The UNITED TASMANIA GROUP STORY - Policy Compilation 1972-2020

THE UNITED TASMANIA GROUP Policy compilation STORY The UTG Journal Issue No. 6 Special 50th year edition UNITED TASMANIA GROUP The original Greens THE UNITED TASMANIA GROUP STORY— policy compilation The UTG Journal Issue No. 6— special 50th year edition March 2021, ISSN 2208-9500 © United Tasmania Group CONTENTS Editorial Page Celebrating UTG’s 50th Year 2 Section 1 The UTG Story 5 Section 2 Tribute to Dick Jones and Family 9 Section 3 A New Ethic and Hugh Dell 11 Section 4 Ecocentrism 14 Section 5 Dr Richard (Dick) Jones’ three Policy Speeches 20 Section 6 A Future for Our Children in an Environment Fit for People 41 Section 7 Brief early policies from the five UTG Extras 51 Section 8 Economic policies 85 Section 9 Conservation & other policies 94 Section 10 Some lessons from UTG 121 Appendix 1 UTG state-level position holders 124 Appendix 2 UTG branches & convenors 125 Appendix 3 UTG is signatory to the following international conventions 126 Appendix 4 UTG candidates (45) over ten elections, 1972–77 127 Section 9 128 Poem For Brenda Hean by Clive Sansom 130 Editor: Geoff Holloway Contact: <[email protected]> Endnotes Advisor: Cover and Book Design: Cover image: Printer: Acknowledgements: Pete Hay (content structure) Christopher (Chris) Cowles Chris Rathbone Monotone Art Printers, Hobart (who printed the early UTG Extras) With special thanks to the following people (in alphabetical order), without their financial contributions this publication would not have been possible: Jock Barclay, Lyn Barclay, Chris Cowles, Pete Hay, Brian Head, Patsy Jones, Kevin Kiernan, John Latham and Anne McConnell. Thanks also go to all the people who provided original UTG publications, newsletters, UTG Extras and policy documents. EDITORIAL Editorial: Celebrating UTG’s 50th year This document is principally a compilation of the United Tasmania Group’s (UTG) policies over the years 1972–2020 as part of the celebration of the 50th year of the world’s first ‘Green’ party (the term ‘Green’ had not been invented back then and, when it was it became a term of abuse, especially in Tasmania). The policies are reproduced here with historical accuracy, i.e., no content editing and no grammar corrections. Most of the content of this compilation comes directly from original documents and pre-published material – this was intentional so that it is historically accurate. All statements in this publication can be substantiated by reference to print copies of the original documents. This compilation is about policies, not individuals or the 335 original members of UTG (as at the end of 1977), with the exception of Dr. Richard (Dick) Jones, as founding President of UTG and Hugh Dell, author of A New Ethic. However, individuals are mentioned by name in the following appendices: Speaking from San Francisco, David Brower, who founded international FOE in 1969 and was Chairman at that time of his visit to Tasmania, said, “I am pleased to support the United Tasmania Group in their efforts to halt the nuclear threat to mankind. The United Tasmania Group … symbolises what needs to be created in all organisations and political parties with prime concern for the future of mankind along principles that are environmentally sound.” (1) all state-level office bearers as far as can be determined and policy committee members (apologies if anyone has been inadvertently left out, but keeping records was not a strong point of a certain State Secretary); (2) UTG branches and convenors; (3) international conventions and declarations to which UTG is a signatory or supporter; (4) all candidates who stood as UTG candidates (45) in the ten elections that UTG contested from 1972–1977 (think about that for a moment, an average of a new campaign every six months). UTG was somewhat unique in its comprehensive development of policies and the compilation here has something for all political parties to consider. As The Examiner wrote in an Editorial on 16 May 1974, “So I’m pleased to support the United Tasmania Group and hope we can do as well over here – some of us are trying to start an Equity Party, following the lead of the United Tasmania Group.” “The United Tasmania Group understands that immutable law of nature: there’ll be no politicians and no votes on a dead planet; and old dead political habits are destroying the life systems that people depend on. The United Tasmania Group exists to end those habits.” “The most destructive habit the major powers have got into is nuclear proliferation of weapons and reactors. This threatens all living things and there is little time to break the nuclear habit.” From Pam Walker, author of the only Tasmanian thesis (1986) ever written about UTG as the world’s first Green party – When the United Tasmania Group (UTG) contested the state elections in 1972 it was the first political party based on an environmental platform to contest an election within the parliamentary system in the world. The catalyst for the formation of UTG was the proposed flooding of Lake Pedder. The Lake Pedder Action Committee (LPAC) had formed in 1971 to lobby government, industry and the Hydro-Electric Commission (HEC) against flooding Lake Pedder. It failed – and as the lake was being drowned in early 1972 LPAC members decided political action was their only recourse. Dr Jones’ little party has produced more teasing, relevant ideas for Tasmanians than all the other policy-writers put