An optimistic theory Peter, but I'm afraid I see no real evidence of the majority of Australians giving a stuff about issues such as global warming, integrity in politics and the like. People are so focussed on material accumulation that they have totally vacated the sphere of serious discussion about politics, society, the environment, the community, if they were ever there in the first place. They have relinquished any interest in those areas, in exchange for the belief that all they want their leaders to do is to keep interest rates and petrol prices down, and give tax breaks now and again. And they have been fooled into thinking that (some) politicians can do this long term.

The increasing concentration of media ownership, and the continued dumbing down of media content is likely to encourage the continuation of this trend.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think Australia is irrevocably set on a path of "look after number one, damn the environment and the community, who cares about integrity and honesty, and blame the underprivileged for their own plight".

Parties need numbers to win elections - and I'm not sure that Peter's article examines this sufficiently.
There seems to be an assumption in the intelligencia that people vote for issues. I think this is only partly so. I think people vote for people - the person that they like or trust. They do this even if they don't know or understand the issues. At the extreme there are voters who do not understand English, and voters who do not follow the news. Yet they vote, and it's certainly not on issues.
I think it's time that journalists and commentators acknowledged that many people vote without connecting to the much discussed "issues" and "trends" and "spin".

AMSADL - you are responding to Peter McMahon' s article in an intelligently pessimistic way.
However, I don't think that we can afford to be pessimistic. For one thing, even if Australia does proceed towards doom in its current mindless materialistic way - what are we going to say to our children and grandchildren - when they ask "What were you doing about it?"
I congratulate Peter McMahon on giving us some intelligent hope - that "content will eventually triumph over form".
We've seen how the asbestos, chemical, pharmaceutical and above all - the tobacco, and now the nuclear, industries have exerted their spin.
But people are waking up to spin. Things are changing. The Howard government is not necessarily a friend to business and industry, as many are finding.
It's not all that hard to see through spin. You don't have to be an "expert". There are just two critical questions:
1. What's in it for whom?
2. Does this really make sense?
Christina Macpherson www.antinuclearaustralia.com

Brilliant article Dr. McMahon. A breath of fresh air to someone like myself, but I doubt such political foresight will evolve quickly enough to save us from ourselves. John Howard is a tired old man with tired old ideology and yet he always draws a crowd. Unfortunately this ideology is out of touch with reality and with present and emerging problems such as Global warming and peak oil, however that shouldn't be surprising since John Howard is only a puppet for big business, especially the oil industry and the US Government. It is also unfortunate that their main opposition has become much too aligned with Liberal policy and have found themselves like a beached ocean liner who left her course due to bungling within her navigational crew. It will take a one in one hundred year flood to float them again. Christina, you're correct in saying that we can't afford to be pessimistic, but what can we do when young and emerging voters idolise John Howard and who, like their parents, continue to strive towards material wealth and the latest "toys." I've spoken to work colleagues about environmental issues, but they're too busy working towards their third or fourth rental investment properties to bother to listen. Even one of my sons derides me for "attempting to take him out of his comfort zone" as he struggles with a dream to pay off his house and forge a material future for his wife and children. And so at times I too feel the pessimism of AMSADL, but I refuse to give up on the notion that one day politics will evolve into something akin to the vision of Dr. McMahon.

The problem is that the US paradigm of free market, free enterprise is unchallenged by any external constraint. It has become the modern equivalent of FEUDALISM. Our politicians are nothing more than eager Barons in that system.

But feudalism has failed every time in history. What does that tell us now in an age of infomopoly? It tells us that WE are going to have to insist on CEOs being accountable not only to shareholders but also to the general public. Otherwise the current system will degenerate into rebellion and revolution just as it has done throughout the age of man when essential freedoms are abased.

To get control of CEOs we need to show the US that ITS CEOs are negligently contributing to terrorism by alienating communities in third world countries. They buy their land, property, utilities, governments and even their prettiest women cheaply and then inflate the prices of those commodities to gain rich stakeholdings that are, according to Donald Rumsfeld, enforcable by US military might.

If the US Congress ever really understands the root cause of terrorism and focuses on clipping the wings of their CEOs then Australia will have the accountable governments WE all truly desire.

People need to post comments about this issue on US forums which are far more abundant than the slim offerings in Australian media.

