There’s been a bit of a kerfuffle about the Government supposedly tying assistance flowing from the Victorian fire disaster to the passage through parliament of the economic stimulus package. From the ABC site:
Coalition MPs have lashed out at the Government’s “appalling” decision to link bushfire aid to its $42 billion economic stimulus plan.
I heard it first in the press roundup on local radio last night. It was said to be featured in the MSM.
It turns out to be a load of bunkum.
What Rudd did according to the article was to announce that:
Victoria’s and Queensland’s share of the education infrastructure and public housing component of the package could be prioritised to be used in rebuilding fire and flood-affected areas.
This just seems practical and sensible and what you would expect.
It has since been made clear that Federal Government assistance is uncapped, is not dependent on legislation at all, and is not linked in any way to the economic assistance package. The Leader of the Opposition has been informed of this in writing.
However it’s probably a case of feathers in the wind cannot be regathered. So I thought I’d use our little blog to help set the record straight.
They have no shame.
Brian – don’t suppose you managed to find out exactly what Rudd said? The quote above sounds quite reasonable, but if a few moments earlier or later he was talking about how important it is to pass the stimulus package then thats a different matter.
No, Chris, I didn’t and unfortunately don’t have time to dig around.
Anyone?
I had a quick look in the Hansard – what he said looks fine to me – it was just in the middle of a speech about the fires and assistance available to those affected by fire and flood. No mention about the stimulus package other than to name the programs in it which would help, but not in a way which could really be seen as political point scoring.
So the Liberal Party continues in that noble tradition established by its erstwhile Great Leader, John Winston Howard: Never tell the truth when a lie will do.
During the Howard Years the Libs formed very close ties to the Sub Belt Republicans. Rove was a manipulator who would have one Howard’s warm approval – Howard Jnr did a stint on the Repub staff. So it is no wonder that they should still be trying Rove tactics.
So the Liberal party won’t pass the stimulus package because it’ll create too much debt but Malcolm wants ANOTHER piece of legislation for fire assistance, thus creating yet another bucket of money which will create more debt.
Surely it is more sensible to simply direct the money from the legislation before the house to the job?
My understanding is that we’re talking about two lots of fire relief: the direct payments to individuals, which is happening now (so obviously isn’t dependant on legislation) and the rebuilding package, which will go towards precisely the sort of infrastructure covered by the stimulus package.
I’ll just add that whilst Rudd hasn’t linked the fires with stimulus package, the ALP senator Doug Cameron has, explicitly saying that it is important to pass the stimulus package in order to help the bushfire victims (recording of him was on ABC radio today).
While all you jump to the worst possible conclusion, I would suggest their just a little pouty about the fact that now Rudd has announced this, it makes it all the more difficult to justify not voting for it. They’ve been out-circumstanced, and because they are so desperate for a break, they are now acting like little children.
I’m going to keep flogging this horse: the opposition needs to learn when to shut-up.
Thank you for setting the record straight. It’s a disgrace that the Opposition would use such tragedies in a crude attempt to score points. I sure hope voters remember this kind of despicable politics from the Coalition at the next federal election.
I read the “Oopo anger about ..” mid-afternoon yesterday in a NewsLtd on-line paper(?Oz); then on News.com – along with several other groundless anti Fed/State gov claims. When it didn’t appear on any “breaking news”/”Just in” sites until I went out c6.00pm EST, I figured it was more NewsLtd fiction.
Was it Malcolm’s comment, or Julie’s? After her “It’s always all about me” Monday effort when everyone else, ALP, Lib, NPA spoke so honestly, respectfully & movingly about the fires (and floods, still are as I type, I wouldn’t put anything past her. The sounds like another of Julie’s ill-timed ego-trips.
At http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2485793.htm you can hear Fran Bailey, the liberal Member for McEwen talking on Monday morning saying that assistance for fire affected areas should be prioritised as part of the economic stimulus package – starting at the 5.40 mark (but the phone connection drops out soon after)
“I’ll just add that whilst Rudd hasn’t linked the fires with stimulus package, the ALP senator Doug Cameron has, explicitly saying that it is important to pass the stimulus package in order to help the bushfire victims (recording of him was on ABC radio today).”
No doubt, Doug Cameron goosed it. I heard that on the ABC, The World Today, as well as Auntys blatant accusation that Rudd had also linked aid with the stimulus package. Yet again another case of reporting opposition balderdash as established fact.
