On The Waterfront (published Friday 21 October, 2011. The Mercury)

The changing of the guard in the leadership of our local councils presents a golden opportunity to determine a new policy for development, and particularly around our waterfront precincts.  The recent demise of the Sullivans Cove Waterfront Authority (a good thing) and the return of its planning and development control responsibilities to the Hobart City Council now allows that Council to determine a more integrated approach to development in the area.

Not that many years ago, Sullivans Cove was the province of warehouses, industrial enterprises (jam factories and foundries) and sleezy pubs – a true old-fashioned port environment.  However, port conditions and requirements have changed, and the advent of container shipping has caused the port activity to change from warehouses and storage sheds to open platforms.  Over the last 40 years the old port has been transformed into a precinct of cultural endeavour (art, theatre and music) and social interaction.  And this has revitalized the area and been a boon for the city.

It is a good example of things not staying the same, change happens.

Hotels have contributed to the transformation, with 6 new hotels and hotel refurbishments adding to the character of the place.  Of interest is that the transformation has also involved significant residential development, which has brought with it a clash between the desire of residents for quiet and the demands of the public for a lively social surround.

Residents need to recognise that the attraction of the place is because of the activity, not despite it, and if that does not suit, then the option is to find accommodation elsewhere.

The transformation has not involved or embraced much in the way of a bold new architecture.  And this is a shame.  The old sandstone warehouses of Salamanca Place and Hunter Street provide an obvious backdrop to a new design culture.  Yet we baulk whenever anything new is proposed.  The Princes Wharf No1 Shed, a great venue for displays and exhibitions, has been replaced by - a shed.  Now a venue for displays, exhibitions and the Taste, I think it could have been bolder in design, and there are now significant issues arising regarding its operation, such as the heating system and ridiculous signage restrictions for the forecourt.

The Parliament Square project has been caught up in planning objections, with significant planning restrictions imposed. The Brooke Street pier redevelopment was canned, the Montpelier redevelopment remains at Ground Zero and the hope that the Macquarie wharf area could be developed anew has fallen into a hole.

Many port precincts have been transformed by a bold, new and innovative architecture that has caused a change in the way people think about the place.  The Opera House in Sydney, the Guggenheim in Bilbao, the Royal Library (the Black Diamond) and the Opera House in Copenhagen and the Regium Museum and Multifunction Centre in Southern Italy are obvious stunning examples, and there is an opportunity for Hobart to be equally adventurous and bold.  All it requires is a vision. But it does require vision, and to date such a vision has been limited.

So let’s hope the new leadership at the Council will provide leadership in this area, and provide a bold new vision for the precinct.  Playing safe has been a hallmark of the past, but playing safe provides little in the way of inspiration.

Hobart is not alone in having fantastic waterfront precincts.  The Eastern Shore is fortunate in having its Bellerive and Lindisfarne environments, and the Clarence Council needs to provide a vision that enables greater public access and activity.  Already Bellerive has become a venue for a range of festivals and gatherings, and this is to be encouraged.

Glenorchy has begun the long march towards making its waterfront a more interesting place to be with the Montrose Bay sculpture park and of course there is the private MONA development.

And Kingborough is pregnant with promise for its waterfront areas of Kingston Beach and Blackmans Bay

The conversation does not need to be limited to Hobart, as around the State, opportunities to transform waterfront precincts abound.  For example, the dock area in Launceston, once derelict and decrepit, has become a magnet for social recreation.

Waterfront is a drawcard, and provides a fantastic opportunity for creating interesting and new environments for public recreation and social activity.

I hope the Councils will recognise this opportunity and take on board the fact that the public are keen to see our waterfronts developed for public access and used as a venue for public activity.

There has been much talk of local government amalgamation, which is all about a more effective delivery of services and amenity.  Councils are naturally cautious when this topic is raised, but raised it must be.  Maybe a starting point for giving this matter due consideration would be for Councils to come together to discuss ways in which they can co-ordinate waterfront developments that would enable the various communities to enjoy the extraordinary waterfront precincts that greater Hobart has to offer.