together. Instead of dealing with the general, Dr Jones concerned himself with the particular: the compact, beautiful and still relatively unspoiled environment in which Tasmanians have the luck to live. But if his were a national party he could validly have proceeded to the general because all that is pertinent to good life in this microcosm of Australia is pertinent equally to the whole. (The Editorial is reproduced in full at the end of this section – written by the editor of The Examiner at that time, Mike Courtney) Despite the political inexperience of its members, with Dick Jones as an inspirational leader the UTG developed an extensive range of policies. These policies went far beyond environmental issues, but were all based on a philosophy of ecological concern and humanitarian principles. In 1976 the Launceston newspaper, The Examiner, conceded that the UTG had provided more new and relevant policies for Tasmania than the two major parties put together. In a news release on 19 June 1975 the UTG made public the support by Friends of the Earth (FOE). David Brower was a guest of UTG 29–31 July 1974. The UTG had to work hard to convince the public that it was not a single-issue party, and that they offered a viable alternative to the so-called “Laborials”. With the 2 EDITORIAL exception of The Examiner, the media berated the UTG. Yet since then many of the UTG’s ideas have been adopted and enacted by the major parties. The Tasmanian Development Authority was one such idea. It is sometimes said that the Tasmanian Greens evolved out of UTG. However, that is not entirely accurate, if not misleading, for three main reasons. First, I was recently given a copy of letterboxing lists of the Green Independents (1989), who went on to become the Tasmanian Greens (1992). On going through these lists I found only two people who had been members of UTG – it appears that UTG members rarely moved across to the Greens, at least as far as letter-boxing was concerned. The second reason is that UTG’s philosophy is based on ecocentrism. By contrast, the Greens are anthropocentric and, because of their focus on identity politics, could be described more accurately as being egocentric. As Sandy Irvine points out, identitarianism (or identity politics) is a child of Postmodernism; it is the opposite to ecocentrism and is in stark contrast from what, in essence, is the individualistic — egocentric — approach of the former. Identitarianism starts from individuals, their personal feelings and perceptions, and works outwards; Ecocentrism starts from the Earth, the only home of everyone, and works inwards.1 The third, much more important reason is that UTG’s policies are very different from those of the Greens. The principal differences occur across all policies, including the following (in alphabetical order): •฀ Child฀ protection฀ –฀ UTG฀ advocates฀ for฀ prevention฀ strategies, this also applies to the youth justice system ( Justice Reinvestment) •฀ Conservation฀–฀Lake฀Pedder฀and฀national฀parks฀generally •฀ Ecocentrism฀ –฀ UTG฀ has฀ a฀ basically฀ ecocentric฀ philosophy (as demonstrated in A New Ethic, which is neither anthropocentric nor ‘eco-modernist’) •฀ Economics฀–฀UTG฀has฀always฀supported฀steady-state฀ economics •฀ Energy฀ –฀ UTG฀ has฀ always฀ advocated฀ design-based฀ strategies including energy conservation, energy accounting and decentralisation of energy generation •฀ Gender฀dysphoria฀&฀transgendering฀of฀children฀and฀ adolescents – UTG has been campaigning for some time for a national inquiry or Royal Commission •฀ Prostitution฀–฀UTG฀advocates฀the฀implementation฀of ฀ the Nordic model, not the liberalisation of prostitu1 Sandy Irvine, Identitarianism An Unsustainable Case of Sectionalist Politics, 2020. This obsession with identity politics within the Greens has also been identified฀by฀Patrick฀Curry,฀The Poverty of Identity Politics, https://blog. ecologicalcitizen.net/2020/10/01/the-poverty-of-identity-politics/ •฀ •฀ •฀ •฀ tion. The Greens support prostitution. Population฀–฀UTG฀has฀always฀supported฀Zero฀Population฀Growth฀(ZPG) Tourism฀–฀UTG฀has฀always฀maintained฀that฀tourist฀ facilities should be outside national parks and reserves and has always opposed privatisation within; also, UTG is very critical of the misuse of the term ‘ecotourism’ Wilderness฀&฀national฀parks฀–฀UTG฀was฀the฀first฀organisation to advocate for the extensions to the South West national park, based on ecological boundaries, to what is now known as the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (UTG State Conference 1976). Women’s฀ and฀ girls’฀ human฀ rights฀ –฀ UTG฀ supports฀ gender-critical feminism and is a signatory to the Women’s Sex-based Human Rights Declaration. However, there is another fundamental difference – UTG has a foundational document called A New Ethic. A New Ethic is sometimes erroneously described as a manifesto whereas, in actual fact, it was a set of ethical principles, something much lacking in today’s politics. If anything were to be described as a manifesto it would be Dick Jones’ policy speeches and his statement A Future for Our Children in an Environment Fit for People. Extensive details about UTG, the social and political context, and all UTG’s policies appear in the following sections. Sections 3 to 9 are complete, un-edited copies of the original documents. Sections 8 and 9 have been compiled from various UTG original sources. note: there is no analysis of this material – but that may happen in a future issue of the UTG Journal looking at, for example, changes in UTG policies over time or the impact of these policies. Socio-political context of the 1970s It is interesting to consider the public attitudes to environmental issues at that time (1975), although little may have changed since then. The following excerpts have been taken from the Federal Department of Environment survey, 30 April 1975 (Spectrum Research): 1. 