Rudd was effectively assuming that the stimulus package would be passed, and could then be spent (at the states’ discretion) on rebuilding in fire and flood areas. It was arrogant to assume that it would be passed, when the parliament has not passed the legislation, and politically silly to mention the fires in the context of the stimulus package. It seemed to me that Rudd was trying to establish in voters minds some link between the proposed (not yet passed) stimulus package and the recovery in the fire areas. That may have been an accident made by a dog-tired man who spends his life reciting talking points, but it looked opportunistic.
Then the opposition played the predictable (and also opportunistic) card, and said that Rudd was linking the stimulus plan to the fires. I suspect that the opposition got more out of their tactic than Rudd got out of his. Rudd looks mean and tricky, even if it was just a slip of the tongue.
Well Chris, so it is.
By what convoluted semantics can that statement by Cameron be read to indicate that help for the bushfire victims is excluded if the stimulus package does not pass?
C’mon… Rudd knew exactly what he was saying. If the states could decide where the money was distributed all along, why even mention it? Politicians never say things in a vacuum, he knew that statement would put pressure to pass the bill, and the opposition were right to call him to clarify it.
joe2 – just to be clear I don’t hold Rudd or even really the government accountable for something that Doug Cameron says any more than I’d hold Turnbull and the opposition responsible for anything that Wilson Tuckey says. As they say he obviously didn’t get the memo about keeping the politics out of any bushfire related comments.
Benedictus @ 15: From the interview transcript:
Its pretty clear that he’s saying that if the opposition votes against the stimulus package that they’re voting against help for the bushfire victims and there’s really no need for the two things to be linked that way. Its just political point scoring.
Chris, I was just agreeing with you about Cameron. It was more about the ABC and another example of their now constant crappy reporting.
Stephen and Chris
Just to repeat my earlier point – the first person (very early Monday morning) to say that assistance for fire affected areas should be prioritised as part of the economic stimulus package was the Liberal member of Parliament for one of the areas affected!
From the Australian;
“Community Services Minister Jenny Macklin, the minister co-ordinating the Government’s response to the fires, has continued to press for the passage of the package.
“It’s really just common sense that if this package does go through the parliament this week that some of the money could be used by the Victorian government to rebuild schools for example,” she told ABC Radio.”
Canberra Times
“Labor senator Doug Cameron appeared to link the two issues when arriving at Parliament House on Wednesday…
“It is absolutely essential that this package is delivered to assist both the Victorian bushfire victims and the global economic challenges that we are facing.”
“Its pretty clear that he’s saying that if the opposition votes against the stimulus package that they’re voting against help for the bushfire victims and there’s really no need for the two things to be linked that way.”
Why not, Chris @ 17? The package happens to be relevant to the reconstruction and repair of housing and schools. It can and should now be made available to provide additional help and assistance to bushfire victims, alongside the many other relief measures the Government has already announced.
They weren’t before of course, but since it’s been made clear that’s where a good proportion of the money will now go, the Opposition certainly are voting against help for the bushfire victims. Given the unforeseen circumstances and tragedy of last week, it is the Opposition who have chosen to try to score political points from it.
Nick @ 22 – As Rudd/Swan have been saying the funds to be made available for the rebuilding will be provided regardless of whether the stimulus package passes. Doesn’t even need legislation to go through parliament for funds to be released apparently. And for example, if the rebuilding funds are adequate then there will probably be less need for the rebuilt schools to draw on the stimulus package as the buildings/facilities will be brand new.
The credulity displayed here is a little worrying. Rudd is a very clever politician. He quickly identified an opening and exploited it in the Parliament. Swan was forced to backtrack later as Coalition indignation (much of it feigned, to be sure) and Rudd’s misstep became clear. It seems wrong to say that Rudd was ‘linking’ bushfire relief to the stimulus plan, in the sense of the former being wholly dependent upon the latter. But it is a technical point; Rudd’s motives were plain. And as this thread demonstrates there is now no shortage of ALP MPs (including frontbencher Macklin) willing to ignore the public’s sensibilities and associate the packages under the cynical cover of ‘common sense’ and denials of explicit dependence. Anyone who thinks this isn’t playing clever politics with tragedy is off with the pixies.