The State Government can provide a role in starting such a discussion.  This could then lead to a discussion on reforming the present planning and development control laws, which are presently such a restriction to a dynamic and growing city.

Lets make no mistake, change will occur, whether we like it or not.  Like the transformation of Sullivans Cove, the greater Hobart region will continue to grow - it is whether we embrace that change or fight it.  For me, I embrace it.

Health Funding Crisis

Published in The Mercury

The call has been made.  Health system in crisis!  Health budget out of control! Government resorting to desperate measures!  Hospital beds to close!  Elective surgery to be cut!  Staff to be laid off!  Health is a monty to get a headline, especially if it contains bad news.  There is nothing quite as emotive as health.

But do the headlines tell the full story?

Health, excluding Human Services (ie housing, child services and disability services), can be considered as 3 separate elements, being preventative and public health, intensive health (ie hospitals) and finally chronic, palliative care and rehabilitative health. 

The last is a nightmare of complex funding arrangements and responsibilities between the Commonwealth and the State, and is in urgent need of reform.  A matter for another day.

However, it is the first two that are getting the attention at the moment.

At $1.8 billion, the overall health budget presently consumes around 40% of the State’s budget.  And is growing at a rate of some 7% pa (or 65% over the last 6 years) in comparison with the State budget of 3.5% pa (or 35% over the same period).  Such a growth rate is obviously unsustainable and if allowed to continue, would consume the entire State budget within 10 to 15 years.

So steps must be taken to bring the health budget under control, unpalatable as they might be, and the Government has determined to find savings of $100 million.

First and foremost we need to distinguish between the administration of health and the delivery of  health services, principally through the hospitals.

The numbers in the health bureaucracy have been relatively stable for the last 5 years at around 600 persons (EFT’s).  So arguments concerning a burgeoning bureaucracy do not correlate with the statistics, and action has already been taken to reduce the numbers.

Which leaves the hospitals.  Over the last few years, hospital budgets have exploded and hospital staff numbers have increased by over 30%.  A serious issue for Government. 

With a population of around 500,000, the same size as Geelong, Tasmania boasts 3 public hospitals, and 4 if we include the Mersey General.  Each hospital has its own administration and each is attempting to provide a full range of services.  As admirable as this may be, is this realistic?  As a community we need to recognise that health is not a bottomless pit in which to pay more and more tax-payers dollars, and the limited financial resources available need to be effectively managed to maximize adequate patient care.

There have been calls for hospitals to become a Commonwealth responsibility, and this call seems to be supported by the present State Government.  I regard such a call as being politically inept.  If funding and thus control is to move from the State to the Commonwealth, then all decisions pertaining to hospitals will also move to the Commonwealth, and the State will lose control over one of its core functions.  As the Federal minister said when denying this request “The States are best placed to understand local needs”.  So true.

 And it misses the fundamental point that the health budget will still need to be brought under control, and tough decisions will still need to be made.  I believe we have a vested interest in controlling our own destiny rather than have a distant bureaucracy in Canberra do it for us.

But the State must get its house in order.  Negotiating a better deal overall with Canberra is part of the story.

The real issue is not who provides and controls the funds but ensuring an effective system of management.  Do we really need three separate managements to run our hospitals?  And stories of duplication and waste abound.  Hospital IT systems cannot speak with each other, even within hospitals, and it is obvious that specialists are gaming the system because there are few productivity measures and controls in place.

The Government has been forced to the starting line in directing its approach to health care expenditures, and has made decisions which to date have been limited to trimming the bureaucracy and non-essential surgery.  These decisions do not affect emergency and essential care.  However, it has yet to articulate a longer term strategy other than the spinning-the-wheels approach of balancing the budget.  And this is its problem.  There is no vision.

