The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Correction. It's the Institute of Forestry Organizations of Australia. I just did a search but can't get into their website. I seem to have Adobe problems.

....To be continued, I guess .....



In the meantime, I've been checking out the Saturday morning papers ....:

Leak is spot-on this morning! Can you detect the policy differences between these two? I can't see too many, myself. :

<deep sigh> :


No opposition, no debate, no contest
Alan Ramsey
August 11, 2007/SMH

Federal Parliament and its politicians now consume something like $600 million of your taxes a year. That is an estimate. It might even be conservative. This week, whatever the amount, you were short-changed.

Here is what your money bought, besides news of higher home mortgage rates.

Tuesday was Parliament's first day back after its winter recess of six weeks. In the House, which met at 12.30pm, Malcolm Thomas Brough, 45, cabinet minister, introduced a package of five bills totalling some 700 pages, including explanatory memoranda. He began speaking at 12.30. He sat down at 1.51pm after reading five speeches end on end, like sausages.

It had taken him 10 minutes short of two hours just to introduce his five bills. At 9.34 that night it was all over.

That is, the people's house passed Brough's five bills of 600 pages of legislative detail just nine hours after the Prime Minister's delegate introduced them. Debate had lasted four hours and 16 minutes. Fourteen politicians had spoken, including Brough a second time. Thus in a legislature of 150 MPs, only 13 were allowed only twice as long, collectively, to debate the bills as it had taken the minister to read his five speeches introducing them. ...<cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/no-opposition-no-debate-no-contest/2007/08/10/1186530620958.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

It'll be interesting how the (currently all Labor) states respond to a Rudd federal government, if KR is successful. Rudd has described himself as a "fiscal conservative" & of course, many of his policies are identical to JH's, so much could remain the same for the states.:

An interesting development! Of all the invitations the JH & KR receive to address different interest groups around the country, they choose this one. But then, both party leaders have declared themselves to be "committed Chiristians". I'm hoping that both will agree to participate in a televised debate in the last stages of the campaig, but I'm not holding my breath ...:

Howard, Rudd woo Christians online
By Peta Donald, Tom Iggulden and staff reporters/ABC online news


Members of the Hillsong Church pray before addresses by Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd. (AAP: Tracey Nearmy)

In an Australian first, Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd have made their pitches for the Christian vote in a webcast streamed live to a claimed 100,000 Christians across the country.

Christians gathered in 700 churches from Nhulunbuy in the Northern Territory to Ulverstone in Tasmania to watch the two men duelling for the prime ministership outline their Christian credentials. Mr Howard went first.

"I acknowledge of course that God is neither Liberal nor Labor," he said.

"I do, however, state it to be the fact that my party and the National Party has within its ranks a very significant number of people who are extremely active members of various Christian denominations."

It was Mr Rudd who had made the point first, in an essay last year, that the political right should not have a mortgage on Christian values.

"Personal faith also provides a compass point for my life," he said last night. "It also therefore helps shape the view I try to bring to the public space as well."

The Prime Minister appealed to family values, announcing an extension to a program to help parents filter what their children can see on the internet.

The Labor leader had a promise for families too, matching a commitment the Government made at the last election to have family impact statements prepared for every submission made to Cabinet. .....

.............

Tough questions

Ultimately, it was nothing like an event organised by the religious right in the US, with the Australian audience noticeably divided in its political views.

A couple of hundred Christian leaders were on hand at the National Press Club to ask questions.

There was this one for Mr Rudd on the issue of gay marriage: "The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission has recently made a recommendation that the definition of de facto marriage be extended to include homosexuals. Would your party reject these attempts to undermine marriage?"

"I have a pretty basic view on this, as reflected in the position adopted by our party," Mr Rudd answered. "That is, that marriage is between a man and a woman."

Mr Rudd ruled out recognising same-sex marriage or civil unions, but under a federal Labor government, gay couples might be allowed to register their relationships.

There were some tough questions for the Prime Minister too.

As well as concerns about morality, some wanted assurances on social issues.

"There's a risk of growing inequality in the nation," another Christian leader asked. "What are you prepared to do in the next three years to make a fairer, more balanced family life more achievable for Australians?"

Mr Howard responded: "The first and most important thing we can do is to continue to run a strong economy."

"You've got to have a strong economy before you can have families in work," he said.

The last word went to the organiser, Australian Christian Lobby director and former SAS head Jim Wallace, who made it clear that if on nothing else, the politicians had been preaching to the converted on the issue of religion.

"I think we can be well assured the heavens will be moved tonight," he said. "So God bless you and thank you very much."


Political influence

Mr Wallace later told ABC TV's Lateline program he expected the Christian vote to have a big impact on the coming election.

"I think we saw after the last election there was a perception that there was a Christian vote there," he said.

"I think this wasn't proved at the time but I think what we've seen tonight is that political parties certainly see it to be there.

"Also, we've been able to demonstrate that it is there in very large numbers. We had between 80,000 and 100,000 people watching tonight. I do believe that's a conservative estimate.

