Media Watch……Preferences,Climate Change,Pulp Mill
This is an election about Climate Change and the pulp mill. We all have a choice when we vote to express our concern over the lack of positive climate change policy and our disapproval of the pulp mill, which must be stopped. It will destroy our valuable carbon stores and decimate bioviersity and wildlife in Tasmania. It benefits few and stakeholders are the only ones who will reap any rewards.
This is also a very marginal seat, where Mr Turnbull, Minister for the Environment maybe a oncer and lose his hit, as voters show their dislike of the pulp mill and the approval process.
Ms Overington, senior journalist from The Australian, who has been keen to write about me from day one, has written about me in colourful terms, choosing on many occassions to create her own slant. All was revealed in Media Watch. She also emailed me openly to preference Malcolm Turnbull.
Remember one thing I am running on an anti pulp mill ticket (work I have been doing since I started lobbying Perpetual in March see www.wfca.org.au ). Susan Jarnason, Greens candidiate and myself are the only two Wentworth candidates who visited and spent many hours and in my case days in the Tamar Valley. It is also the time to stand up and tell the politicians you want real action on Climate Change.
Despite media slur campaigns, this is what I am doing. World press is highlighting that Australia has not ratified Kyoto and our politicians have approved an unpopular pulp mill. Wentworth is on the global stage. Read on:
November 13th, 2007 at 7:56 am
Speaking as a part time solicitor, and full time community media practitioner, I am intrigued by the question whether there was an inducement to “please preference Malcolm” with higher profile coverage (ie the celebrity bait, which by the by also compromises and cruels not a few other greenocrats in this sector over the last 15 years in my experience, advisedly).
Not saying there was “an inducement” because I don’t know the full facts, but IF there was an offer to give higher profile coverage in turn for preferencing a specific candidate its looking like a lonely walk for a journalism career down The Green Mile (to borrow a movie title phrase). That is termination. Not for nothing (!) do I suggest Overington sweetie, better get a lawyer girl, better get a real good one (to borrow another phrase).
I’ve teased this out in my reference to John Laws having compromised himself perhaps with his own undoubted power over the years in the Banks/Cash for Comment scandal, on my “honest trustworthy” news website referred to below.
My unsolicited email prompt about dubious News Ltd of early Oct 07 to pocket dynamo Ms Ecuyer here is mentioned in the story, as relevant. Funny how prescient that comment was after MW last night:
(forgive the cross promo on your web site, it is non profit)
Here:
Tuesday, 13 November 2007
The Oz has form on making, not just reporting ‘the news’ in Ecuyer imbroglio
http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog/index.blog?topic_id=1083936
November 13th, 2007 at 8:39 am
I thought this election was about a multitude of issues of which climate change is only one, although important. For example, Work Choices, the declining standards of ministerial accountability and increasing executive privilege, childcare, education, and the health system. So I will be voting for the candidate who brings the most sensible, and practicably implementable set of policies in totality and for me, that’s the ALP. Single issue politics are far too narrow to be successful.
How would you vote in relation to Work Choices?
November 13th, 2007 at 8:54 am
The Australians Caroline Overington who is one of the newspapers known liberal sympathisers and has clearly crossed a line by suggesting to Wentworth independent Danielle Ecuyer that she preference Malcolm Turnbull in the upcoming federal election.
In the offending email Overington tells Ecuyer playfully “why dont you preference Malcolm Turnbull” and then supports her inappropriate suggestion by saying Turnbull would be “a loss” to the parliament whereas labor candidate G. Newhouse would “not be a gain”.
Therein lies the journalists opinion, an opinion that that an award winning journalist like overington should not be expressing - even in jest.
Overington, a seasoned journalist can cry foul all she likes about, but the fact is she has been playing political newcomer Miss Ecuyer for a while and attempting to manipulate juicy stories and now perhaps election outcomes. Journalists like to think that they are powerful too and can influence political and social outcomes. They take great delight in this. Overington is no exception. What Overington was doing was an old trick used by many experienced political journo,s and Overington has just been unlucky enough to be caught out. She was taking an inexperienced polly for a ride and it backfired.
Serves you right Caroline Overington. I hope you are suitably embarrassed.
Rick
Gravelly Beach
November 13th, 2007 at 9:03 am
saw this, at least your getting good coverage too: http://www.scopical.com.au/articles/Election_07/1186/News_Ltd_journalist_pressures_Independent_MP_for_Liberal_preferencing and http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/13/2088953.htm
November 13th, 2007 at 9:30 am
On broad based policy concerns of candidates, dangerous global warming is a bit like the unifying theory of evolution. That is, climate change IS about childcare (liveable planet), IS about Health (ever had malaria - I have, its no fun), IS about national security (1 billion pissed off refugees on the move), IS about even Work Choices at a stretch
(it goes like this - after a climate tipping point there will only be rich folks in enclaves … I mean even more than now … and the slave class around them. Work Choices is the beginning of that process of hyper enclavism and climate change will super charge it.)