Without an overall strategy regarding its spending priorities, other than balancing the books, the government leaves itself open to attack from all quarters. On what basis was the quantum of cuts (some $100 million) determined?  What is the overall policy relating to health care?  What direction will be taken to provide a more effective and care-orientated hospital system?  What priorities were considered more essential to keep than elective surgery?  The list goes on.

Left to the hospitals to decide priorities, then of course they will choose the most sensitive areas to cut, then stare their Minister down.  It is certainly a technique that has worked to their advantage in the past and has caused massive blowouts of past budgets.  

Yet statistics are not the whole story.

Cutting elective surgery may be a short-term fix, but with longer-term consequences, both in terms of the health status and suffering of the patients, and the extra cost of treatment later on.

And a Government being seen to walk away from people in need, in misery, and in pain is an appalling look, and the Government stands condemned for the insensitivity shown in this present circumstance.

Superimposed on the decision to cut back elective surgery is the leverage effect of an additional Commonwealth payment of $141 million.  Although there are serious caveats to this funding, it is not smart financially - and dumb politically - to simply walk away from such offers.  The signals given by such an approach are diabolical.

I have argued long and often that Tasmania needs to encourage wealth-generating activity. Not just income generating (eg Commonwealth payments) but wealth-generating.  In order to spend it we first need to earn it.  If we walk away from our wealth-generating industries, such as forestry, mining and manufacturing, then the inevitable consequence will be less money to fund the services we expect to be provided, such as hospitals.

It may be an inconvenient truth, but a truth it is, nonetheless.  We deny it at our peril.

The Forest cauldron continues to boil! (Published August 26, 2011. The Mercury)

There have been many twists and turns in the forestry debate over many years.  Without retracing a blow by blow description of events, the interminable and never-ending conflicts over forestry boil down to two different value sets.  One is to conserve native forest for reasons of nature conservation, the other is to manage forests for their wood value, thus employing people and generating wealth.

Much has been said, but three recent developments are pertinent, and involve four different groups of players.  The players are the industry and forest workers, the conservation groups, government and Forestry Tasmania.

During the middle of 2010 Premier Bartlett set up a round table to resolve all forest conflict.  A somewhat naïve ambition considering the two opposing value sets and the long and tortured history.  A shuffle occurred within industry and within the conservation groups to see who would be sitting at the table.  Spokespersons for both sides spruiked their basis for representation, but the truth is many parties were disenfranchised at that point.  The government made available officers from FT to assist the discussions by providing factual information to each of the parties.  However, they had no seat at the table, and neither did the government.

The first development was the drafting of a document called the “Statement of Principles” (SoP).  This document was drafted by the two groups after a period of time - 6 months of talks were foundering – when pressure was applied by both sides to get something agreed.  It would be fair to say that the sceptre of the Gunns pulp mill loomed large at this time, with the threat that parties would withdraw from the process if the draft was not agreed to.  Under some duress, the draft document was agreed to, and is a dog’s breakfast of a document .

However, this then sent the government to Canberra to seek funding for the “next round”.  Canberra, although unimpressed with the Statement of Principles, came to the party – sort of – and provided Bill Kelty as a facilitator for the next round of discussions, which was to determine specifically the areas of forest under debate and still maintain wood supply.  Kelty eventually came up with a document that was supported by the parties and which was put before the two governments, who then signed a Heads of Agreement document (the HoA).

During the process FT’s management approach and data were independently scrutinized and their data and calculations were found to be sound.

The HoA covered two salient points.  For the NGO’s it meant a phased withdrawal from all native forest harvesting, an immediate reservation of 430,000 ha of State Forest, and a final reservation of 570,000 ha.  For industry, it meant ongoing security of resource supply for sawlogs (150,000 m3),peeler logs for Ta Ann (265,000 m3), and specialty timbers (12,500 m3).

For FT, it meant a further and significant withdrawal of hectarage from the forest estate under its supply management.  The problem was obvious to all.  Supply could not be guaranteed if the land in question was no longer able to be harvested.  And contracts were already in place for this level of supply.