12% of people surveyed had been active in a group. 2. 40% said they wanted to be active at some time or other. 3. “Concern only spills over to activity when some issue strikes an emotional chord with people.” 4. “Most people … are concerned only with the environment in their own ‘backyard’.” 5. People do not want to face up to the “vaguely perceived realities of national and global environmental problems,” because the don’t directly affect them and are too big anyway. 6. “The most dissatisfied group is 19 – 30 year olds.” 3 EDITORIAL Public lack of confidence 1. “There is a pervasive lack of confidence on the part of the average Australian in his or her ability to do anything to control or protect the environment, even though they clearly see that the environment belongs to everyone.” 2. Those who wanted to protest about an issue: •฀ 40%฀did฀not฀know฀what฀to฀do; •฀ 33%฀did฀not฀do฀so฀because฀they฀felt฀it฀would฀be฀ ineffectual; •฀ 20%฀were฀too฀apathetic. 3. “Australians are, in fact, still extremely reluctant to join environmental or any other sort of protest or activist groups for fear of being thought a troublemaker, unconventional, “ratbag” or just queer.” 4. “Australians do not generally like people who are too out of the ordinary or non-conformist and, up until recently, environmental activists have been almost universally seen as quaint, weird, idiots, ratbags or whingers.” Environmental responsibility 1. “There is possibly a considerable element of psychic denial of problems which deep down threaten some marginally aware people a great deal. It is simply too difficult for a man who is conditioned to believe he is successful if he has two cars to face the fact that he, and thousands like him, are steadily ruining the quality of life by the contribution they make to air pollution.” 2. “Australians do not, and cannot, associate the local, city or national problems they may perceive as being part of a global ecology crisis. They do not yet see the need for a re-assessment of our socio-economic priorities as the first step in saving and restoring the environment.” 3. “Currently Australians do not have an environmental focal point. It should be recognised that people identify with a person’s ideas more than they do with the ideas in abstract form.” 4. “Public knowledge of what makes the environment tick, how pollution is caused and why it happens is very limited … and most people cannot connect the effect of their own lifestyle with the environment in any way.” 5. Most people believe things are getting worse. 6. “Most people care about the environment; the crunch comes when it is a matter of doing something about it. The important factors here are a lack of politicisation, a lack of knowledge of what can be done, and a lack of self-confidence to effect any change as an individual.” 4 7. “It is a very human trait to opt out of a situation where it is easy to express concern but time and effort-consuming to actually do anything about it.” 8. “People opt for improving the quality of life, even if it means dropping the standard of living” (53%) and “limit economic development in order to save the environment from further damage” (38%). It฀is฀difficult฀to฀assess฀to฀what฀extent฀attitudinal฀changes have occurred since this 1975 survey, as exactly the same questions would be needed for comparability. However, recent Australian research shows that there is much more passive participation today (such as signing petitions) than 50 years ago. In the 1970s every UTG member was an activist; in relative terms, in 2020, fewer people participate actively, as distinct from passively, in conservation or ‘Green’ politics. There are a variety of reasons for this – which is partially covered in the concluding section of this journal. THE UTG STORY Section 1 Section 1 The UTG Story The formation of UTG, which was on 23 March 1972 at a public meeting of 800 people in the Hobart Town Hall, is often described as a manifestation of the campaign to save Lake Pedder but its genesis goes much further. UTG was formed out of this meeting of 800 people in the Hobart Town Hall. Tasmanian history is replete with conservation campaigns, going at least as far back as the national park campaigns of a hundred years ago. The key difference this time was that, by forming the UTG, people were directly challenging the political establishment, particularly the cargocult mentality associated with hydro-industrialisation, and the corruption of democratic processes within Tasmania. Lake Pedder was reason enough to undertake such an enormous venture but it was much more than that – Lake Pedder was symbolic of broad discontent with a number of government policies, which were subsequently given voice by UTG in its letter-boxed newsletter, The UTG Extra. Lake Pedder was a precipitating factor and many of the associated issues were addressed at a public symposium in 1971 (written up in Damania, 1972, Ed. R. Jones). At this time the Hydro Electric Commission was regarded as the font of all wisdom and the real government of Tasmania. