Subscribe
Archive for Tuesday, March 24th, 2009 04:03 pm GMT +10
Trading Blows
The Rudd Government has just released the draft legislation for its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), a proposed carbon trading plan that has seen all sides of the debate up in arms.
The legislation has an uphill battle through the Senate though with the Coalition, Greens, Family First’s Steve Fielding and independent Nick Xenophon committed to seeing key amendments made.
Such a political minefield for a bill attempting to address climate change for the first time is not surprising, but the condemnation of the CPRS by both environmental and business lobby groups is significant and worrying.
The Rudd Government has committed to a modest medium term target of a 5% reduction from 2000 levels by 2020. Reductions of up to 15% by 2020 will only be acted upon if a global agreement for carbon trading is brought into fruition.
The medium term reduction targets are ineffective if not potentially counterintuitive to combating climate change. The Rudd Government’s chief climate change advisor Professor Ross Garnaut has openly condemned the 5% aim as too low to make a plausible impact, which is damning given that the Prime Minister repeatedly emphasised the role of Professor Garnaut in formulating the Government’s climate change policy throughout the 2007 election campaign. He has also highlighted that the suggested reduction will be another factor pushing the global community to avoid strong carbon cuts again when international talks convene towards the end of this year.
Environmental groups are rightly highlighting that the CPRS could also placate the community as many would feel climate change is being addressed when in reality the proposed policy will have little meaningful impact.
The exclusion of voluntary emission reductions by households in the CPRS is similarly a major concern. The policy in its current form will serve only as an allocation of carbon emissions, rather than a reduction scheme as succinctly described by Dr Richard Denniss, Director of the Australia Institute: ‘every tonne of carbon dioxide saved by households will simply free up a tonne that can be used by industry.’ The legislation will therefore limit how much carbon emissions can be reduced, a reduction of more then 5% of 2000 levels by 2020 will be made impossible.
At the same time, key business groups, including the Australian Industry Group and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, claim that the CPRS will see their competitiveness demise in the global market, exacerbated by the global financial crisis. Even Professor Garnaut has stated that Australia requires some ‘breathing space’ given the effect of the global financial crisis, despite the considerable lengths the Rudd Government has gone to balance environmental and economic considerations.
The CPRS is necessary for Australian industry and businesses on a number of fronts;
- It provides long-term economic security by applying a carbon trading scheme before any of the predicted drastic changes to the environment;
- The business sector obtains a competitive advantage to what will ultimately become a global discourse through a longer transition to new conduit; and
- Most importantly, it will protect so much of the Australian economy that relies on current climate conditions.
But the exclusion of voluntary household reductions paired with such dismal emission reduction targets does not justify the initial financial burden to Australians, especially when the environmental benefits are limited at best. There is no sense in hindering Australian industries with a CPRS if the scheme doesn’t have the scope to combat continued climate change.
The Rudd Government has to commit to more ambitious reduction targets, on the scale of the EU’s 20 – 30% below 1990 levels, or introduce voluntary reductions so the transition to a carbon neutral society can be realised by Australians sooner, rather than later.
In trying to tackle the problem of climate change without disrupting the Australian economy, the Rudd Government has tried to have its cake and eat it too and it has found itself rather bloated and unsatisfied — tackling climate change without actually committing to the reductions that will make a difference. It has made too many concessions to Australia’s heavy polluters so as to undermine the entire scheme and the justification for financially hindering the public with it.
The Rudd Government should consider a delay of the CPRS in light of the Global Financial Crisis, if it would mean that in a more secure economic climate more effective and ambitious reduction aims could be committed to.
While it may be hot under the collar now, the Rudd Government must refine its climate change policy to prevent the long term heatwave persisting beyond the chambers of Parliament House.
Georgette Scanlon, 20, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and non-partisan think-tank of young minds.
The Foreign Affairs of Youth
The consequences of foreign policies have significant implications for Australian youths, even though they may not be as evident, or garner as much publicity, as those pertaining to alcohol or school funding.
While critics may raise questions about why young people should be involved in foreign policy, there are two main reasons why society in general, and policy makers in particular, should embrace and encourage young Australians’ ideas on the international system. Firstly, young people are not immune to the impact of foreign affairs and should be able to voice their opinions accordingly.
Secondly, young people are in a unique position to understand the world and have much to offer those who are willing to listen.