A draft document was then circulated to the parties prior to government sign-off.  Three days later, the two governments signed an Inter Governmental Agreement (the IGA) to enable the two governments to provide further support.   However the IGA contained different provisions to that in the draft.  No longer was there a security of supply, in fact compensation was going to be offered instead.  Industry smelt a betrayal, and it was found that the governments were influenced by a submission from Jonathan West, an economist, who was then entrusted with an ongoing boundary verification process.  Professor West believes that the IGA will deliver an outcome where supply can be met and that protests will stop.  This is a minority view of one.  It is not a view held by FT, the industry nor it would appear some conservation groups who have vowed to continue with protest action.   

Last weekend people protesting against the IGA held protest meetings in Hobart and Smithton where it was made clear by Liberal MP’s, local mayors, forest workers, the AWU and others in the industry, traditionally supporters of the government, that the IGA was unacceptable.

Government has committed itself to the IGA, even though FT has advised it will be in breach of its contractual commitments.  An invidious position for FT’s Board and management.

FT is a GBE, and operates under two separate acts of parliament, being the Forestry Act and the Government Business Enterprises Act.  Under each of these Acts, FT has a responsibility to perform its functions in accordance with sound commercial practice.  This includes managing forests in a sustainable manner and not breaching contractual commitments.

Clause 12C of the Forestry Act deals with Ministerial Directions and Clause 65 of the Government Business Enterprises Act deals with a Ministerial Direction to perform community service obligations.  

The decision to support the IGA will require some form of Ministerial Direction.  If the government instructs the Board to do something that the Board cannot do, then the Board can object in writing to the government, and if there remains a standoff, the government must then lay before both houses of parliament its instruction and the board’s objection.

Where it then goes is anyone’s guess.  From here, how does parliament resolve the matter?  The Legislative Council has already held an inquiry and recommended against any further reservation of forest or transition out of native forest, so no legislation will pass.  The government could consider sacking the Board.  But what does that achieve?  And where will the Commonwealth, another signatory to the IGA and the major provider of funds, stand in all of this?  More twists and turns to come.

We live in interesting times.

Council Amalgamation (Published 28 September, 2011. The Mercury)

Local Government amalgamation is back on the agenda after a hiatus of some 15 years, this time sponsored by the Southern Tasmanian Councils Authority appointing an Advisory panel (STCA), and with active lobbying from the Property Council.  Back in 1993, after years of often acrimonious debate, the number of Councils was reduced from 49 to 29.  A more recent move to rekindle the debate was aborted in 1997.

The Property Council has been arguing for some time that rate rises are too steep, that systems diverge widely, and that the various planning schemes are inconsistent and in many cases out-of-date.  They provide as evidence of their case a report from Deloitte Access Economicss, which considered specifically the Tasmanian circumstance.

The Advisory Panel has recently released 4 options for consideration.  In brief, they are: Option 1 - no change, maybe some shared services.  Option 2 – One large regional Council.  Option 3 – A greater urban Hobart surrounded by smaller rural councils.  Option 4 – as per option 3, but with a separate Eastern Shore Council.  Although these have been put forward for discussion purposes only, are these the only options?  I think not.

If, as seems likely, amalgamation is the answer, then first let us consider what specifically is the question.  How to improve service delivery?  How to reduce rates?  How to provide a consistent approach to planning issues?  How to provide improved amenity?  As you can see, there is more than one question.  And this can lead to what are the  issues that should be priorities when considering the role of Councils.  For the purposes of this piece, I will simply accept that the argument is about doing exiting activities better, rather than doing different things.

As stated in the STCA paper entitled “Participation and Place”, Tasmanians have a strong sense of place.  Tasmania is very regional and rural in its nature, with some distance separating its major centres.  This sense of place has been enshrined in the very local nature of local government, which has developed an identity forged by history, a history that has involved significant isolation.  To therefore suggest a coalescion of local government groups inevitably comes across this barrier of losing identity.

