Should Labor talk to the Greens?

Open Labor is holding a debate in Melbourne to-night. The question is Should Labor Talk To The Greens?

Miss Eagle has written to Open Labor letting her views be known.  Miss E is dyed in the wool Labor - but is rather selective. Miss E was once, but is no more, a member of the ALP.  She is a twice-failed Labor candidate but bears no animus re that. It was a significant experience and it led to her becoming an organiser with the AWU - the first female organiser in Northern Australia and only the second female organiser in its history.  

Miss E still has quite traditional Labor views on many topics, particularly on work, labour, and workplace rights - but feels she has nothing in common with Labor in relation to its ambiguous stance on environmental matters and its progressively harsher stand on the matter of refugees and asylum seekers since 1992.   Both of these items, in Miss E's view, are highly moral in nature and values.  Labor's attitudes on these policy matters do nothing to attain the moral and advantageous high ground.  They send Australia and Australians deeper into a vandalistic and inhumane mire.

In light of these views, Miss Eagle has written to Open Labor as follows:

Dear Open Labor,

My view is that The Greens should enrol in the ALP and immediately establish a faction.  It's the only way I can think of for environmental concerns to get an authentic guernsey in the development of a collective environmentally concerned mind within the ALP.  

Under Rudd and Gillard, Labor made a mess of their attempts at being 'green' i.e. the pink batts (policy would have been helped by consultation with a relevant tradesman but where are they in the ALP - does anyone even sleep with a tradie anymore?) and giving tradeable electricity to homeowners (more to the rich and the middle class) instead of including renters (clearly don't give a darn about low income people, let alone pensioners and the unemployed, who rent! And completely ignore the situation of people living in public housing).  Should I mention here how a Victorian Labor Government upgraded public housing and privatised a portion of it thus decreasing the quantity of public housing available to Victorians.

The ALP is lagging and conservative.  Its careerist politicians are concerned with the Almighty $ and assuring for themselves lucrative post-politics careers.  I won't name names - but I don't think I need to.  We can all finger Labor politicians who are guilty of this.

I don't think Labor has clearly defined and delineated its role in this post-GFC world.  Without a clear path, ideology, or compass, it means that Labor will wax and wane in its policies instead of defining a clear path, a steady compass forward.

Sincerely,

Brigid Walsh

(once an ALP member; twice an ALP Federal Candidate; once an AWU organiser)​

New and ongoing concerns about the Northern Territory Intervention and Stronger Futures legislation

The material below has been received from Georgina Gartland of 'concerned Australians'