"For anyone with constituency to be able to do that, I think, is reasonably impressive and means if people are committed enough to come along and watch something like that in those numbers right around Australia, then it's a constituency that has to be listened to."

He believes he will have a considerable impact on events leading up to the election but denies claims he has a focus on swinging politics to the right.

"I'm not looking for that power myself," he said.

"Our aim as the Australian Christian Lobby has always been to create an environment where those people who have views [and] agendas from a Christian perspective - whether they be in churches or other Christian advocacy groups - can come into the political domain and they'll have more leverage to actually make their concerns known.

"The reality is that Christian concern covers a wide spectrum of issues - no one interest group, I think, can hope to be an expert in all of them."

Mr Wallace expects climate change and the impact of industrial relations law on the work-life balance to play key roles in the minds of voters at the polling booths.

But Democrats leader Lyn Allison says there are too many federal MPs with strong religious views.

Senator Allison says the separation of church and state is becoming blurred.

"The Prime Minister this morning said that there were a great number of Members of Parliament in Coalition ranks with very strong ties to the Christian church," she said. "I know this is a Christian country but people with very strong religious views are heavily over-represented, if I can put it that way, in the Parliament," she said. ........

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/10/2001287.htm

(What's the message on the red package? Can anyone enlighten me? It's blurry & unreadable on my computer.)

Just in.:

Howard loses vital support of West
Shane Wright and Michael Bachelard
August 11, 2007/ther AGE

WEST Australian voters, on whom Prime Minister John Howard was counting to save him from political oblivion, have turned their back on him, with an exclusive Westpoll showing a surge of support for Kevin Rudd.

Taken as the Reserve Bank lifted interest rates to their highest level in a decade, the poll of more than 400 voters showed an 8 percentage point swing to the Labor Party that would deliver it 54 per cent of the two-party preferred vote.

Labor's primary vote has increased to 43 per cent, back to where it was soon after Mr Rudd took over as Opposition Leader, while the Coalition's primary vote has slumped 8 points, to 38 per cent, since the July Westpoll. .... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-loses-vital-wa-support/2007/08/10/1186530622300.html

AGE readers' responses to the Howard/Rudd online Christian forum.:

Beware the backlash
August 11, 2007

HOWARD and Rudd are trying to trump each other on how Christian they, and their policies, are. I expect nothing more from Howard. However, if this leads to a repeat of the 2004 election when Labor gave its first preferences to Family First ahead of the Greens, then Rudd had better be prepared for a backlash from grassroots ALP supporters. It is a statistical impossibility for Labor to gain a majority in the Senate this election. It must decide who it would prefer to hold the balance of power: Family First, natural allies of the conservatives, or the Greens, who have made scrapping Workchoices a priority? You don't need divine guidance to work out the logical choice.
Christopher Paul, Elwood

Pulpit politics

SO HOWARD and Rudd chatted with Christian groups, each avowing he is more religious than the other. Can we expect this to turn into a regular event, as in the US where you have to be religious, or pretend to be, to get into politics? We have had both leaders marginalising gays by denying them the same rights as others, and denying euthanasia even though the majority of Australians support it. We even had Howard gushing about greed to win over the Hillsong fundamentalists, and Rudd equating the environment with religion while pushing more coal burning and woodchips. When can mainstream groups expect such a glitzy multimedia event?
P. Stephens, Yamba, NSW

Why only two?

THE Australian Christian Lobby's Jim Wallace says the American example of the Christian vote, which almost exclusively leans to the right is flawed (ABC Lateline, 9/8). He maintains that Australian Christians are not as rabidly parochial and are more evenly spread through our political spectrum. It is interesting that he also says the questionnaire the ACL is sending out before the election will go only to the Liberal and Labor parties ?- Australia's conservative bloc.
Mick Kir, Vermont

Other issues

I APPLAUD Howard and Rudd for appearing on a live webcast to so many church people. However, reports of the event have emphasised the "religious right" ?- for example, Howard's promise of a $189 million package to provide a free internet filter for every family in a bid to fight pornography and foul language online. Of course this is important, but it is only one side of Christianity. Our relationship with God, our care for the poor, our response to injustice, and our abhorrence of violence and war are just as much a part of Jesus as any other moral question.
Geoff Hinds, Merrylands, NSW

Forgotten folk

MR HOWARD and Mr Rudd, fair go. Lately it has been another day, another "family-friendly" policy or an appeal to good "Christian values". I am a young, single and childless woman who lives with friends. I cannot honestly describe myself as a Christian and I do not live in a marginal seat. But does this mean I should be excluded from policy considerations? Chris Fotinopoulos (Opinion, 10/8) has spoken for people such as myself, the "new forgotten people", when he argues that governments should propose policies that include all social groups. In their frenzied bids for moral, middle Australia, the Liberals and Labor have neglected policies for those who do not fit into the traditional family mould. Single, deliberately barren heathens are Australian too, and we vote.
Saskia Bourne, Windsor

........

http://www.theage.com.au/letters/?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Institute of Foresters Of Australia
The IFA is: an advocate for better forest management in Australia; an advocate for high professional standards in forestry; an advocate for active management of our forests for all values; a focus for professional development activities, both formal and information; a source of information about employment opportunities and a source of information about developments in the profession and in forestry generally in Australia and our region of the world

An advocate for the timber industry?