At the same time, modern communications and transport links make the historic barriers redundant, and the greater sophistication in service and amenity delivery demands economic efficiencies which - it is suggested - amalgamation brings.

In considering the opportunities, we need to consider some salient points:        

Point         Communities regard themselves within a geographic framework.

Point        Local government is by its nature local, and is based around the sense of community.  It is not regional.

Point         Some services, once very local, are now best delivered at a regional level.

Point        Amalgamations can be a political minefield – whoever makes the decision will not receive unanimous support.

Point        Bigger does not necessarily mean better.  It can mean worse.  Small can be beautiful, but does require a critical mass.

The suggestion from the Panel that political power should be a consideration is passing strange.  Power is a tool in the toolbox which can be used to advantage, but badly used can do enormous damage.  I would have thought that service delivery was of paramount importance and political authority a secondary consideration.

There are four natural geographical environments around Hobart where rural and regional coalescions could occur:

                Derwent and Central Highlands

                Brighton and Southern Midlands

                Sorell, Tasman and possibly Glamorgan/Spring Bay

                Kingborough and Huon

The question then is whether to amalgamate the three cities of Hobart, Glenorchy and Clarence, or the alternative proposition of a western entity - Hobart and Glenorchy – and an eastern entity – Clarence.  This then is the essential matter raised by the Panel in its Options 3 and 4.

Whereas I am attracted to the idea of an efficient urban Council, the attraction is based on the ability to provide a more consistent approach to planning and an improved delivery of services.  However, this may not automatically be the case, and in fact, could lead to a more pronounced and difficult bureaucracy for the urban area, and to leave behind the rural areas.

There is an alternative, which I believe was first proposed by Marti Zucco.

Each of the coalesced regional entities would have a natural hub – New Norfolk, Brighton, Sorell and Kingston.  Each of these could serve not just as a central focus for its region, but as a satellite for a larger entity, based around the 3 city centres of Hobart, Glenorchy and Clarence.

The eventual structure would become three major entities, geographically based, each with its satellite environment, and each with approximately equal numbers.

The advantages of such an approach would be a reduction in the number of Councils from 12 to 3, but retaining a geographic integrity.  Each would have a similar critical mass of ratepayers (around 80,000) that could ensure a sounder financial base.  And each would be under a competitive tension to perform their functions effectively by acting as a benchmark for others.  A mistake by one would not then affect the entire southern community

               

There would then be an opportunity for “The Big THREE” to make further savings via pooling planning facilities and back office functions.

Not the only option I am sure, but one that does deliver to the various needs so far expressed.

A Right Royal Cock-up (Published September 10, 2011. The Mercury)

The Government has got itself into a right pickle over the latest forestry deal, and all of its own making.  In fact it would be laughable if there were not so many livelihoods at stake and taxpayers’ dollars at risk.

To understand the present situation, let us go back to last year, when Gunns made its unilateral decision to walk away from native forest harvesting and processing.  At that time it had a number of sawmills and other plant in Tasmania, as well as operations in Western Australia and Victoria.  CEO Greg L’Estrange made the announcement at a forest conference in Victoria last year, soon after Premier Bartlett announced his ill-fated “ROUND TABLE” to end forest conflict for good.

The decision by the company to exit native forests came as a complete surprise to its workforce, to forest contractors dependent on the company for their livelihood, to Forestry Tasmania, with which it had take-or-pay contracts, and to the general citizenry of Tasmania, including its parliamentarians.

L’Estrange gave as his reason “market forces”, and that the demand for his company’s products from native forests had fallen dramatically.  In particular he cited a collapse in the overseas woodchip market as a key driver for his company’s decision.  However, it was also in his company’s interest to exit native forest activity because he could then paint his company in a new light, totally plantation compliant, and thereby more attractive to offshore investors, which had become nervous as a result of an unremitting campaign of sabotage by the Wilderness Society and other conservation groups.