I believe the US Congress will act in good conscience here as the US is under mounting pressure from terrorism the world over and they will act if they can be shown positive solutions with calming influences on world touble spots.

As I recently said on one US forum: "When the early Americans finegled Manhattan from the indians the numbers ratio was 20:1 against the indians. But now the ratio is 6.5 billion to 300 million or about 20:1 against the US. If you rein in a few thousand CEOs they will get NASTY, but eventually just do a Kenny Lay. If you increase stakeholdings in the third world, unabated, it will set our lives alight with terrorism, fear and hatred.

That is interesting about the PM wanting to flog off WA gas to the highest bidder. It ties in with more troops to Iraq and the closing of the Vestas wind turbine factory in northern Tasmania due to lack of support for renewables. It seems the PM thinks she'll be right mate when it comes to energy.

A good article from Peter, pointing out some of the problems we face. But relying on the present system to suddenly change direction, is ridiculous in the extreme. Considering more than 70% of the populace have no interest in anything but themselves as pointed out by others posters, what changes can come about under such entrenched opposition

All previous posts have been very relevant, that's the scary part. Even with optimism, there's very little that will be done. All our politicians are doing nothing, but following their neo con direction of power, control and head in the sand.

History tells us, only calamity of the worst kind, will make us change. The only benefit we in Australia have over others, is our small population and relative isolation from the marauding hordes who'll sweep over other continents when things really collapse.

Our political system must change at the next federal election, otherwise it will be another 3 years no matter who wins, before any new approach can be attempted. By that time, it'll be way to late. We've abandoned any form of lifeline (via privatisation), for the god of economic rationalist global growth.

We not only have to overcome political ignorance, but also the ignorant masses completely entrapped in their ideologies and narrow blinded viewpoints. What's really bad, is the power for change is held by the most ignorant and useless people deeply entrapped in delusion. Current politicians, CEO's and the bureaucracy are extremely ignorant of the reality of the world, so they'll have to go first, to get any positive result.

It will be extremely interesting to see how the next federal election turns out. If the status quo is continued and no more independents get elected, you can bet your future on things only becoming worse.

As John Howard throws money at us to change to unsustainable and very limited supplies of gas, totally neglecting renewables, you have perfect picture of what our future is and what will be done about it, nothing.

We dream nite and day for a cult of new political and civic operators who combine a working knowledge of politics with a sound knowledge of the issues for the essential.

The problem is from the street in Australia it's er ... "I'm not into politics"! BLANK!

"The revitalisation of politics will have a profound effect on wider society" if civic paticipation was valued and it's diversity supported...

"Issue specialists, sidelined for decades by the combination of public relations and economic orthodoxy, will be galvanised by the realisation that their expertise matters, and will become increasingly focused in their work." This is what Helen Clarks government has done by putting ALL Aotearoa New Zealanders to work... on the economic and political - socio-cultural dynamic plan...

Single-issue groups, often locally based, will be legitimised and will revitalise local politics which is the heart and soul of politics.... if silo politic's is recognised and pro-actively STAMPED OUT!

Fair-Go Australia needs to ID it's values and accept that we are with all our differences suggesting that we want to be fair.

It is a LEARNING nation governed by "innovation" and a sense of "justice" that may help change the nature of the present entrenchment of apathies...

Critical Debate is lost through spin... even though not many believe the spin... our voices and energy to participate is lost by the mis-use of opinion, where the domination is oppressive.

AMSADL writes;

“I see no real evidence of the majority of Australians giving a stuff about issues such as global warming, integrity in politics and the like. People are so focussed on material accumulation that they have totally vacated the sphere of serious discussion about politics, society, the environment, the community, if they were ever there in the first place.”

The people expect government to do the right thing to protect our future… but they also expect them to do what they want now. These two things are increasingly at odds. What the people want now is what counts in terms of votes and holding on to power.

It prompts the question; what is the role of a democratic government – to reflect to the wishes of the people or to protect the people despite their wishes?

Peter McMahon writes;

“Rapid change is the issue, and the two major parties face a problem here.”

They do indeed. Apart from their horribly inappropriate ideologies (continuous growth instead of sustainability, amongst others), rapid change ain’t gonna happen because of the inbuilt demand by the vast majority in our community for the here and now material stuff. Rapid change will only happen after we really feel the pinch. Thus change will forever follow behind the manifestations of policies that have appeased the here and now.