According to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, more than 20,000 young Australians travel overseas each year to work, study, volunteer and holiday. Government policies in the form of (although not limited to) bilateral relationships, multilateral agreements and sanctions, can therefore restrict people’s travel itineraries and, in some cases, actually jeopardise their safety abroad. Two more specific, and yet contrasting, examples of international relations affecting the lives of young Australians include the decision to deploy armed forces to Afghanistan in 2001 and the possible proscription of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (Tamil Tigers) in 2008. Whereas the former had, and continues to have, the potential to directly endanger the lives of young people in the military, the latter indirectly threatens Australian Tamils’ efforts to remain connected with the place of their ancestry.
Despite such severe ramifications, there are very few forums readily accessible to young people for the meaningful discussion of foreign and strategic affairs. The mediums which do exist tend to be either quite restrictive in terms of who can participate, or deal primarily with those areas of public policy traditionally associated with young people. As a result, seniority dominates international relations and young Australians are often excluded from decision making processes which affect their lives. This is especially the case for those under the age of 18, who are denied a voice at the ballot box as well. In order to challenge the bureaucratic oligarchy and fulfil one of the key tenets of liberal democracies, a platform from which young Australians can easily and effectively communicate their own interests to legislators on a full range of policy issues is needed.
However, young people are much more than just passive beings acted upon by policy makers. They are active agents of change, capable of generating their own innovative visions of foreign and strategic affairs. Today’s young Australians are coming of age in radically different times to those of their parents, and as a consequence, they have been shaped by conflicting moods and events.
This upbringing, as the children of globalisation and the information age, has contributed to a much more fluid view of, and relationship with, the rest of the world. Hence, young people in this country are able to conceive of global actors, and their associations with one another, in dramatically different ways to traditional decision makers.
In the current climate of international uncertainty, this new school of thought needs to be more fully employed. For, while certain lobby groups and non government organisations have already drawn upon the ideas and enthusiasm of young Australians, their agendas are usually quite specific, leaving the majority of the foreign and strategic policy spectrum without effective youth participation. Not only does this omission prevent different notions of strategy from entering the current policy cycle, thereby hindering attempts to address both old and new dilemmas, it also has the potential to impede political growth. As the people most affected by long term national development, it seems logical that if young Australians are not involved in the formulation of these policies now, their future implementation and success may be compromised.
It is needless to say that young people are not the sole beneficiaries of foreign and strategic policy in Australia, nor are they capable of solving every conundrum churned out by the post Cold War world.
However, neither does any other generation (or gender or race for that matter) posses a monopoly of ideas or experience. As a corollary of this, Australia must continually seek new perspectives and thoughts on foreign policy if it is to remain relevant on the world stage in the years to come. Young people, for all their ostensible ‘Gen. Y’ related flaws, should be integral to this process, as they represent an interesting, inventive and frankly overlooked site of knowledge.
Kate Alexander, 22, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and non-partisan think-tank of young minds.
Pipedream
An epic monument to the triumph of populist politics, the controversial North-South Pipeline project has become a telling symbol of a government well and truly out of its depth.
Water security will be one of the defining issues of this century yet on the world’s driest, inhabited continent, a State Government is attempting to secure the water supply of a major capital city by charging headlong up the proverbial creek. The fact that there are no paddles and the canoe has a hole has seemingly failed to daunt the Brumby Government. Indeed, in a blatant display of double standards, the government has clearly decided that the ‘Our Water/Our Future’ plan was a misprint and the only future worthy of concern is that of the three and a half million voters who live in Melbourne.
By building a 75km pipeline linking the Goulburn River to a Melbourne reservoir, the government hopes to secure both Melbourne’s immediate water supply and its own re-election. The Goulburn is a tributary of the Murray River, and the 750 million dollar scheme is dependent on an upgrade of irrigation infrastructure in the Murray-Darling Irrigation District, which will initially allow annual water savings of up to 225 gigalitres. Two thirds of this amount will be shared between increasingly desperate irrigators and a suffering environment. The remaining 75 billion litres will be used to keep the lawns of Melbourne green.
