
·    Shooters Party vote becomes more important because they represent 2 of the 3 votes needed by the government.

Shooters Party wins since 2007 election

Since the 2007 election the Shooters Party have had a number of wins in the Upper House. The nature of these wins gives an insight into why Robert Brown and Roy Smith would have thought they were over the line with their planned amendments to the Game Council Bill.

Two major changes that Shooters Party lobbied for since the 2007 election were both passed:
·    with support of all Labor and the Coalition MPs.
·    during the busiest time of parliamentary sitting when the Shooters Party has maximum leverage as government has many bills it wants to pass.

1.    June 2008 – Shooters Party introduces Firearms Amendment Bill.
o    Labor and Coalition vote to bring this on as a matter of urgency. Bill passed.
o    Changes mean that unlicensed people can access and use guns at shooting clubs, an end to waiting times for licensed owners buying additional guns and weaker penalties for breaches of the Firearms Act.
o    This is the first watering down of the national uniform gun laws brought in after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.

2.    December 2008 – Government legislation on domestic violence amended.
o    Perpetrators of domestic violence who have been the subject of an apprehended violence order can regain their firearms when the AVO is revoked.
o    Prior to this change anyone subject of an apprehended violence court order had to wait 10 years to hold a gun licence.

Biggest Shooters Party win remains the NSW Game Council

·    Set up in 2002 on an initiative from the Shooters Party.
·    Responsible Minister Ian Macdonald promised that the Game Council would be self-funding.
·    The NSW Auditor General in 2008 raised significant concerns about the financial viability of the Game Council.
·    The Treasurer approved $5 million dollars in NSW Tcorp loans between 2004/2005 and 2006/2007.
·    When the Game Council failed to pay back $2 million the government wiped the loan.
·    October 2007 the Cabinet Standing Committee on the Budget approved additional recurrent funding and requested the Game Council develop a business plan by 30 June 2008.
·    Minister Ian Macdonald has refused to:
o    release the 2008-2012 Business Plan for public scrutiny, deeming it 'commercial in confidence'.
o    provide a date for when the Game Council will become self-funding. The government will only say it has 'developed a number of scenarios regarding the future funding of the Game Council'.

The Game Council's poor financial health continues despite an increase in the number of restricted game hunting licenses being issued following an advertising blitz across Sydney and rural areas in 2008/2009.

New figures just obtained by the Greens show that the NSW Game Council has spent well over $1 million over the last five years in advertising, with its annual advertising budget increasing more than five times since 2004/2005.

Government funding

Government funding levels have increased dramatically since the Game Council was first established. A significant drop in funding in 2006/2007 was followed by an unprecedented boost in 2007/2008 as a result of the Council's pressing debt problem . Questioning from the Greens revealed that $2.89 million is expected to be allocated to the Council in 2008/2009, but the final figure is not yet publicly available.

Game Council = hunting weekend with your mates

·    372 State forests licensed for hunting.
·    Over 9,000 licensed voluntary conservation hunters today in NSW.
·    standard license fee costs an economical $60

Is the government keeping the Game Council afloat as a trade off for the Shooters Party MPs voting with the government when the numbers are tight on crucial votes in the NSW Upper House?

We may never know the answer to that question. But whatever the reason, the financial arrangements of the Game Council should be clear and publicly available.

Shooters use language of science and conservation to mask their intent

In 2007 Shooters Party MP Roy Smith, in his first speech in parliament, said his party would "pursue the reintroduction of science-based duck and quail seasons and the expansion of the highly successful Game Council model to include conservation hunting in national parks".

The use of this language does not legitimise the Shooters Party attempts to pursue their sport using public money and public land.

Shooters Party donations

In the lead up to the 2007 election the Shooters Party declared taking $667,370 in donations. Roy Smith was the Shooters Party candidate. He brought in huge donations from the Sporting Shooters Association Australia (NSW) Inc (SSAA (NSW)).

Roy Smith was the Executive Officer of the SSAA (NSW) at the time that it donated a total of $428,175 to his own Shooters Party election campaign. His name even appears on some of the donor forms. A further $124,786 of the campaign money was donations in kind made from the SSAA (NSW) to the Shooters Party for office expenses, staff and advertising. That’s well over half a million dollars.

Roy Smith was certainly delivering for his mates when he undertook to expand the Game Council and resume duck-hunting season.

In the lead up to the 2003 election, before Roy Smith and his SSAA connections came on the scene, the Shooters Party only raised $256,782 - half the amount raised in 2007.

A question for Robert Brown is why doesn't he attract the same level of donations from his shooting mates as Roy Smith and is he pushing so hard for hunting in national parks to shore up support for his 2011 re-election bid.

Greens policy on firearms

The Shooters Party run a scare campaign on the Greens position on firearms.
·    Greens policy is not to stop sporting shooting or take all guns off people.
·    Do not support guns being stored in urban homes.
·    Call for guns in urban areas are to be stored at gun clubs under lock and key, with firing mechanisms kept at designated police stations.

National Parks – protection

·    In recent months understandably public concern has concentrated on the Shooters Party push to shoot in national parks.
·    At same time national parks under threat from the NSW government's plan to expand commercial tourism development and in particular construct new accommodation facilities inside National Parks.
·    Our voice of concern needs to be heard in opposition to the commercialisation of national parks.

Our message to the government

I urge that you contact your local member and Premier Nathan Rees with a clear four point message -
·    Wind up the NSW Game Council.
·    Re-direct the Game Council budget to truly scientific feral animal control programs.
·    No commercialisation of national parks.
·    In the Upper House no deals, debate legislation on its merit.

Thankyou.

End

How to use assistive technology in School, TAFE and University

pretaadmin — 2009-05-18T02:33:09Z

Technology in the Education Environment forum 2002

Opening Address by Lee Rhiannon, GREENS (NSW) MLC

The Greens Party has a passionate interest in social justice and the environment.

Thank you for the invitation to speak today. Assistive Technology, AT, is exciting, as it can assist people with disabilities to lead more independent lives, to undertake courses, to surf the World Wide Web and to enjoy life.

The applications keep on expanding in areas of study, work, communications, banking, shopping, keeping informed, and travel and in so many daily tasks. In assessing the benefits of this technology we need to ensure it's inclusive of all people with disabilities. Otherwise we can have a system that holds hope but doesn't deliver for the majority. Costs and bureaucracy are two of the common complaints. Cost is related to availability. It's worth remembering most AT can cost 2 or 3 times or in some cases even more than the standard model.

There are government schemes that assist employers but these schemes are often subject to deterring bureaucratic processes. The Greens believe they should be fast tracked by government. The issue of access needs to be considered when we first start talking about AT. While there have been many advances for students with disabilities, AT is out of reach for so many people and institutions. Public education is under funded because of policies at State and Federal levels. So it's not hard to guess what will be one of the first things to lose out - a program for students with disabilities.

Then there is the problem that technology is available but few training courses are available. People with disabilities can be understandably frustrated. They see the potential of this technology but they also see the benefits slipping away. AT in the form of electronic text users hold hope for so many. However if computer programs and websites fail to meet the criteria, the technology is rendered useless. There are thousands of inaccessible websites and sadly it still includes government websites. This denies people with disabilities access to the information and services on these sites.

We need programs and websites with accessibility for all, in mind from the beginning, otherwise accessibility tools have limited application. Government websites need to take the lead. Though most have taken some steps towards accessibility, we all know progress is slow, sometimes even backwards. Sydney buses upgraded their website - its now inaccessible. This means a blind commuter can no longer independently check a timetable even with state of the art AT on their computer.

AT can only reach its potential if funding is provided, access issues are addressed and training developed. We need to raise awareness of the benefits of AT, we are doing that today; we need to ensure all people with disabilities have access to the technology. Most of the technology we are talking about is developed overseas so we need to encourage local research and manufacture. A bit of government funding wouldn't go astray.

We need to acknowledge there is a gap between people with disabilities who can afford the technology and those who can't. AT can perpetuate inequality. We need to shift our thinking.

Universal accessibility must be our goal. The Greens know this proposal will cost a considerable number of dollars but it needs to be our goal. Rather than seeing that as an add on it needs to be integral to the technologically integrated world we live in.

Our objective, universal accessibility, is the language we need to use whenever we consider this. Accessibility for everybody can only be achieved if from the design to marketing stage technology is developed with the understanding that people with various disabilities need to be able to use it and have the right to do so.

