Larvatus Prodeo

4 Responses to “Labor’s Tasmanian Forests Policy Redux”

1. 1 Mark
   Dec 5th, 2006 at 3:22 pm

   Thanks for posting the link to the article, Paul. I’m glad to see that Taylor and Francis make the content available – too many academic papers are locked up behind publishing profiteering barriers.

   It’s a very convincing analysis, but I’d be interested in any further thoughts you may have on how the ALP could overcome the tensions highlighted.

2. 2 Peter
   Dec 5th, 2006 at 10:28 pm

   I am keen to read this article but I can’t download the PDF without subscribing to the publisher.

3. 3 Paul Norton
   Dec 6th, 2006 at 9:38 am

   Peter, try this link:

   http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/media/3pvxje0mrr6ypn9exxww/contributions/j/2/2/3/j2232080n4716887.pdf

4. 4 Paul Norton
   Dec 6th, 2006 at 1:14 pm

   It’s a very convincing analysis, but I’d be interested in any further thoughts you may have on how the ALP could overcome the tensions highlighted.

   Having a Federal leader who “gets” the concept of sustainability (as I think Rudd does) will help, as will having Garrett in the Shadow Cabinet. In my experience most Labor and union people want to do the right thing on environmental issues, but relatively few have taken the time to develop a serious understanding of either specific environmental issues or the general concepts of ecological sustainability and sustainable development. So there is a question of educating members, activists and leaders.

   Another important step would be establishing deliberative forums where people with strong environmental concern and those concerned for jobs and the economic welfare of communities can get their heads together and attempt to reach agreement on “win-win” solutions. Whilst some such forums could be established within ALP structures, others would need to be established as deliberative governance structures open to participation by wider community constituencies (like the ESD Working Groups in the early 1990s, only more representative than they were).

   A further step which could be very important is for State Labor governments and a future Federal Labor government to fund and assist unions to engage in research, policy development and membership education on environmental issues in their industries. Sue Pennicuik (who has just about been elected as a Green Upper House MP in Victoria) did some very good work for the AMWU as its Environment Programs Officer before a change of government in 1996 meant an end to funding for the position. The more general political point is that if unions in environmentally contentious industries have their own independent research and policy capacity, they will be less dependent on the research and propaganda output of employer/industry bodies and less likely to be as thoroughly co-opted by the bosses as the forestry unions have been.

   There remains the unfortunate fact that people such as Bill Ludwig of the AWU and Michael O’Connor of the CFMEU Forestry Division are incorrigible anti-environmentalists, as evidenced by this excerpt from a NZ Herald report on Garrett’s recruitment:

   Garrett’s candidacy has also incensed powerful federal unions, many of whose members feel threatened by his views. Australian Workers Union federal president and Labor national executive member Bill Ludwig, for example, believes the party leadership has “lost the plot”.

   More significantly for seats in Tasmania and mainland areas where forestry is a hyper-sensitive issue, Garrett faces the opposition of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union. The union’s Michael O’Connor said that far from adding value, Garrett was likely to be a liability for Labor, frightening off the people the party was trying to win back from Howard.

   “He’s a scary character to those sorts of people,” O’Connor said. “He doesn’t represent economic responsibility, he doesn’t represent the values they hold, he doesn’t represent safety. He is a scary, bald, bad dancer with radical views.”

   I don’t hold out much hope for a Damascene conversion of these people, but hopefully the measures I’ve outlined above would see them marginalised over time. In the short run Geoff Gallop’s approach to the WA forestry issue in 2001, and Bob Hawke’s approach to saving south-west Tassie (commit to conservation well before polling day and stare down the malcontents), are examples of how Latham should have handled O’Connor, McLean, etc., in 2004.

Leave a Reply

Please read the comments policy. If you would like an icon beside your comment, please register a Gravatar.

There is a Comments Preview function below the typing box which activates when you start typing.