www.concernedaustralians.com.au

 ~~~~

Friends

A highly respected Aboriginal woman is speaking at this weekend’s national Labor conference. A few years ago she said:

 “There is certainly nothing dignified about losing your human rights as a human being,

based on being an aboriginal citizen”  Yananymul Mununggurr March  2009 .

Yananymul is one of the Aboriginal Elders / Community leaders who prepared the recent Elders statement released in Melbourne, 4 November. Please see

 http://www.concernedaustralians.com.au/media/Statement-4-11-11.pdf  

Last week’s Kairos  (Volume 22 no. 22 ) ran an article on their trip to Melbourne  

http://www.cam.org.au/kairos-digital/kairos_v22i22/ 

There are serious ongoing concerns with the NT Intervention.  A proposed new bill is most concerning.

Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Bill 2011 includes a 10 year sunset clause  and  a review  at 7 years!

Pat Turner (former CEO of ATSIC and former Deputy CEO of Centrelink) is vehemently opposed to these new bills which, amongst other punitive measures, will see cuts to welfare payments of  parents of truant school children.  She  said,   “  ... I see this as the last straw in Aboriginal affairs policy.  I am absolutely opposed to it.  This is bad public policy, it is morally objectionable, and it will not work... . This legislation must be withdrawn...” 25 November 2011

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/cutting-centrelink-cash-wont-stop-indigenous-truancy-20111124-1nwwi.html

Last week ACOSS released a powerful statement "Cooperation not intervention: a call for a new direction in the Northern Territory", 23 November 2011

http://www.acoss.org.au/media/release/cooperation_not_intervention_a_call_for_a_new_direction_in_policies_affecti

There have been many others including, http://www.snaicc.asn.au/news-events/fx-view-article.cfm?loadref=32&id=694

Take action - go to: ANTaR National

http://takeaction.antar.org.au/letters/campaign/13/northern-territory-welfare-payments-and-school-attendance

On Updates please take time to read,

·         New opinion piece on  Northern Territory Emergency Response 2011 Evaluation report, written by Michele Harris OAM

http://www.concernedaustralians.com.au/media/NTER-Evaluation-Opinion-2011.pdf

·         Please do read if you haven’t had a chance: 'Cuts to Welfare Payments for School Non Attendance - Requested or Imposed?' You will find the document embedded below and can be read on screen or downloaded.

The paper analyses the recent NT Stronger Futures consultations  on education and questions Minister Macklin's claim that Aboriginal people asked her to implement this new and measure.

 http://www.concernedaustralians.com.au/media/Welfare-Cuts-Requested-or-Imposed.pdf

Kind Regards and Thankyou

Georgina Gartland

'concerned Australians'

www.concernedaustralians.com.au

WHAT NETWORKERS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR? A JOYCE-WONG DEBATE ON WATER?

Dear Networkers,

My apologies!  When I posted on the matter below a couple of days ago, I got all excited.  Now I should have known better.  I should have realised that all that comes from the mouths of politicians on water is not sensible.  The debate has been and gone - but you had to be listening to Adelaide radio to hear it.  I suppose because only Adelaide people heard it there were predominantly South Australian issues under discussion.  Oh well!  Too bad, so sad!  But wouldn't a nationally televised Great Water Gate Debate be a marvellous thing.

Perhaps it is too late to work yet another debate into the hectic round of the election campaign, but what about having a monstrous huge debate around the time of the release of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.  It could include not only politicians but scientists, academic experts, community people and consumers.

What about a whole series within a national debate so that we know not only the issues in our home states - but the Great Water Gate issues in all six states and two territories?

What if we learned so much about water from such a series that issues such as unbundling; deforestation; revegetation; water pricing; desalination etc tripped easily from our tongues and into our conversations?

Aaaaaah, dream on Miss Eagle....what if.......?!!!

From Ian Douglas over at Fair Water Use, comes news that Barnaby Joyce is taking up Penny Wong's challenge for a debate on water.  Bring it on!

~~~~~~~~~~

National Water Policy: 

Show me yours and I'll show you mine

MEDIA RELEASE

5th August 2010

National public water-rights advocacy group, Fair Water Use, welcomes the statement from federal coalition water spokesperson, Senator Barnaby Joyce, that he is willing to debate water policy with Senator Penny Wong.

National coordinator of Fair Water Use, Ian Douglas, has responded to the announcement saying, “The current lack of water policy statements from all parties reflects poorly on those seeking to be responsible for our water resources in little more than a fortnight”.

He continued, “Australians are increasingly aware of the need for protection and careful management of their water – much threatened by the policies of successive administrations; a vital topic, demanding rational debate rather than finger-pointing”.

“There is increasing objection in the electorate to the ongoing process of privatisation of Australian water; an agenda which no major party has yet had the honesty to put forward as official policy during any election, state or federal. This issue must be brought into the open for discussion before this federal election”, Dr Douglas concluded.

Fair Water Use (Australia) has contacted the three major parties, requesting that they clearly enunciate their position on water privatisation prior to the upcoming federal ballot. 

Initially seen by governments as a cheap means of providing and operating water utilities, privatisation has proved an abject failure in most parts of the world where it has been implemented – leading to dramatic escalation in charges, poor service and a fixation on unnecessary, inefficient and environmentally destructive infrastructure development; reaping huge profits for private water corporations at the expense of the general public.

An increasing number of countries are extracting themselves from contracts with water companies, returning control of water supplies to public authorities.

However Australian governments seem oblivious to this trend and continue to pursue a process of privatisation by stealth: encouraging management of water as a commodity rather than a common “good”, leaving it exposed to international market forces rather than protected for future generations of Australians. The social inequity and allegations of corrupt corporate practice, which plagued this process overseas, are now being mirrored in this country.

The major parties must now indicate their stance on water privatisation - Australians deserve no less.