A microwave has been developed and targeted to blind people; it costs 2 to 3 more than the regular microwave on market. It means a blind person can only use a specifically designed microwave. If all microwaves were designed with accessibility at design stage the cost would be minimal and blind people could use any microwave rather than being limited to the one at home. At work a blind person should be able to use the microwave in the canteen independently.

If voice feedback was a standard feature in all mobiles the cost would come down and blind people could access all features on all phones. If all public phones had TTY, deaf people could use any phone. This is not such a radical idea. We once designed buildings with steps and no ramps. The concept of accessible buildings became law. Now architects are aware. We have some way to go but you get my point of the need to shift thinking.

AT for the moment is exciting. We will know when AT is working for all when it is no longer exciting because it has in fact become so ordinary, when it has become an everyday occurrence.

Opening Address by Lee Rhiannon, GREENS (NSW) MLC

The Greens Party has a passionate interest in social justice and the environment.

We need to acknowledge there is a gap between people with disabilities who can afford the technology and those who can't. AT can perpetuate inequality. We need to shift our thinking.

AT for the moment is exciting. We will know when AT is working for all when it is no longer exciting because it has in fact become so ordinary, when it has become an everyday occurrence.

Exodus

susie — 2010-03-11T01:58:45Z

I note the Government launched responsible gambling week at Star City Casino with the AHA and Clubs NSW at its side - like a bad joke and an insult to the people who care about solving problem gambling - see release below.

Clubs and Hotels are still big donors.

The State government is addicted to these donations and the revenue from pokies.

The State government needs to address problem gambling and make big gesture policy changes - treat it as a public health issue, hand responsibility to NSW Health, wind back the number of pokie machines, regulate the architecture of these machines that are being designed to take more and more of people's money.

The Government needs to accept that problem gamblers and their families and friends are deeply damaged by this unsafe product - and stop accepting and perpetuating the spin from clubs and pubs that it is a small problem that can be managed by a sticker on a machine, coasters and posters.

Clubs and pubs in NSW can be vital places for the community without gambling - the line that they cannot survive without pokies must be put to bed.

Government has a responsibility to try stop this damage.

This is an industry that deliberately targets areas of social disadvantage knowing that it can maximise its profits best this way. It is spending millions on R&D to design machines to draw more people in.

The Productivity Commission inquiry is due to report in February – I hope this report will be the start of a new era in addressing problem gambling in Australia.

State and Federal governments must lead on this important policy issue. Federal government needs to fund NSW to make up the shortfall for lost revenue if industry wound back.

11 May 2009

The NSW Government today joined with ClubsNSW, the Australian Hotels Association and Star City casino at the launch of NSW Gambling Awareness Week.

Gaming and Racing Minister Kevin Greene said the week will work to highlight the risks associated with gambling and encourage those with problems to seek help.

“Responsible Gambling Awareness Week will see the Rees Government’s network of free Gambling Help services heavily promoted in licensed venues,” Mr Greene said.

“We know people with gambling problems respond to help information inside licensed venues and that’s why, working with the industry, a range of promotions will be on show in thousands of licensed venues across NSW from May 11 to 17.

“Actions include the delivery of more than one million coasters, posters and stickers to pubs and clubs, resources for education counsellors and the pilot of a ‘time out’ room at Star City. “Star City’s ‘time out’ room gives gamblers a place to speak to qualified counsellors and access responsible gambling information.

“It will be promoted inside the Casino via displays, signage and announcements, and staff will wear badges inviting patrons to visit to learn more about responsible gambling.

“700,000 anti-problem gambling coasters designed by 15-year-old North Coast schoolgirl Isobel Nutt will also be on display in pubs and clubs along with material promoting our free Gambling Help counselling services,” he said.

Star City managing director Craig Garvin said Responsible Gambling Awareness Week played a key role in showing how the industry can assist those at risk of developing a gambling problem.

“We already have in place an extensive responsible gambling program and we are always looking at how we can enhance that program," Mr Garvin said.

“The trial of a ‘time out’ room at Star City is a way of giving our customers a chance to take a rest from their gambling activities and seek advice if they feel they may have a problem.”

AHA NSW chief executive Sally Fielke said country pubs have been the social hub of communities in good times and bad for close to two centuries.

“NSW hotels recognise the value of initiatives like Responsible Gambling Awareness Week in raising awareness within the local community about gambling responsibly,” she said.

ClubsNSW chairman Peter Newell said by discussing gambling in an open and educated way, we can help ensure people who choose to gamble do so responsibly.

“At the same time we can also educate problem gamblers and the broader community of the availability of well resourced services that provide the support they need to get their lives back on track,” Mr Newell said.

Mr Greene said the Rees Government has distributed problem gambling kits to more than 3,300 school and TAFE campuses, part of its early intervention and prevention program.

“This booklet gives counsellors the tools to identify and respond to a student developing a gambling problem or affected by a family member’s gambling problem.

“The Government funds over 40 free problem gambling counselling services at more than 200 locations, as well as a 24-hour telephone counselling service, and a range of self-help and support materials on the internet.

“We know that these services are making a real difference to people’s lives so if you are experiencing problems please don’t hesitate to seek help.”

Problem gamblers can seek help 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week by calling the Gambling Help line on 1800 858 858 or visiting www.gamblinghangover.nsw.gov.au

Cry Me A River by Steve Posselt

susie — 2010-03-11T01:33:32Z

The whole of his final paragraph reads “Our river systems are precious. If they die, we die. And they are dying.”

This story was more shocking then I expected.

The talk of the death of the Murray-Darling made me reflect back on when I first heard about these rivers. I was about ten years old, in the upstairs classroom of Bronte Public School listening to my teacher Mr Hogben.

Mr Hogben had drawn a map of Australia on the blackboard, outlining the states and then colouring in the rivers we were to learn about that day – the Darling, the Murray and the Murrumbidgee.

I remember Mr Hogben giving great emphasis to how this river system embraces four states. I think each state had a different colour. The map stayed on the black board for a number days.

It was decades later that I came to realise that the Murray-Darling is about a lot more than rivers.

If you don’t get to read the entire book use the index and look up “overland flow”. Here you will learn about the extraordinary way the outback has been replenished over the millennium - rivers flood, break their banks and the waters spread to the horizon.

NSW farmers assoc – flew out. Met with locals just below border. Anger real. Robbed of water, robbed of their livelihood.

The diversity of ecosystems is extraordinary and acreage of grasslands appear that are critical to cattle and sheep production.

Rivers – just one part of the complex water system. Below ground another water regime. Aquifers.

Fortunate also to work with Caroona farmers – Gunnedah. Opposing coalmine exploration. Major concern is damage to aquifers.

à BHP has paid the State Government $100 million just for the right to explore a 350 square kilometre portion of the Liverpool Plains. Earlier studies showed there would be 500 million tonnes of coal buried here.

à Tim on 730 report “If this mine goes ahead, someone in 20 years time will look at what has happened here and they will think that it's the greatest travesty that's ever happened in Australian agricultural history.”

As Geoff Hewitt, third generation farmer from Queensland said earlier this year, “It defies logic that a farm capable of producing premium food for thousands of years into the future would be permanently destroyed to allow for 20 years of coal mining.”

The Liverpool Plains is critical for food security. The land yields 40% above the national average, there is premium soil, water and climate. As an agricultural zone, the Liverpool Plains contribute $332 million to GDP annually.

Blockade to stop exploration.

Namoi River that flows into Barwon and onto Darling River.

When you read this book the climate change alarm bells ring. So I was so pleased that just a few pages into “Cry Me A River” Steve nails responsibility on the coal industry and dismantles the clean coal myth.

Steve states on page 6 and 7

In this uncertain world we face because of climate change, peak oil, the economic recession our rivers, our waterways, our catchments areas need to be respected, protected.

We understand that these diverse ecosystems should be safeguarded for reasons of biodiversity and the rights of others species to exist –

but even if look at these rivers as selfish human beings an obvious priority is to ensure their health.

These water systems are a massive safety net for us.

Mining and greedy agri industries are increasingly encroaching upon waterways and farmland and this in turn undermines our future food security.

Greens response. Campaign with farmers. Working together on private members bill - Mining (Safeguarding Agricultural Land & Water from Mining Bill) Amendment Bill – no mining on or under prime agricultural land or land near a river or aquifer.

The greens believe that governments should be responsible for safeguarding productive agricultural land.

We need balance in our world

balance between mining and agriculture, between food and resources.