However L‘Estrange has gone much further than representing the narrow interests of his own company.  He has made the point that the entire industry in Tasmania should exit native forests as a matter of some urgency and has taken steps to encourage such a result.  The sale of the woodchip plant at Triabunna, in which conditions were placed on the new owners, is a prime example of this fact.  A most curious deal, considering the price, the buyers and the conditions of sale, where the plant could only be re-opened on the company’s say-so, and subject to “structural change” in the industry.

To me it is of interest that other woodchip suppliers throughout Australia have not been confronted with the same “market conditions” as Gunns, that they have been able to continue to sell their product offshore, and that the market remains strong for other native forest products.  Sawmillers are not complaining about the market.  So to say that market forces have caused a change in the industry is not really true.  The Premier should ensure she is fully briefed on the state of the market for all forest products before buying such a line.

At the time L’Estrange made his announcement to exit native forests, his company held a number of take-or-pay wood supply agreements with Forestry Tasmania.  His decision had nothing to do with any change in government policy  – it was a company decision pure and simple.

Such a decision was reinforced in April this year by a letter from the Gunns Board “handing back” their contracts.  To voluntarily exit the industry suggests walking away from pre-existing commitments, and as such, I suspect there is a good argument for Forestry Tasmania to be seeking recompense from the company for breaching these contractual commitments, and also to extinguish the wood supply agreements with the company.

We now come to the matter of the government signing the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) under which compensation monies would be made available by the Commonwealth to pay out forest contactors and sawmillers who wish to voluntarily leave the industry.  Note however that Gunns made its decision long before this time, and as such I suspect should not really be entitled to any compensation.

The company argues it has “residual rights”, but the paramount position is that it had already made its decision to leave.  Such “residual rights”, being an obligation to negotiate in good faith regarding any renewal, but with no obligation to reach any agreement, should be small indeed.  Especially considering it has an outstanding debt to FT of around $25 million.

I, like many others in the community, are now intrigued that the company has its hand out for compensation and that it has to date rejected a government offer to assist it, seeking more.  Intriguing also is the support from the Greens for such a payment to be made, and a question remains in my mind if this is in fact a quid pro quo for the Triabunna deal.  And even more amazing is the seeming approach of the government suggesting it might be prepared to pay an even higher figure than that which has already been offered, and rejected.

And while all this is happening, the forest protests continue.  What peace in our forests?

I can only conclude an extraordinary exhibition of arrogance from this company.  It has been arrogant in its dealings with the local community, with its workforce, with the forest industry generally, with its principal supplier Forestry Tasmania and with the Tasmanian parliament, which has gone the extra mile to encourage the success of its Tamar Valley pulpmill project.

To destroy an entire industry, to ruin the livelihoods of so many people, to place so many rural communities in jeopardy and then seek compensation for doing so, quite takes my breath away.

The Federal Government has promised compensation to forest contractors to exit the industry.  This is a fair cop as Gunns has essentially halved the industry by its unilateral decision.  However, the State Government is being led by the nose.  It should walk away from this deal in its entirety, and revert back to the Regional Forest Agreement, from which this debacle first commenced.

Disruptive Protest Action (Published August 17, 2011. The Mercury)

Protest action first began to occur in the late 1960’s when the Hydro Electric Commission proposed a scheme that would flood Lake Pedder, in Tasmania’s south west.  Although that scheme went ahead, the Hydro’s following proposal, to put a dam on the Lower Gordon River below the Franklin River, initiated a wave of disruptive protest that eventually led to the abandonment of the project, and the coming-of-age of direct action activity.

Encouraged by this success, the protest movement turned its attention to another land-use conflict, forestry.  Once it was to ‘save” specific areas of land, such as Jackey’s Marsh or Farmhouse Creek.  Over the intervening years, the demands have increased, and successive protest action has become very sophisticated.  Protest action has not only disrupted forest operations and processing plants, but has targeted banks and overseas customers, threatening boycotts, and those institutions have bowed to these demands. Such action and response has brought about a significant reduction in the area available for timber harvesting, sent businesses to the wall, disrupted rural communities, and put many people out of work. The social consequences in many rural communities have been horrendous.