As for Fran Bailey, it shouldn’t be difficult to see the difference between a local MP stating the obvious, i.e. that a stimulus package should be first applied to those areas in dire need (i.e. her electorate) and the PM quickly seizing the point to place added pressure on an obstructive Coalition.
BBB
More worrying to me is how anyone could possibly imagine that it is in any way “clever” to play politics with tragedy. John Howard made an art form of it and look at where it left him.
There does seem to be assumption among some posters here that voting against spending for bushfire victims is necessarily worse than voting against general stimulus spending. But is it really? Without a decently-sized stimulus package many millions of Australians will suffer avoidable financial hardship, and tens of thousands will lose their jobs unnecessarily. Without sufficient spending for those who’ve lost their homes in bushfires, a few thousand people will find it very difficult to restart their lives. In either case there seem to be as many questions to be asked as to whatever spending is proposed is in the best form possible (e.g. how much sense does it really make to attempt to rebuild an entire town in such a bushfire prone area?), but in either case to simply insist “we will vote against it” is surely causing a fair bit of unnecessary suffering.
“As for Fran Bailey, it shouldn’t be difficult to see the difference between a local MP stating the obvious, i.e. that a stimulus package should be first applied to those areas in dire need (i.e. her electorate) and the PM quickly seizing the point to place added pressure on an obstructive Coalition.”
You think a Coalition Government wouldn’t behave like this if the tables were turned?
I’m often amused by the exceptionalism claimed today by pundits and bloggettes of all stripes vis a vis political discourse sinking to a new low. Even a cursory google will reveal our ancestors cheerfully and brutally exploited far worse tragedies for political gain. And the underlying sentiments were even worse. Start with contemporary reports of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.
“The ceremony was rendered ludicrous by some of the sallies of the poor President Lincoln.” – The Times.
Or
“Here comes Julius Caesar the bald warmonger. Lock up your daughters and sons.”
Or
http://www.soane.org/election.htm
(I’ve seen the originals at the Soane and mighty works they are too. Each almost the size of a billiard table and radiating colourful contempt.
This current contretemps is nothing.
“D’you ever shoot in Italy? Try three Italian starlets wacked out on Benzedrine and grappa, this is a walk in the park…”
Political barnies have actually got more civilized not worse over the past few centuries.
Although I am slightly in sympathy with this archaic observation.
“Down here in Louisiana, where a politician cannot be gotten rid of at the polls, he is often killed off in a duel.”
“It is absolutely essential that this package is delivered to assist both the Victorian bushfire victims and the global economic challenges that we are facing.”
This quote from Doug Cameron (ALP) is recklessly ham-fisted at best.
“You think a Coalition Government wouldn’t behave like this if the tables were turned?”
No, I don’t think that. In fact, I think they would have been more brazen and thoughtless about it. But then every accusation of wrongdoing can be met with a ‘But the other side’d do it too!’ or a ‘Look over there – someone else is doing wrong!’. It doesn’t really get us anywhere.
And since when is the Coalition an appropriate ethical yardstick? Rudd and his supporters ought to set their sights a little higher I think, if they’ve any self-respect.
BBB
BBB, I think they have indeed set their sights a little higher.
The only commenter who says that they have read Hansard was Chris @ 4 and he said it looked fine. Go to the House of Representatives Hansard and download the pdf for February 10. You’ll find the speech at the beginning of business, p15 on the pdf. Whatever as Behemoth tells us may have happened in the history of the whole world, it didn’t happen here.
The speech is long and detailed as to what’s happening. The part that stirred the faux anger of the Opposition comes just after he details how he’s asked the routine final payment of the local government assistance grants to be accelerated and paid on February 23 instead of 15 May. The statement about the relevant elements of the economic stimulus money is there for the sake of completeness. There is no urging, threatening, barracking or point scoring. None at all.
The reference was followed by a statement that the government’s assistance would be uncapped.
There was nothing to justify the headline on the front page of the Financial Review “Rudd links fire relief to $42 billion plan”
This is sensationalist reporting by David Crowe and Louise Dodson. I think it’s disgraceful. I agree with joe2 on the ABC:
You can check out The World Today piece here.
After being beaten about the ears by the Coalition for 12 years it seems to be mandatory to kick Labor in the shins whenever the opportunity arises. So we get this piece of gratuitous editorialising:
I wouldn’t defend Doug Cameron. Although what he says is the truth it was as wbb says ham-fisted.