The government is desperate to acquire the water savings as a political quick fix to temporarily alleviate Melbourne’s inevitable water crisis. The issue is that the precious savings, earmarked as a hasty electoral band-aid for Melbourne voters, are desperately needed by irrigators and the river itself. A 750 million dollar slap in the face for rural Victoria, the pipeline fiasco has shown only that the increasingly panicked government is willing to ignore farmers and sacrifice an Australian icon to gain city votes. The Dutch tell of a young boy who saved the nation from flooding by stemming a leaking dyke with his finger. The government’s hastily concocted water security plan is rapidly springing leaks and our politicians are fast running out of fingers.
The Murray is in crisis. Drought for the past seven years has resulted in record low inflows and the entire Murray Darling system is operating at roughly 23% of capacity. According to the Murray Darling Basin Commission late last year, inflows have been below average for the past thirty seven consecutive months and the lower lakes and Coorong are in a critical condition. The Murray Goulburn system also supports 14,000 struggling irrigators, who contribute 1.5 billion dollars a year to the economy. The seasonal water allocations for Goulburn Murray Water customers stand at 28% for the Goulburn and 33% for the Murray. Irrigators in the Broken, Campaspe, Loddon and Bullarook Creek systems will receive no water at all.
Yet, incredibly, it has been decided that the needs of Melbourne take precedence over irrigators who have been denied their water allocation, and a river described as suffering the worst drought ‘on record’.
In the face of such statistics, even the Australian Senate have realised that the scheme is an act of lunacy. There is simply not enough water in the Murray Goulburn system to justify a pipeline to a thirsty city. What is more, due to climate change, there may never again be a surplus of water in our river systems. A CSIRO report has forecast a reduction in rainfall of up to 30% this century and a notable decline in rainfall across south-eastern Australia has already occurred since 1950. The State Government’s own estimates forecast a future, climate change induced reduction in inflows and catchments of up to 64%.
The Murray Darling Basin has been in drought for almost a decade. The future of thousands of rural Victorians literally depends on continued flows and, in years to come, climate change will further tax a river system that is already in a parlous condition. What possible justification can there be for exacerbating this already dire situation by piping water to a greedy city? Melbourne does not need a pipeline built to steal water from a dying river but, rather, solutions that are viable, sustainable and intended as more than blatant vote grabbing. Pipedreams that ignore the realities of a water system in crisis should not be the provenance of those who a have a duty to create a responsible plan for Victoria’s future. The pipeline is far from a harmless knee-jerk reaction. It will damage not only the river, but also irrigators who have already survived decades of hardship. This time, the blow may be fatal.
Alexander Coward, 19, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and non-partisan think-tank of young minds.
No Child Left Behind
Today, many young Australians are more comfortable in front of a computer than in front of a person.
Shocking, but true. In fact, most of our socialising is now done over the internet. The unprecedented and meteoric rise in the popularity of social networking sites has unveiled just how much the web has become a part of everyday life. It’s not just the traditional computer though: mobile phones have now seamlessly interwoven into the ether as well. Not to mention that in the USA people are even able to download entire books (hundreds of thousands of them even) to ‘e-readers’, the most popular being the Kindle. Our lives are quickly becoming digitally dependent, if they aren’t already, and nobody wants to be left behind.
Australians frustrated at relatively slow internet speeds can now breathe slightly easier. Telstra, Australia’s largest Internet Service Provider, recently announced a $300 million upgrade to their cable internet network. The first city to be awarded this significant prize will be Melbourne. The infrastructure enhancement may increase broadband speeds by up to three times and will purportedly reach almost one million Melbourne homes. Relief! Well, partly. Nothing has been said about rural areas, let alone how much it is going to cost to outfit all Australian capital cities. Sol Trujillo, Telstra’s outgoing CEO said, ‘Now we are going to the next level: super-fast broadband with download speeds among the highest in the world.’ People in Australia will now be able to do everything they could do, and more, much quicker. Of course, the primary reaction is one of delight. But many will wonder if this is necessarily a good thing for young Australians. Facebook pages load almost instantaneously, and delays in streaming audio and video generally are not too bad. The well known arguments will surface once more: obesity is a growing concern; Parents are getting continually more anxious about their child’s activities on the internet; Young people don’t socialise enough these days. Those issues are valid and indeed concerning. To be frank, the services we rely upon and need the most: e-mail, social networking, audio and video streaming are all performing adequately enough to meet our current needs. Video-conferencing may be lagging, but that shouldn’t be much of a concern for most young people!