Some protest action has also been taken against eco-tourism proposals, and those developments have not progressed.

Perhaps eco-based consumer boycotts of this nature could be justified where there is irrefutable evidence of resource use causing significant environmental damage. However, inciting consumer boycotts by deliberately promulgating misinformation to manufacture an unwarranted imperative for change constitutes a form of extortion.

The protest groups have received much media coverage, but little analysis of their position.  This in part is a result of misleading information that has been promulgated by these groups (eg use of plantation timber) and a conservation language that covers complicated matters with simple but meaningless generalisations (eg “wild forests”, “high conservation value”, “sustainability”, “social licence”, “intergenerational equity”, etc).

The modus operandi for these groups, to disrupt economic activity, has in the past been directed to issues associated with nature conservation, but recently, this focus has moved to another plane with the attacks on the proposal by Gunns to build a pulpmill using plantation timber, and on Ta Ann because it is Malaysian owned.  Nature conservation and pollution controls have become but an excuse for such activity, which has moved into a realm of not wanting developments of this scale to be considered at all.

Activists have also generated suspicion and doubt in the credibility of government by inferring corrupt action and a government conspiracy to cover up and to disseminate false information.  An easy call to make, and any defence by government is seen to be a perpetuation of the conspiracy.

Malthusian views of economic disaster, destruction of habitat, climate catastrophe, resource depletion and other disastrous predictions such as poverty, hunger and disease dominate the media.  Such emotional expressions of doom create a sense of pessimism and hopelessness.

And pessimism is irrepressible.  Pessimism justifies activism.  The more one can preach doom and gloom, the more one can justify activism.  Activism has become a business, and the activism business demands action.  Protest action.

The public has tended to shy away from engagement or involvement in such confrontation and has generally acquiesced to these demands.  “The protestors have a point”. “They have nothing personal to gain”. “Their motives are pure”. “They must be right”.  Politicians also have tended to accept such information without challenge and have allowed these arguments to gain traction.

A more recent approach to this issue has been the advent of the carbon sequestration debate, which has created the opportunity for a new type of protest argument and is best exemplified by the argument that we should be paid for doing nothing.  This is a form of rent-seeeking.  “We are the custodians of the forests – pay us!”

Politically, the protestors have been regarded as above criticism, because their aim, supposedly "saving the planet", is regarded as being of a higher moral plane than the usual, “grubby” political fare. The reverse is actually true.  The reality is that they are happy to sacrifice the well-being of the population on the altar of pointless environmentalism. As has been evidenced in the forest sector, the industry has been cut by over 50%, employment has suffered, a skill base has been lost, communities are being destroyed and the human suffering has been immense. 

And for what purpose?  As a recent editorial opined:  “certain people have …economic views informed by a neo-Arcadian fantasy of phasing out resource-based activity in favour of untried and untested technologies, which … leaves battlers paying to satisfy an eco-vanity.”

A high price indeed.  Arguments of intergenerational fairness fall flat when the existing generation suffers for no good purpose.

From a policy point of view, there are two separate avenues one could follow.  The first is to accept that resource utilisation will no longer be a part of the economy of the State, and look for other areas of activity.  This is in reality the politics of appeasement (remember Chamberlain in 1938), and the boundaries of this argument will soon move to land management and water catchment issues with a much wider brief, including mining and agriculture.

The alternative is to argue that resources are a part of the mix, and work to establish a system of management and competitive sustainable advantage with them.  This is a more difficult road to follow, and those who advocate it will tend to be pilloried by those who demand no activity at all.

This is the vital issue to be confronted surrounding such protest action, which is the targeting of individuals and firms and organisations that do not agree with the views of the protesters.  It is essentially anarchy, and is similar in its style to mob rule.