Rural land is increasingly lost to degradation and urban encroachment.

by 2025 water scarcity may inflict a loss of 350 million tonnes of food production annually.

As I travel around the state I see growing fear and anger within rural communities. I hear stories of:

· down stream impacts

· polluted streams and creeks

· cracked riverbeds

· unknown effects on underground water table

Steve in his epilogue describes how he “has seen the writing on the wall”.

It’s a great read, the adventures are entertaining, but this book is deeply sobering. It is a wake up call for all of us.

Joan Carey 21 April 2009

susie — 2010-03-11T01:19:59Z

Sometimes Joan would participate in the discussion but not always. I do remember that Joan like many of the political activists of her generation would have her note paper and a pen and write down points she valued or to assemble her thoughts for a contribution she might make.

I dwell on these details because I remember musing to myself on this day how different our younger and older generations of activists are in how they go about organising and communicating. Joan and her colleagues at these events did not interrupt each other by taking mobile phone calls or peering at their blackberries.

I obviously accept that every generation take action in their own way. Political activism increasingly takes many new forms but the consistent, solid, hard working, face-to-face work that was the hallmark of Joan I would argue should always be central to how we organise.

Last week after we head that Joan died I spoke to Joan’s friend Wendy Kerr. It was good to share memories at this time. Wendy described Joan as an “always there person”.

I had never heard that expression before but I saw Joan working away for the causes she felt so passionate about when Wendy uttered those words – an always-there person. There was no fuss, no ego - what there was was that hard work with a personal friendly touch – the skills that every progressive organisation needs.

World peace, the disarmament of nuclear weapons was what Joan worked so hard for, what she was so passionate to achieve. Joan did not stop working for this most important cause.

Joan had been part of the huge anti-nuclear campaigns of the 1980s when we saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets. These were the years when People for Nuclear Disarmament had thousands of members and an active team of volunteers and some paid workers. Joan was part of that team.

But as the years rolled on the numbers fell away but the urgent need to achieve disarmament remained. Joan kept on working on this most important cause to safeguard humanity and our very planet.

Joan was one of a small grouping that not only did the organisational work at PND but they kept that all important political message about disarmament alive.

Often this meant revisiting old campaigns that we thought we had won. In the 1983 Joan was part of a broad based campaign to stop the then US President Ronald Regan introducing his version of star wars that would have seen nuclear war waged in outer space. After a world wide outcry this madness was dropped from the nuclear plans of the world’s powers.

Twenty years later another US president George Bush moved to revive these star war plans and Joan was still there campaigning against this madness. She joined with colleagues in the progressive movement to approach prominent people to sign a letter to Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell when they visited Australia, opposing what was euphemistically called ‘strategic defence’.

This is just one example to illustrate the consistency and dedication Joan brought to her work for world peace.

Joan was also an active member of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom. Joan recognised that women only actions at times had their place in this society where discrimination is do deeply ingrained.

Her style of work was to work in a principled way were you got on did the work at hand – whether that was keeping the membership details, financial records, getting petitions signed or drafting letters to heads of state and attending public rallies.

We can draw a direct line from Joan’s work to the dismantling of the nuclear weapons arsenal that still threatens the security of this planet.

Yes there are still too many nuclear weapons in the world but there is progress thanks to Joan and many like Joan who have worked tirelessly in this area.

Since the height of the Cold War the number of nuclear weapons has been reduced from more than 70,000 to about 20,000 today.

Despite numerous challenges in the path towards a world free of nuclear weapons Joan stuck with this cause. Her deep commitment to people and the planet was enduring.

I first came into contact with Joan in the 1960s at a teach-in – as they were called then – against the Vietnam War. Joan’s husband, Alex, was the leading academic voice against that atrocity of military destruction. Joan helped organise this event.

In the 1980s our paths cross again – at this time the threat of nuclear war was so real. Hardly a week would go by without some event being held and when I look back on those days I realise that Joan and a small grouping of mainly older volunteers and mainly women played a critical role in building that movement. In recent year Joan joined the Greens.

Joan lived life for others - thinking and acting for others, and for future generations.

Joan’s life holds many lessons for all of us.

Joan Carey was deeply committed to making this world a safer, fairer and healthier place for all of us. She made a huge contribution and we thank her for that.