Today’s Age carries a report on internal Labor divisions over its climate change policy.
I have sent a letter to the editor which encapsulates a number of points I and others have made at LP. The text is as follows:
Some comments are in order regarding internal Labor divisions over its climate change policy.
Firstly, there will be no repeat of the 2004 Tasmanian forests situation because Rudd is not Latham, and because the Mining and Energy Division of the CFMEU, unlike that union’s Forestry Division, is not dealing under the table with Howard government ministers to campaign against the ALP’s environment policy. Visit the Mining and Energy Division’s website and you will find endorsement of the ALP’s greenhouse policy, support for the Kyoto Protocol and an electoral enrolment campaign under the slogan “Kick Out Howard”.
Secondly, Peter Garrett was simply being honest with his comments about the long-term future of Australia’s coal industry. Most of our coal is mined for export, so it is nonsense to pretend that the industry can keep expanding if our major customers move to a carbon-constrained economy.
One suspects the unnamed MPs quoted in your report are either greenhouse denialists or people who have the same mindset towards environmentalists as Captain Ahab had towards Moby Dick. Both such character types are known to exist in the ALP.
Update: This morning on ABC News Radio, Christian Kerr commented that some Federal Labor MPs are very keen, albeit anonymously and off the record, to condemn the CFMEU Mining and Energy Division over its greenhouse policy discussion paper which I have previously commented on and linked to. He also asserted, without offering any evidence, that a gap has opened up between the union and mining workers over the issue.
On the first point I have no doubt that Kerr is correct. Such sentiment would be coming from the denialists and the Captain Ahabs, and probably also from MPs linked to unions with which the CFMEU is competing for coverage in the mining and energy sector.
On the second point I have to be sceptical. There is nothing in the discussion paper which can be construed as making any concessions in terms of accepting reduced activity or employment in the coal industry. In any case the union’s structure – which is arguably as democratic as any union’s in Australia – should ensure that any such gap which arises will be quickly filled.
Finally, a further indication of the role the Mining & Energy Division is likely to play in this year’s Federal election can be found here.
Re the second point, Flannery this morning was emphasising the futility of unilateral action on coal exports.
That sounds interesting Brian, do you have a link?
The Coal Industry and all such like-minded souls argue that there is no point limiting our coal exports becuase overseas producer’s with a ‘dirtier’ coal production process will take over…I think the inimitable (doddery?) De-Anne Kelly developed this point yesterday. Does Tim Flannery endorse this sentiment? That would surprise me.
this smells like a wedge of good cheese, and is just waiting for John Howard to cut it
I see the hand of the AWU here.
and the dead hand of the TWU …
The biggest union donor to the NSW Labor Party is the minerals and energy division of the CFMEU, no surprise seeing as how they are the most cashed up unionists in the country. The workers are happy to be members because the union looks after them.
When they go and introduce fairly radical new policy, having undergone a lot of thought and discussion and having followed entirely democratic processes (this policy was put to a ballot of all members), it scares the big right wing unions silly. And Christian Kerr is just the sort of person to pay attention when those folks speak.
Myself, I pay as little attention to Kerr as I possibly can.
Jed, I googled and came up with this from the SMH:
I’m sure it was the interview I heard.