“Of course, the cause of all this will be the emerging threat of catastrophe as strange weather and rising oil prices signify an unprecedented challenge facing modern humankind.”

Yes but change will follow hard times. Change will NOT occur to any significant extent in anticipation of difficult times ahead.

The very doctrine of democracy (governments reflecting the will of the people) will hold us back and ensure that the consequences of our unsustainable actions are much worse than they could be if we lived in a benign autocracy or a perceptive socialist regime.

“John Howard is a tired old man with tired old ideology….”

Unfortunately Wildcat, Howard is not a tired old man, he’s full of beans (:>() . But yes it certainly is a tired old ideology.

Timely article, Peter, and it seems so far all the Posters are in agreement, but as many of them say, as yet there is no recipe much for change. Its so astounding that economic rationalism has held the floor for so long. And it looks like until we all speak for either a newer way, or just a simple return to a well proven way, like Keynesian mixed politico-economics, which pretty well ran Western politics from when it helped tide us through the Great Depression and through WW2 and beyond.

A time when the US was regarded as top of the bill for initiating the astoundingly successful Marshall Plan. Now
us oldies are looking back and wondering what in hell these smart-arse youngsters are doing to our world? Especially as economic rationalism up our way in the bush, began with the phrase get big or get out.

Looks like its all about ready to backfire.

Anyway, go for it, you younger contributors to Peter's audience, reckon most oldies like me are right behind you.

Good stuff Bushbred

In my experience, as a relative young’n of late forties vintage, a lot of the older set can see very clearly what is happening… much more clearly than the young cohort which seems to be hooked into here and now materialism and who seem to be caught up in that paradox that I mentioned in my last post – of wanting government to pander to their immediate wishes but (almost as an afterthought) also protect their future wellbeing… without in any way realising the existence of this paradox.

--
Peter McMahon is one of the better regular contributors of articles to this forum. 8 this year, and all very good. A total of 56. Excellent effort.

Two points:
Politics has always been a struggle between special interest groups. the only change is the nature of the special interests being served. We seem to be entering a phase when the one might define the special interest groups as public interest groups (PIGs) who argue among themselves how best to serve the public interest as a way of earning a living.
Their arguments have liitle traction in the real world (eg what action have over 50% of the population taken that will have any measurable impact on climate change? I'm cheating with this question because in real terms there is no practical action that can be taken in Australia.)

The second point is that the future of society lies in ever increasing globalisation. Parochial issues like energy security for WA are a non-issue only supporting an unnecessary level of Goverment. The only rational reason to reserve gas for WA domestic use is to lower its price (We will always be able to get energy if we are prepared to pay the going price). Once WA has a monopoly retailer of gas in receipt of the reserved gas (private or Public) any real price benefit will be frittered away by various monopoly practices.

A reasonable role (not the only one perhaps) for a small regional government is to take every action it can to increase the potential of its people. Such actions will enable the people of the region to increase their well being to the maximum they want.

However the action of the PIG's will ensure we will have ever more bread and circus buying off the policy (intellectual)elites. It is interesting to note these elite groups are becoming increasingly hereditory as a group. It would be interesting to see how interbred they are.

l used to be heavily into politics.

In my teens l was an idealist.
In my 20s a table thumping socialist.
In my 30s a mortgage paying capitalist.

Now, pushing 40 l reckon its all a bunch of trollop. Have given politic ideoology MUCH thought and concluded, it matters not what colour guernsey l wear, its all the same thing... SELF INTEREST.

Politics is a very useful way to disguise and project the personal discontent that drives political adherence. It sounds much better to say "x,y and z of this, that and the other must be addressed, in the wider interest, blah, blah, blah" than the truth which is "l want, l want l want and lm gonna align with like minded indivuduals so we can all push our shared self interests." Sounds better, but its just a charade.

Politics is the art by which we divest ourselves of personal responsibility, by talking about it... talk is cheap. Its a way to detach from actually doing the things that we say need to be done. Why actually do anything, when l can just tick and number a few boxes every few years and now say "its your job, you fix it, its your fault if it doesnt pan out.

Why actually do anything, when l can yell at and reproach the tv, the newspaper, family, friends, neighbours and random strangers in the street and on the internet about "wot neds changing but l aint doing anything about (except make noise)".

When my kids ask me wot l did about everything thats now buggered my simple answer will be... "same is you young one, nothing... except talk about it and blame previous generations. Stand in line, youngster, l am where you will be."

Listen to a persons actions... saves much wasted time wading thru the self serving waffling rationale. In the mean time LIVE life. Enjoy and appreciate the good things that are tangible (the sun on my face, whilst l dig a post hole) and meaningful (like family and friends on a lazy Sunday arvo).

Change starts at home.

Hoping this might fit in with Peter's philosophy.

According to Dr Denis Kenny an Australian political scientist, formerly teaching in the US at Harvard University, who now contributes to Dissent, which edits mostly a mixture of the works of politicians, professors and Phd’s airing their views possibly more in a philosophical way.

In his conclusion of Part One of a two-part article explains how certain elements of ancient Greek reasoning which had liberalised both Christianity and our politics to advantage have been supplanted by philosophies more autocratic and less egalitarian.

Presented here is his conclusion to his first article covering seven A4 size pages.

“Today’s Western world, and much of the rest of the world, rather than gaining more enlightenment, has tended to operate politically, economically, culturally and religously more on the basis of a set of assumptions which among liberal thinkers have long been scientifically discredited.

A continued adherence to these assumptions, and the dangerous certitudes which they give rise to in places like the US White House, and even the Vatican among many other institutions sacred and secular on the planet, is at the best of neo-imperial arrogance, bringing on international and inter-cultural conflict, blind economic expansion, social injustice as well as eco-destruction.

The scientific developments of the 20th century, which do also include social scientific reasoning, do tend to indicate that in this new 21st century, that we begin to inhabit a new-found cosmology of a creative universe and learn to embrace the assumptions on which it is based.”

Anyone who has studied the philosophy of history, knows that Dr Kenny is only reminding us that one of the strongest lessons of Western history is that religous faith by itself only mostly produces leaders who want to act like a God on earth, bringing on statements as from Socrates, “out with the Gods and in with the Good” - whereas the added study of scientific reasoning, which the liberal Christian knows is also part of some sort of grand design, might help us to be more understanding even regarding the problems of our so-called enemies.

.

The left wanted to improve the the lot of the poor starving masses in India and China.The Multi-nationals also saw the potential of cheap, labour and new enormous markets to exploit.Now that one third of the world's poor are pushing up the cost of energy and resources,everyone is crying foul because India and China are lowering our living standards and destroying the environment via global warming.

Well,we can't have it both ways.Either the third world economies will have to suffer the same environmental restraints as the rest of us or we will all suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs.

Too many people cheapens human endeavour,since scarce energy and resources only makes us all work harder & longer with little time for
family and introspection.

Currently in China I'm reliably informed,the masses will work for a dollar per hour in a sweat shop situation and have 100 workers waiting at the gates to take their job if they falter.Now these Chinese ex-rural workers are three times better off working in the cities than growing rice in a paddy field.Why are we negotiating another free trade deal with China knowing full well that they will shaft us?

We in the West are very slow on the uptake.Our decades of affluence has made us weak and feeble minded.Our own bleeding heart good nature has brought us unstuck.The enemy nearly always comes from within and we in the fantacy land of OZ have lost the plot.

In agreement pretty well with you, Arjay, except for the one about the bleeding hearts being the cause of the problem.

The point is, that our right wing marketeers are flirting with rising economies such as China and India so much, even to the point of establishing businesses their with our own established brand names.

For example, here in Mandurah WA, we have Mitre 10 Hardware, a huge joint with not an item you can buy Australian made, with many tool lines having American brands, also some Australian, with made in China hidden somewhere in conveniently tiny insignia.

Further, in clothing stores us oldies can totally dress ouselves in Chinese brands and front up well, for not much more than sixty bucks.

Costello would never let a dumb public know, but for years now, cheap overseas ware has produced an unobserved supply side economy, greatly helping to keep inflation at bay.

Many more points can be brought up, Arjay, by university taught bleeding hearts, but guess that's enough for the time.

Back to the orginal point. Is the internet a spin free zone? ie is the net less susceptable to public figures BSing their way through the issues?

I am not so sure. TV and radio with its short sound bytes are clearly suitable for spin.

The internet as a written media has the look of the "trusty old media", ie newspqapers and academic journals. But the reality is that you just don't know if it is true either. Sure it democracises the media to the extent that everyone can be heard. But how do you know who to listen to, who has the real facts etc.

eg in the nuclear debate there is plenty of misinformation but who can you believe? I think the net still has to mature in this sense.

The other issue, the changing face of australian politics is interesting too. With the triumph of social democracy and the welfare state labor is losing its natural constituancy.

Globalisation has created new interdependencies between the west and the third world. In a way it has reversed the colonial situation in that the west is now the market for the manufacturing based in the third world but run by western cash. I don't think it is clear just who the winner is.

Global warming is the one issue threatening us all. It was also an issue in the 70s and we ignored it then without any short term illeffects. Sadly I suspect it will be ignored again until something significant happens.

Dr. McMahon's article is excellent.

Not new, but more timely than ever.

It is now some 30 years since 5 emminent scientists published The Limits to Growth. For their pains they were rubished by all and sundry who didn't like to hear the news the messengers dished up.

Maybe 30 years was far too long to respond, since we, as a society, have made things much worse than they were back then. Turning around the juggernaut is much harder now, but when pressed into a corner it is possible that human engenuity can pull off a Dunkirk. Maybe.

It can only work if we retreat, rather than try to bash our way through, piling on more and more brutal technology, each adding another layer of problems to resolve.

Retreating is not going back to the caves, as many like to picture it. It is creating a much nicer, healthier, more convivial society using small-scale smart technology and human solutions to our cities, transport, food production...

Thank you Dr. McMahon. We need more thinkers like you.

Amsadl said:

"People don't give a stuff" (about the bigger wider picture) My comment "Amen".. true.

Analyst said: "Parties need numbers to win elections" again.. 3fold 'Amen'.

Gecko mentioned: "Limits to growth.. economic prophets ridiculed".. 7fold amen.

Trade gave his life story :) bludgeoned by the realities of life into 'capitalist mortgage payer'.

CAPITALISM (unrestrained)... will bankrupt resources and reduce us to survival of the fittest Sartrian animals.

SOCIALISM (unrestrained).... will bankrupt the nation and/or reduce the human soul to a small meaningless spot of dust on a tooth of a cog in the huge nebulous 'state'.

DEMOCRACY is based on selfishness and greed.
"Parties need numbers"
"Numbers come from promises"
I've yet to see a promise of 'doom' gaining votes :)

Prophets who go against the natural human 'grain' are never welcome.
Micaiah a true prophet who always spoke from God, (usually 'against the grain messages) was once asked by a king "Should we go up against the Arameans" ? and he replied "Sure.. go for it.. be quick and you will win"... which was exactly what all the 'false' prophets had said.... but somehow the king smelt a rat.. "But you NEVER tell me things I want to hear"........... exactly..

So it is with us.. we reject the solemn message of the "Limitations" because we want life without limit. "Salvation" is abundance.....

Perhaps the problem in all this.....is us.

Just as we don't incline our hearts and minds to 'economic' prophets... we also seldom turn towards the spiritual ones.

But truth, remains true. When our vertical relationship is fixed, our horizontal relationships with our fellow man and with our environment are redeemed. While 'The Church' as we see it and experience it is not perfect, the person who knows Christ also knows that this life will always be blighted by our selfish ways, waxing and waning as we give over to or pull back from the Holy Spirit's still small voice in our hearts, yet.. he/she also knows the presence and reality of eternity.

There is real wisdom, even brilliance, here. Maybe it has been said before in different ways since “The Limits to Growth” 30 years ago. But Peter McMahon says it so simply and well. Many of OLO's regular correspondents have missed his point, with their usual pathetic “worldly wisdom ”, which is actually nothing more than empty-vessel cynical prating that “people always think selfishly”. Actually, with proper leaders and role models, people do care about our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ coming world. Even the stupidest people will change eventually because the price mechanism will force them to. It will be an entirely different world when petrol goes to $5 or $10 per litre. I have recently joined the Greens precisely because this party offers Australia the only hope of steering our country responsibly through the “reverse engineering” processes of technical and societal transition to a sustainable renewable energy economy, with the least pain to our children and grandchildren. The WA energy resources example is a very good example of the problems that are coming. Carpenter will lose his first fight here, because the Australian power structure still cannot see beyond the short term. But eventually more and more voters will see how foolish and irresponsible is such short-term policy thinking. By then, as in Germany, we will have Greens in Australian governments. We will need them, because they are the only party with open minds on these vital issues of preserving human life in decent circumstances as energy resources shrink.
Tony Kevin

You are right, Tony Kevin, the Greens have their sights set on the correct targets, but I think that the article was suggesting that political processes are too slow to respond to the crisis at hand.

Therefore we can't expect the Greens to turn things around. Nor anybody else in politics.

To turn things around we have to focus on politics plus every other avenue available to us. And we can't wait around for other people to take action. We are all in it together.

Gee, it's great to see everyone speaking with (pretty much) one accord on this topic.

I hold out great hope for the Internet, without which we wouldn't have this meeting of true minds. Of course the network is perishable too, just like everything we ever created. Nevertheless, it is the most wonderful tool I ever handled.

- all the more reason to prevent some moronic CEO from tossing it into his glory box.

*

Are we headed this way?

An Aussie Fascistic Analogy

Australia’s Slide from Democracy to Despotism

1. Under the Howard government a robust democracy is being white-anted from within.

2. The drift towards authoritarianism has been accelarated by an ineffective opposition.

3. The new links with corporations forged by Labor under Bob Hawke, though not evident at the time because of Hawke’s electoral successes, did ultimately cause Labor’s political descent as the Howard-led opposition filled its rightful place as the corporate-backer.

4. Even in opposition over many years, Labor has still not been able to disconnect its links with Big Business, which should be Labor’s natural enemy especially when the conservatives hold power.

5. Lack of liason between Labor state and Federal Reps was shown in Tasmania during the 2004 election when the State Labor forest campaign helped to sink national Labor candidates.

6. Yet another element rendering the federal coalition meaningless is the enmity between Labor and the Greens. It has been suggested that a coalition arrangement between these two, as in Germany, could help make sure that members of both parties are in agreement ballotwise.

7. Another important point regarding lack of democratic principle in Australia is our failure in doing something about free speech. It has become more obvious with the case of Gunns a US multi-national engaged in logging in Tasmania.

8. Unfortunately, the federal government has become sympathetic to Gunns which under corporate law has been trying to create a case against outspoken anti-logging activists in Tasmania. Though Philip Ruddock as Attorney General, appears somewhat on the side of Gunns, researchers are of the opinion that if Gunns is successful it could back the argument that we are heading towards a type of US backed corporatised totalitarianism interfering with our democratic rights.

9. Finally, we might ask, why is there no comments from the Labor opposition about these problems

Hear, hear, bushbred....

Spot on mate.

*

Global warming and the timing of its impact calls for a national response such as a plebisite on the 2007 ballot asking voters if they believe it calls for a 'grand coalition' government in place for a fixed period, say 1 - 2 years to deal specifically with the issues. First up, a carbon tax followed by our nuclear stance where we make our pitch to the rest of the world of our responsible energy 'superpower' offer. Coastal development might be next. Get the picture? Any chance? Fat chance.

Peter McMahon your article reflects your thoughtful ideas as always .

However I do not share your confidence in the Greens as a positive political movement .
From my observation the greens are only satisfied when a private individual is stripped of his right to manage & benefit from his own property .This makes them reds in disguise .

Seduction by spin will exist as long as compulsory suffrage does . That’s what it takes to win an election here , All else is secondary .

Innovation will only come through industry adapting to meet new challenges . Government will only adapt to remain relevant whilst trying to keep up .

The more things change the more they stay the same . As always .

Bushbred please take care when interpreting any information about management of Tasmanian forests & about Gunns that comes from the Greens through the mass media . I’ll guarantee it’s 99% BS .
Gunns was started by T&J Gunn (sawmillers) here in Tas about 1871 .
Many shareholders now for sure but it’s still a very Tasmanian operation employing many Tasmanians processing & selling Tasmanian timber products & is a company of which most of us are very proud .

Most of us have no problem with anyone exercising their right to protest so long as it’s done in a responsible manner . On the lawns of parliament would be a good place .
The Greens & their feral followers take it on their own to blockade roads denying private contractors their legal right to carry out their work & earn their wages .
Logging contractors will return to a logging coupe only to find that their machinery has been set on fire & destroyed .
Greenies have also driven steel spikes into trees in the hope that saw blades will be shattered at the sawmills regardless of what injury may result .
It’s the sort of thing you’d call terrorism isn’t it .

Thanks, Jano, could have left that one out, information was from an article based on a lecture given by Julie Marcus, an anthropologist, at the Independent Scholars Association of Australia. Also the article gave the impression that Gunns is an American company.

However, it is typical of forestry problems here in WA, mostly related to saving valuable forests for posterity, or keeping the mills going to keep people in work, especially those trained for the job.

Of course, situations like this do leave Labor jammed between a rock and hard place when it comes to the polling booth. As a retired farmer, am not a traditional supporter of Labor, but also do not support Big Biz, as we called corporatism during the Great Depression - especially when it becomes so powerful it can steer government policy, which is happening now in the US and right here in Australia.

Regards - George C - WA

Bushbred, I'd stick with Julie Marcus of I were you. This state of Tasmania is a basket case of corruption, environmental destruction, species extinction and “Seduction by spin”. Their so intelligent, they're about to destroy a wet lands where endangered birds from the northern hemisphere come to breed, with a canal housing estate. Add constructing hotel complexes in major national parks, then pumping the raw sewage into a fish breeding ground.

The list goes on of wasted money, handouts to the 3 controllers of politics in the state, Gunns, Federal hotels and Woolworth/coles. Between them, they control the states forests (Gunns monopoly), food, fuel, liquor, (Woolworth/coles), Gaming, tourism, state icons, and increasingly national parks(federal hotels).

Eighty five percent of Tasmanians want clear felling and plantations stopped, but the spins from the lab/lab coalition is all the same, we don't care what you want, our bosses want this place for themselves, your all just a sideline and slave to our aims. As for the greens, well they're just useless and even though they may have the right initiative, some of their policies are more stupid than the coalition.

The elite fools down here are destroying the place at a rapid rate. We've survived well with a stable but low population, now economic growth is in control, so our way of life is disappearing. No longer can you have a chat to your local member, they live elsewhere. The lies before the last election are all coming home to roost, but politicians and the elite, ignore them and continue their drive for more control and destruction.

Tasmania could provide the world with a perfect example of progressive sustainability. Grow all our own fuel, make our population self-sufficient in energy, food, fabrics and many other requirements.

We have a population the right size to make progressive changes. But no, we have corrput lying people controlling us, always willing to forgo reality to maintain their selfish vested interest and finite power trip.

Alchemist, thanks mate, looks like Gunns was alright at one time, but a bit like our Wesfarmers, joined Big Biz, and then helped force many of our dairy farmers to sell out. Lucky dairy farming's so close to the city, much of the land being able to be sold at a top price for real estate et al.

One of the problems, AL', is we've got such an accepting public, or dumb as some of the oldies are calling them. Don't give a damn about being virtually run federally by a one-party government like Singapore. Me, used to vote Country Party at one time, when the party had a bit of punch.

Queenslanders like Barnaby Joyce appear to be acting the right way, but these days in the long run, just wonder who you can trust.

Cheers mate, George C - WA.

Important some issues may be, our problem is not these issues, rather our process for making decisions about issues.
Majority voters little interest in politics most their lives so many vote party personalities. Why take time understand some likely complex issue if feel someone will make right decision? Must everyone do all jobs to live ? Of course not.

Spin seduction occurs because process is faulty.

Whilst voters unable give their instructions on few issues they feel concern over, why they bother about issues no concern to them ?

Improving political process requires disgruntled voters able show concerns specially concerns against wishes of ruling political parties.

Citizen Initiated Legislation (CIL) voters instructions to politicians be required followed least for term of Parliament unless another referendum gets politicians from voters changed instructions.

Clearly voters desire ability instruct or overturn decisions of politicians from time to time on specific issues.

Clearly politicians desire no restriction to any voter decided policy.

Don't complain about issues presented, complain about lack of process involving deciding what issues get decided.

Firstly demonstrated public interest on whether a question be put on ballot paper decides whether enough public interest towards instructing politicians on specific policy through CIL process .

Ability to make such instructions one essential item of reform to our political process...

High Court should rule is clear or implied core value of representative government that the voters can instruct politicians.

We need reform our political process and keep the reform of the process very separate from examples presented of how could work; Given is so easy to muddy, or confuse many people when proposing changes to process with examples of issues could be considered.

Major political interest groups oppose, are not interested, certainly keep trying to avoid, creating opportunity for voters to instruct them on anything.

Whilst voters can not instruct them on anything why should voters be interested in the process ?