Sorry Chris @ 23, I read through the comments far too quickly and stupidly failed to notice (or forgot) you were specifically referring to Doug Cameron’s remark, which was a shocker.
(And if I hadn’t had to rush off to the airport, I probably would’ve scrapped that half-baked last para…)
BBB: “Rudd is a very clever politician”
I see what you did there.
Ah, right on cue.
If only bushfire behaviour was as predictable.
Ah, right on cue.
Here also.
If only bushfire behavior was as predictable and less opportunistic.
Joe2, I can’t work out whether you’re being saracastic.
Where playing politics with tragedy left John Howard was in government for 11 years.
Australians need to get over their political messiah complex before politicians will stop using tear-stained hankies as ballot papers.
Of course, we all know artists and greenies are dangerous people. They question their society, they don’t vote Liberal and they want to make the world a bettrer place.
These RWDBs should be ashamed of themselves.
I was responding directly to BBB ,in the previous comment, Mercurius, and in no way attempting to be sarcastic. It was common, during the Howard years, to refer to his next repulsive wedge and game as “clever politics” by some. I could never see how journalists and others could attribute a positve descriptive word like “clever” to often culpable behaviour.
John Howard made an art form of playing politics with tragedy and because his standards were so low he will always be thought of as a very dark figure by me. It is pretty obvious that now he has left the scene attempts are being made, either consciously or unconsciously, to attribute to Rudd the same base motives, by the use of terminology previously reserved for his predecessor.
Mercurius, don’t you have to believe in the possibility of a messiah before you can have a messiah complex? Most Australians have incredibly poor opinions about elected officials. It’s hard to see how these people truly believe that politicians can make any meaningful improvements in their lives. In their eyes, they exist despite of them.
I can see what you mean, considering the increasingly presidential way elections are run in Australia. But most people would vote for Rudd now because he is a nice guy, I voted for him last time, and he hasn’t stuffed up. It’s not because they think he is a cure-all for this country’s ills.
I suspect that Rudd would love his proposed package to be blocked – since there is little chance of it being sufficient to prevent a downturn and Rudd won’t want to be labelled as the bloke who plunged us into debt for ‘no purpose’. At the same time he can now implement a massive covert stimulus package badged as bushfire recovery, giving him the best of both worlds.
I also suspect that Turnbull would like the package he is opposing to be passed – since he doesn’t want to be seen as the bloke who got between Australians and money. And that he wants to be in a position to whinge about how ineffective and wasteful the stimulus package has been, at the next election.
Also on the obviously wider definition of “playing politics” I’ve been using, why the hell do Blair and others consider discussion of climate change out of bounds as insulting to the victims’ grief while it’s perfectly OK for Miranda to write an article attempting to score political anti-green, pro-timber industry points?
Helen,
The obvious answer to your question would surely be that Blair and other REDBs obviously think Australia is straying from its true Howardian path and we all made a terrible muistake voting Rudd/Green instead of the country’s True Messiah, Ratty Howard. And, probably more to the point its a useful stick to beat Labor about the head with.
Because in their world Helen only one side politicises arguments.
Mods – can I get a ruling? Can I give Paul Burns the “teh” treatment for misspelling mistake and getting the acronym for Right-Wing Douche-Bags wrong?
I would have thought that the average person would have assumed that the too weren’t mutally exclusive. Big pile of money, big diaster; big pile of money, big disaster … hey why don’t we use some of the big pile to help aleviate the disaster? I think this thread has split along party lines.
Oh, I should check my spelling – mistake/RWDBs. Half-blind, y’know.
Shaun@42 Still waiting for a well-deserved upbraiding – probably in the form of a bucket of pH 6.6 solution – to be unleashed from Saint, &c towards Catch the Fire. Surely it can’t be too much longer; just how long does it take to copy paste a block of someone else’s text with a ht at the end.
“I was responding directly to BBB ,in the previous comment, Mercurius, and in no way attempting to be sarcastic. It was common, during the Howard years, to refer to his next repulsive wedge and game as “clever politics” by some. I could never see how journalists and others could attribute a positve descriptive word like “clever” to often culpable behaviour.”
joe2, ‘cleverness’ doesn’t require moral correctness. It never has. Indeed, many people would now take the word ‘clever’ to be pejorative when it is used to describe Australian politicians and the games they play. Hence Teh Left concedes the cleverness of the ways of Howard et al. I don’t see how an acknowledgment of the cunning or wit or intelligence or shrewdness of a person is necessarily an endorsement of their behaviour.