My real opposition to your point of view is the fact that forests are NOT destroyed by harvesting they are in fact rejuvenated. I see coups on a daily basis returning year after year and I watch as they regrow. I see the fires that rejuvenate, I watch the habitat trees deliberatly left behind still housing the gliders, possums and birds and insects. I see the returning fungi, peas and acacias provide habitat and food for animals and birds who shelter in adjacent un touched forests, and I see the tall timber gradually regrowing to its former glory. I monitor it scientifically to ensure what my eyes see can actually be proven. Forestry to me is the ultimate act of recycling, a balance where man interacts with nature to the benefit of both.

But they do not return to become old, established forests for a long, long time! And that is the beauty & uniqueness of these forests. Like many others, I'm angered & saddened I see them destroyed merely to produce pulp or woodchips. It feels like we're allowing our national treasures to be squandered for peanuts. There are many other acceptable alternatives, like pine plantations, surely?

Just curious, dadpad. Do you have some connection to the Institute of Foresters Of Australia?

Do you apply this to clearfelling ? And do you think a forest is just the trees? What about the animals?


By 'they', you mean the quick growing timbers...not the trees that take centuries to grow.

By 'they', do you mean every single species that was present before it was logged...and that your answer applies to all logging in Australia (which if a forest is clearfelled...it can't)



Something natural and unique to Australia as I understand it


Does this apply to all logging companies? Just how many trees? If it's too valuable to the industry, do they cut it down anyway, and say "There's others for them"? (forgive me for being cynical)



err...you mean the animals and birds who were originally denied shelter in the logged forest (and had to move to the untouched forest) ?



Sorry...We still don't have anywhere near the tallest red cedars in the world. Nor are you ever likely to be old enough to see certain species of trees 'returning to their former glory'. You will only ever see 'select species' do this.



And to me, Logging is like ....everything of value is gone from this forest...lets move onto the next...and when that's devoid of value...then we'll move on to the next...and hey, when one finally manages to find it's feet again...well, lets go back and whack it again.

The problem is, we (the human world) are destroying whats left of the world's natural living beauty...and any company or organisation that advocates continuing to do so is going to find itself the target of dislike and cynicism (ie. not just forestry)

Your ignorance astounds me! However I forgive you your lack of knowledge.
Pine plantations are non native, require large tracts public forest to be bulldozed and provide almost no habitat value to native animals and certainly no food. They dominate their niech so completely that almost nothin else grows creating a mono culture suitable for imported ferral deer destructive pigs foxes and cats.





Thats not correct. Once canopy closure occors at around 20 years of age a fully functioning eco system is in place.



Not destroyed and not just pulp. Everything from polished dining room tables to wonderfully decorative and more energy efficiant flooring, house framing on through to garden stakes. All of which would not be viable without the sale of unusable stems to provide the world with recyclable materials such as paper. Paper that will eventually be burnt producing co2 to be reabsorbed and recreate a new forest or decay back into the soil to feed new plants.

My connection to IFA is just as a member, probably in the same vein as you are a member of the VTU.

You're saying it takes only 20 years to produce an "old growth" forest, dadpad? (Then you can log it again, I presume, seeing it regrows so quickly? :wink: )

From what I've seen, logging is not exactly "friendly" toward existing native flora & fauna, either! Why shouldn't the logging companies produce their own raw materials for their own industries & profits? Pine, or whatever ... At least they're not plundering native heritage for their own profits!

You work in the industry then, dadpad?

I establish and maintain plantations on private land. but support native forest harvesting until such time as plantations are a viable alternative.

I remember many years ago watching a television program about logging in a native forest in Australia. The logger explained to the reporter that they only felled selected trees and that they would return here in 20 to 30 years and be able to harvest more trees. The reporter was standing beside a tree that had just been felled and asked the logger how old it was. He said, judging by the size, it would be about 400 years old. Then there was a silence. The logger could see his argument for logging crumble in front of his eyes.
It's quite simple, if you cut down even a 100 year old tree and replant one immediately, it will be 100 years before you can say you have replaced it.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Hi Ooragnak

That's not exactly true. If the tree next to it was 50 years old, and you plant a tree in the felled trees position...then it will be 50 years before you have replaced it...the trees will have just have swapped positions.

Of course, for 2 centuries or older...well, none of us are ever likely to see them replaced in our lifetimes.

Well that's not happening in Tasmania. I saw the helicopter view pictures just 3 days ago, and they're just marching along taking everything. I don't know which side of the debate is right, because I don't have sufficient knowledge on the subject, and I realise that both sides of the debate have an agenda.

That's my understanding of how it works, too. Big areas where the landscape has been totally denuded by logging activity.

(I must post some info. about Gunns Ltd & their operations in Tasmania)