An early election? (Published August 24, 2011. The Mercury)

Everywhere you go these days, people are saying we need a new election.  Whether it is parents at schools that are under threat of closure, hospital workers concerned about cutbacks, forestry people angry at the sellout of their industry, public servants worried about their jobs, investors confused by the planning laws, letter-writers to the papers, Liberals sensing the main chance - everywhere, everyone is talking up an election.

It is not that they are wanting an election as such, but there is a real desire for a change of government direction.  Which could be a change of government.

And the mood of uncertainty and anger is not helped by the split in Cabinet over forestry policy, the support by Cabinet members for protestors breaking the law, and also Kim Booth’s incessant claim to bring down the government over payments to Gunns and\or some other “malfeasance”.

All of this has created a climate of instability, and this instability has led to a lack of direction and purpose.

Not that there will be an election any time soon.  Booth’s protestations are more a cry of impotence than anything else.  Even if he does get round to move his motion of no confidence, he is only one and he needs the support of three of the 5 Greens, plus the Liberals.  Those three could be hard to find - the two Green ministers and the Green parliamentary secretary have become far too comfortable in their new roles in government  - some even say in being the real government – the tail wagging the dog.

So it is entirely possible that there will be no early election, and from Labor’s point of view that is probably a good thing, because over the last year they have successfully alienated every traditional support group there is.

Polls show Labor now languishing at less than 25% popularity, not a good position from which to win the next election, and the Greens appear to have reached their zenith at around 20%.  There are signs of disquiet amongst Green supporters  - being in government has caused them to compromise their ideals thus alienating the idealistic vote that has supported them to this time.  Not that this is of much comfort for the Liberals, as they have not yet reached majority support, although their vote is improving.

But let us for a moment assume that Cabinet does fracture, and that this will lead to an election and that it will be soon.

Under our present 25-seat Parliament, a quota for election is 16.67%.  From the above percentages, that will translate into at least one Labor candidate and one Green candidate for each of the 5 electorates.  Labor might even scrape up another 2, depending on the campaign itself.  That leaves 13, maybe 2 more, to the Liberals.

A team of 13 will provide a majority government, so the messiness of co-operative government arrangements between two opposing political ideologies will be gone.  A Cabinet of 8, a Speaker, and 4-6 backbenchers.  The Greens will stay at 5, but with no say in government, and Labor will be reduced to from 5 to 7 members. 

Although this will provide a government with a majority, will this be a good parliament?  I suspect not.  There will not be a strong backbench, and the opposition will be too weak to be even relevant.  This is not good for sound, effective and responsible government.

Under a 35-seat Parliament, a quota for election is 12.5%.  A 35-seat parliament would, under these figures, return a minimum of 5 Greens, 10 Labor and up to 20 Liberals.  This scenario would provide a strong Government backbench and a viable Opposition.  This is good for sound, effective and responsible government.

Such a change cannot occur before the next election, but it can and should be planned for now.  It is a simple matter to amend the legislation, reversing the change of 1998. 

When the matter of an increase in the size of parliament is raised, many argue against it on the basis of cost.  However, this can be done cost neutral.  Ministers are surrounded by advisors, far too many in the view of most people – and considering the standing of the government one suspects they are not too good at their job anyway.  The books can quite easily be balanced such that the cost of MP’s and advisors don’t change.  A gain in one area, a loss in another.  Since most advisors think of themselves as MPs anyway, it is a relatively simple transfer, determined by the electorate.  A more responsive parliament for no extra cost.  It’s got to be good.

Anyway, for those who are hoping for an early election, don’t hope too hard.  It’s probably not going to happen anytime soon.  Any improvement in Labor’s support could leave us in a similar situation to now – a hung parliament and a minority government.  If it did return a majority government - a fact still in some dispute - for the Liberals, the present loss in GST revenues has created a financial situation in which the joys of victory would be short-lived.  Hard decisions will need to be made, and popularity would be ephemeral.  It will require a government with commitment and resolve.  For the present Government, the next election is theirs to lose.  At this point of time, that would be the reality.