BBB
gilmae@46 I’m sure it will be soon. Probably getting the wording right for the end.
FWIW, I’m almost prepared to go out on a limb and suggest there’s almost certainly less hardship that would be caused by blocking a “bushfire aid package” than a general economic stimulus package. The official Red Cross appeal has already raised nearly $80M – governments both here and overseas have donated at least several $M between them already, and various other collections almost certainly push the total over the $100M mark – in other words, assuming even 5000 people left homeless, there’s already 20K per survivor available in aid. Assuming most of those who’ve lost their homes and possesions are adequately privately insured, then, awful as their plight is, it doesn’t strike me that financial hardship will be the many difficulty the victims will have to deal with in the coming months, even if there is no large aid package.
On the other hand if no stimulus package is passed, then surely far more than 5000 people risk being left jobless and in extreme finanical hardship.
Wiz: therein lies a topic for some really serious discussion at some future point!
Meanwhile, the noted fire ecologist Germaine Greer, speaking from her vantage point close to the action at a function with Prince Charles in London, provides much-needed support for her beleaguered colleague Miranda Devine.
At least Greer is not blaming mysterious “green groups”. From what I’ve seen, it does seem that several local councils have been somewhat obstructionist in letting residents clear vegetation on their own properties (there was a news story last night about a fellow who was the only one in his area to save his house, which he credits to illegally clearing trees on his property to the tune of a $50K fine). The local council in question then apparently blamed the state government. So are government policies on vegetation clearing partly to blame for the extent of the damage? Most likely. But I’ve yet to see any evidence that these policies were enacted largely as environmental measures, or that they were guided by advice from anyone associated with conservation groups or the Greens party.
wiz: the whole attraction of those areas is living amongst the trees. If you let all the residents on their bush blocks clear the kind of buffer zone they’d need to reduce the risk, the environmental and aesthetic impacts would be considerable.
Robert Merkel@53: “the whole attraction of those areas is living amongst the trees.”
Yes, but there is an inherent problem that the currently predominant native trees encourage fire, thrive on fire, and are full of oil with a flash point of 49oC, which turns them into bombs in hot weather.
A compromise that would have huge safety benefits would be to live amongst trees that are full of watery sap rather than volatile oils. If there are any natives that could be planted to provide treefulness, shade, radiant heat screening and fire retardation, then great. Otherwise, a few hundred metres of planted exotics as a buffer between houses and eucalypts would be good.
One of my Swedish mates tells me that the Scandivanians have a long tradition of encouraging birch in settlements while keeping pine and spruce out of them. This is exactly that principle.
Andyc: you’re back to a slightly smaller-scale version of the Huggybunny solution, which in the case of the Kinglake region would replace virtually every eucalypt present.
I find that completely unacceptable.
Trouble is – Marysville was renowned for its beautiful mature exotics.
RIP all those wonderful trees with their gorgeous autumn display.
It appears this fire was so hot it blasted through eucalypts and exotics alike.
Wizofaus and Robert: I would argue for targeted spending rather than a one off payment to most of the population. For instance, towns have lost their police station, their hospital, their library, their schools, their water storage facilities, their electrical substations and the list goes on and on. To rebuild all this would be a huge task unless there’s targeted money going into it.
I’m unhappy that the stimulus package debate was being framed as a one-off consumer payment vs. tax cuts with no discussion of other options (transport and education infrastructure as well as the above – and let’s not forget investment in alternative technologies!)
I still think it’s TOO SOON to be playing blame games. But as a Nillumbik resident I would like to inject some reality in the face of claims (heard on 774 as well as commercial media) that the council forces people to plant eucalypts right up to their houses. What rubbish. Perhaps it’s worth mentioning that the prosecuted tree removals which I remember seeing reproted in the local paper over the last year or so have related exclusively to developers pulling down 100+ year old trees in order to fit a couple more units onto their blocks. We removed two tallindigenous trees from our property in the past two years – one was dead and the other we just didn’t like – badly placed and growing in a way that interfered with our long term plans for the garden. We had to get & pay for permits but they were issued fine, with no demurs. The council charged us $100 for each permit and an arborist came to assess the tree each time.
I live in a suburban area with very few eucalypts, certainly not ‘bush’, most trees around here are exotics. But there is a vegetation overlay protecting the canopy and we are well aware of the council’s bushfire preparation programs. Have never, ever seen or received any material telling people they can’t clear vegetation that might be dangerous. BUT you DO have to do it with council permission, largely because of the developer issue described above.
Council advice about area vegetation controls: http://www.nillumbik.vic.gov.au/Page/Download.asp?name=Advice-sheet-12-native-vegetation-protection-and-removal.pdf&size=179381&link=../Files/Advice-sheet-12-native-vegetation-protection-and-removal.pdf
Helen: good point about Marysville.
Furthermore, as to your point about government spending in bushfire areas, you’re quite right of that is quite properly the role of government, and will require a targetted spend.
I was however picking up on wiz’s point about the amount of private money raised, and what’s to be done with it. I have some views on the matter, but I don’t think it’s quite the time to have that discussion.
Germaine Greer
How proud she must be to march alongside Miranda. What? She doesn’t live here?? Oh well, probably she just likes to be heard regularly, regardless of the occasion or the content of her spoutings.
Well the aesthetic aspects are up to the individual landowners surely…it’s not like suburbia where everyone is immediately impacted by the aesthetics of everybody else’s properties.
As for the environmental impacts – while I’m not going to dismiss them out of hand, it doesn’t seem to me that the amount of vegetation affected is that huge in the scheme of things, when we’re talking purely about what people do on their own land.
I’d also suggest it’s hard to imagine too many 100+ year old fires being chopped down because of fire risk – if they’ve survived through that many fires they’re probably the sort of trees you want to keep.
yes, exactly. Next time you hear somebody saying local government stops people removing trees look a bit deeper, at least find out what kinds of trees and how many were at issue, and consider also whether the tree removal was for fuel reduction or for making more ground availalbe for development purposes.
This thread has wandered off the original topic, which is kinda OK but Robert has a new general thread up so it might be better to shift the discussion there unless it’s about the confected anger of the opposition over Rudd’s said linking with the stimulus package and how the media has treated same.
Thanks.
I managed to post that comment on the new thread instead of this one, so apologies if there was some confusion for a couple of minutes.
“But as a Nillumbik resident I would like to inject some reality in the face of claims (heard on 774 as well as commercial media) that the council forces people to plant eucalypts right up to their houses.”
Andrew McIntyre of The Institute of Public Affairs has been let loose on that ABC station to lead a charge against greenies and blaming them for the deaths of over two hundred. How they could let this lunatic insensitively run his blatantly political witch hunt, at this time, is beyond belief. It was enough to make my stomach turn.
Most people are still in grief and have not got the energy to counter this vile rubbish. Presumably that is what his type is relying on.
This is a version of the environmental management problem known as The Tyranny Of The Small Decision.
Thanks Joe2. That was the very guy. I didn’t catch his name. Brian, I don’t think improper policitisation of this disaster is confined to the stimulus package.
You’re welcome Laura and I hope you have not had any more sad news.
Not long after we rebuilt post the 1983 fires, four of our neighbours’ houses and our back doormat were burned as a result of DSE “controlled burns”. We came that close to losing two houses in five years.
I’d like Germaine Greer to identify the arsonists in that little anecdote.
Victorian Environment and Sustainability Minister Gavin Jennings is talking some sense and decency on the prescribed burning issue.
As for the McIntyres, Devines, Tuckeys and Nalliahs of this world, they give every impression of having been beside themselves with glee ever since the scale of the catastrophe became clear.
P.S. Posted this on the other thread by mistake, but it won’t be any the worse for repetition.
Laura @ 67 that’s cool. We now have three threads running. One has 270 plus comments, this one is over 70, and Rob’s new one has just started up.
I don’t like to put neat little fences around these threads, so I was searching for a less than directive phrase and came up with “it might be better..”
Please feel free to make up your own minds and I’ll put the moderation cue in the rack.
PS. I’m only here because it’s raining. Did you hear that? Rain!!!
I didn’t just hear it, Brian, I just got caught in it!