In the long run, the benefits of faster internet speeds to Australian society far outweigh the perceived drawbacks. It is true that many young people don’t exercise enough to burn off the energy they take from food — hence the obesity epidemic. But having a faster internet connection will not mean children will exercise any less. It’s illogical to suggest that as a process becomes faster and more efficient, that more time will be devoted to that process. As a society, Australia should be embracing the Web as a tool to help fight these threatening and crucial issues, not seeing it as the cause of the problems. Moreover, the impact to youth is but one small aspect of this news.
Businesses will benefit immensely. News websites in particular will be able to increase online video footage, as will television channels. Documents that were just too large for an e-mail client to efficiently handle will be able to be sent digitally. The list is a long one.
Aside from these arguments, this move by Telstra is in direct competition with the Rudd Government’s National Broadband Network, currently in the process of considering tender offers.
Trujillo says, “If per chance the government wants to have a conversation with Telstra about deployment then we’d be willing to have that conversation.” This is a direct challenge to the Government — a challenge to see what the competitive private sector has to offer in terms of a national broadband transformation. It is definitely an enticing proposition and one which demands the Government’s full attention.
Australian society is already taking big steps forward in the way it uses and perceives the internet.
Given that it is so readily available on mobile phones, the Web really is everywhere. According to Telstra, “Next G [Telstra’s new mobile network] covers 99 per cent of the population.” This allpervasive presence is impossible to avoid, and so it is only right to welcome and encourage its development and improvement. Indeed, it is often a society’s level of technology that defines it as either modern, or not. Why should we let Australia fall behind? Issues such as obesity and the protection of children on the internet remain at the forefront of our minds; however, if we impede the inevitable march of technology, we suffocate Australia’s future growth and its standing on the world stage.
Tim Udorovic, 19, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and nonpartisan think-tank of young minds.
Lost In Thought
We now know more about ourselves and our world than ever before, but it is in this climate of knowledge and progress that we see today’s youth falter.
Over the past few decades, technological advancements and improvements in the general economic environment have lead to a better quality of life for most Australians. Modernity has lead to advancements in a wide variety of areas, as industries grow, researchers research and builders build.
The fact is that today more and more young Australians are finding themselves victim to mental illness.
Depression, anxiety and eating disorders are affecting more of our youth than at any other time in our history. Today, between 14 and 18 per cent of Australians between the ages of 4 and 18 are experiencing mental health problems of clinical significance, while according to the 1997 ABS National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing, rates of mental disorder peak at age 18 to 24 years, with more than one in every four young adults having one or more mental disorders. These figures, however shocking, revert back to the idea that despite all the benefits of modernity come the starkly negative side effects. The youth of this country are turning inwards, towards cliques and online networking, away from traditional family and community support groups. By doing so they are increasingly isolating themselves from loved ones as well as the help they need in dealing with and preventing the occurrence of mental health problems.
Furthermore, industry professionals are finding that young people are at times reluctant to seek the help offered. They cite the fact that today’s youth are very discerning about when, and from whom they seek assistance. Concomitant with this idea is the fact that many young people are afraid of the stigma often associated with making use of mental health services and the physical attendance of a mental health clinic. These realities have let this matter snowball to a point of ‘crisis,’ one which our government and our society must solve together.
It seems that despite an increase in the general socio-economic standing of everyday Australians over the past few decades, mental health problems have become increasingly common. Therefore, we as a society need to appreciate that the solutions we administer need to tackle the root cause rather than the end outcome of such conditions. The problems in the system are obvious, in terms of funding and resources; a Senate inquiry into this matter found that patients in Victoria for example, under the age of 16 can only seek mental health services between the hours of 9am to 5pm, while patients 16 years and over can receive 24 hour care. The overall issue takes its roots elsewhere in other areas of society. Therefore, Government action should not merely tackle the lack of mechanisms in place to combat the mental health issues themselves, they should tackle the causes of our youth’s problems. It is widely accepted that social disadvantage, as well as violence and familial instability in childhood reduces an individual’s likelihood of enjoying both good mental and physical health later in life. The government needs to acknowledge the pivotal role that wider economic and social measures can play in reducing both the incidence and the impact of mental health problems.