This is why such as Tim Costello talks about poverty converging with climate change. He’s right. Even Mick Kelty AFP chief sees the convergence re national security as ‘the biggest threat of this century’. He only got to make that speech once though before the blinds came down.
Yep climate is the big one alrigh and why such as business minded ms Ecuyer here has got so exercised. She’s right to do so. All thinking folks are too. Ironically its also putting the green back in Green Party. Gotta love that.
November 13th, 2007 at 4:15 pm
Isn’t the pulp mill an issue for Tasmanian residences to decide? Why is your number one ticket about deciding the future for Tasmanians rather than your own electorate? Australia currently contributes 1.4% of the overall man-made green house gas emissions. By how much will this increase with the addition of the pulp mill? How long would it take China to negate the CO2 savings we have generated by rejecting the pulp mill?
November 15th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Roger, the subtext of your comment is that it is futile saying no to polluting and greenhouse gas emitting industry in Australia because China is so large and it will inevitably produce more emissions than we can save. Gee Roger that is a depressing outlook and very defeatist. Whilst we are indeed global citizens we also spend our lives residing in our local communities and we must do all we can to love and care for those places. So no Roger the pulp mill is not just an issue for Tasmanians to decide. It could be an issue for china to get involved in if they are proposing to buy the pulp that results from the destruction of Tasmanias forests and the clearing of our lands. Or Japan.
Just ask the sitting member for wentworth Mr Turnbull. His decision to give federal apporoval for the worlds 3rd largest pulp mill to be built in Tasmania is one of the most significant decisons he has had to make as environment minister. And it is a decision whose consequences will be felt by Tasmanias forests and waterways for decades to come. He failed because he did not have the courage to stand up to his Tasmanian CFMEU and forestry union loving boss Mr Howard.
Last time I looked Tasmania is part of Australia. Last time I looked our unique and naturally beautiful island was not only dear to the hearts of Tasmanians but to the rest of Australia as well as our many international stakeholders. Tasmania has the largest tracts of cool temperate rainforest in the country but they are fast dissappearing. We also have some of the highest rainfall in the country but we are in drought and the water levels are down across the state. Enter a corporation that gets whatever it asks for and a compliant state and federal government who have signed off on a pulp mill which is propped up by 100,s of millions of dollars of subsidies and that is accompanied by a wood supply agreement that will see Tasmanias woodchip exports increase from 4.5 million tonnes per annum to 7 million by 2010 (sold for about 15$ a tonne by the state to Gunns) with two Gunns woodchip mills in the background continuing to export woodchips some sourced from old growth forest. And then of course there is the massive wood-fired pulp mill itself fired by 500,000 tonnes/per annum of wood and producing 1.1million tonnes of pulp per annum sited in a valley that in winter suffers from the worst air pollution in Australia!
And then of course there is the water uptake of the pulp mill that the water minister Mr Turnbull chooses not to talk about! The water uptake of which no assessment by state or federal or by the proponents themselves has been undertaken. Gunns have been given the go ahead by the Tasmanian and federal governments to source fresh water for their pulp mill from our local rivers and dams up to 40,000 megalitres -(40 billion litres or 16,000 Olympic swimming pools each year). Tasmanias Great Lake water system is already at historically low levels and farmers have irrigation restrictions and domestic supplies are sub-standard, yet Gunns is able to increase its fresh water consumption to 40 billion litres for each and every year for the life of the pulp mill regardless. What does Mr Turnbull say about this?
Water going into the mill will be used once, polluted with chemicals through the bleaching process, treated and then pumped out into bass strait. 64 million litres per day. Great!
Because Gunns and the Tasmanian government withdrew from Tasmanias statuatory planning assessment process there has been no impact study on this water supply. Unbelievable but true. You see in Tasmania the forest industry has never been required to produce impact statements on the effects of logging on a tasmanias water catchments. There has always existed this asumption that Tasmania does not and never will have an issue with water supplies. So we just give it away to the forest industry to grow there fast growing single species tree farms which they transplant in place of our mix species forests that they log. Stopping this pulp mill in Tasmania is a significant national issue as significant as saving the Franklin, the daintree, ningaloo and the barrier reef. These are national treasures. Tasmania is a national treasure. Few would disagree with that. But we need your help. We need Dani,s help.
November 16th, 2007 at 5:25 am
I have received so much support from Tasmania’s since I started working on the pulp mill isssue. As polls have shown Tasmanian’s and Australians do not want the pulp mill and give them the credit that they understand it is not good for Tasmania or Australia. We all understand with the challenges that we face from climate change, that industry needs to transition to a more sustainable model.
This means that governments need to provide proper policy frameworks to assist business and the workers and employees in these industries will need to be trained and transitioned as well to more sustainable work practices. This is not about making workers redundant it is about long term structural change for the benefit of Australians, the economy, humanity.