Joe2 bless you and thanks myriad, Ambi and other people who expressed sympathy on the other thread. I haven’t lost anyone close to me, so I’m really fine and have nothing but blessings to count, personally. It’s not easy but nothing compared to what people around here have had happen to them. So I am trying to harden up, follow the CFA volunteers’ examples, and get on with it, and not feel so shattered. Hardening up for me from now on however will go hand in hand with being as kind as possible and doing much much more with my community.
Way off topic sorry again Brian
No probs, Laura, truly!
Picking up from joe2 @ 65, part of my original beef was about how the MSN have uncritically swallowed pap or worse. Yesterday here on local radio Kelly Higgins-Devine was talking to her regular film critic who as it happened was on the ground doing some documentary filming right where the Governor-general was visiting.
He said she and Rudd were well received and their visits did make a difference, but some of the locals were getting mightily jack of the meeja. He said that he found it hard to get people to talk on camera until they realised he was really a good guy.
He talked of one TV channel who were filming children in one of the camps. The problem was that the kids were playing happily. So this clown called them to order and asked them to put on their sad and sorrowful faces so he could get the ‘correct’ message across to viewers. Wanker!
Oh Fark.
(the forum thread from which I got this also had a poster claiming government agents had set the fires to boost the GDP and create make-work or something…)
Get your tinfoil hats ready…
Laura @ 62 – <a href="http://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-feel-vindicated-20090212-85bd.html?page=-1This is one case if you haven’t seen it already. Council allows removal of trees within 6m and they removed them within 100m which cost them around $100k in fines and legal fees. Prior to the fires that perhaps would have seemed excessive, but their house is standing (if a bit singed) when many others aren’t.
I don’t have any personal experience with wanting tree removal for fire prevention purposes, but have found getting approval for gum tree removal for safety purposes is next to impossible. There have been two large branches which have dropped from a very large tree opposite of the house we are living in the last few years but the owners are unable to get permission to remove it. Both of the times they dropped without warning in calm weather and would have killed anyone underneath them. Talking to one of the electricity workers when they came to repair the power lines its a common problem and they know of people who have been killed or injured by trees council have refused permission to remove.
Chris, I’ve fixed that link. There was some weird stuff instead of the initial <.
“Both the major parties are pandering to the Greens for preferences and that is what is causing the problem. Common sense isn’t that common these days,” Mr Sheahan said.
Liam is channeling Wilson Tuckey.
or Wilson Tuckey is channeling…. mmmmm….
Personally, I sympathise fully with Mr Sheahan – within limits, if it’s his land, then he has every right to remove trees on it, especially if it’s for fire safety purposes. If removing the trees posed some specific ecological threat then I would accept the need for restrictions, but there’s no indication that this was the case.
But where does he get the idea that “Both the major parties are pandering to the Greens for preferences and that is what is causing the problem.”? Is there any evidence at all that any Greens representative has made a preferences deal based on restrictions on land clearing for fire safety purposes?
Brian @ 78 – Thanks! It looked fine in the preview so I don’t know what went wrong.
Joe2, my stomach has been turning too, especially after Barrie Cassidy blamed “the greens” for the bushfires on After the Firestorm: An ABC News Special
7:30pm on Friday, and also on 774 radio
A panel of people were assembled on location in Yea (I think).
Cassidy hosted proceedings. Various people were there including Police Commissioner Christine Nixon and Federal MP for Mcewan (Liberal) Fran Bailey, and quite a few local people.
Some harrowing tales from survivors and CFA folk.
About half way through, Barrie Cassidy said “and people are saying the greens have too much influence, what do you have to say Peter Attiwell?
Attiwell is ex Forestry faculty Melbourne Uni and has been employed by VAFI at various times. He is very much pro logging industry, pro native forest logging, forests need disturbance, logging is natural etc.
He said (wording may not be exact):
Fran Bailey was nodding wisely in the camera frame while this was being said. Some of the crowd were looked teary too.
No contrary opinions on this were aired or raised.
I know for a fact that a lot of the forest around Marysville has been fuel reduction burnt by DSE over the last 10 years. This of course made no difference to the ferocity of the fire.
And of course much of the fire was on grassland, farmland, plantations and heavily “managed” and logged native forest.
I have complained to the ABC about Cassidy’s disgusting conduct and bias, apparently he is a greens hater of some renown.
Miranda Devine is still lying about conservationists.
Actually, it is not a lie. She’s getting closer to the truth.
You clearly didn’t read the article linked to, FF. I did. Trust me, she’s lying. Again.