We require a well functioning mental health system, one which truly cares for younger Australians. To do this, services must be youth centred and family focussed. In addition they must be community based while maintaining cultural sensitivity. State and Federal Governments need to appreciate the diversity of needs required by those seeking care. They need to provide the infrastructure and the funding required to ensure access to a mélange of services which best suit patients’ individual needs including clinics, and residential centres adapted to dealing with these issues. Early intervention is paramount Closer to home, our Governments must seek to involve both parents and teachers on a home and school based level. These two groups must be proactive and appreciate that this exigent issue exists in Australian society today. Legal guardians and teachers have a responsibility to act upon any misgivings they may have regarding their son, daughter or pupil’s mental health; they have a duty of care to those under their supervision.
It is about providing care and support to the younger members of society who suffer from these mental issues. It is about providing attention tailored to their individual needs. The issue is too great and the ramifications too dire. The future of our country is at stake, literally.
Stefan Dimou, 19, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and non-partisan think-tank of young minds.
Filling The Gap
Late last year, the Federal Government announced a nationwide consultation to establish how Australians want their human rights protected. At first, this seems strange — we don’t think of Australia as a country where human rights are under threat.
Australia is currently the only liberal democratic country in the world without any formal national protection of human rights. Contrary to popular belief, there is actually little legal protection of the human rights most of us take for granted.
To take just one example: few would deny that we should have a right to freedom of speech. Indeed, freedom of speech is something most of us already enjoy. Yet the closest thing Australia has to a right of free speech is a narrow ‘right of political communication’ implied into the constitution.
Unless your speech fits into this tiny category, it remains almost entirely unprotected. In practice, of course, gross abuses of human rights in Australia are thankfully rare. Nevertheless,
recent years have seen a worrying trend towards reduced respect for human rights. There have been high-profile cases: think Mohammed Haneef, Cornelia Rau and Vivian Alvarez-Solon. The High Court has held that indefinite and even inhumane detention can be legal under Australian law. Australia has some of the most draconian anti-terrorism legislation in the world, with provisions reversing the onus of proof and limiting access to a lawyer. Now, the Federal Government has committed to introducing a system that would enable it to censor the internet. This sounds like the régime of a repressive dictatorship, not the country we know and love.
To make matters worse, these are only the issues that hit the headlines. Every day, vulnerable people around the country suffer indignity and disempowerment in silence.
Clearly, some form of stronger protection is necessary. However, this does not mean following the path of the United States by introducing a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights. Instead, we should follow a more moderate approach — such as that taken in Victoria and the United Kingdom — through the Federal Parliament enacting a Human Rights Act.
Protecting human rights via an ordinary act of parliament, rather than a constitutional amendment, would allow for greater flexibility. Parliament could amend the Act from time to time in line with community sentiment. This would reduce the likelihood of getting stuck with anachronistic rights in the future, and would enable a wide range of government responses to extraordinary situations.
Because parliament rather than the judiciary would have the final say, there would be no risk of the ‘judicial activism’ so often feared by opponents of human rights protection. Judges would be able to highlight where legislation was inconsistent with human rights, applying pressure to the government of the day, but would not have the power to strike down democratically made law.
The rights themselves — the content of the Act — could be drawn from the international instruments Australia is already a party to. Indeed, it seems astonishing that Australian law is currently at odds with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other conventions. A Human Rights Act would merely be giving effect to Australia’s longstanding international commitments.
Yet perhaps most importantly, it would represent a shift in politics and government as well as the law. Concern for basic rights would become part of every stage of the political process — from the drafting of legislation to its implementation. This would eliminate most of the situations where innocent people could find their rights infringed, and provide a remedy in the few situations where such infringements still occurred. Contrary to some expectations, experience has shown that this model of human rights protection does not spark a significant increase in litigation.
In short, a national Human Rights Act would strike a balance between protecting our human rights and preserving our democratic processes. It would provide protection to everyone — the vulnerable, ordinary and powerful alike. Ultimately, it would do little more than preserve the rights most of us already take for granted.
Respect for human rights is not a radical idea, and a Human Rights Act is not a radical proposal. Rather, it is a sensible solution to a glaring gap in Australian law. It’s time that gap was filled.
Tim Farhall, 22, is a Policy Officer at Left Right Think-Tank, Australia’s first independent and nonpartisan think-tank of young minds.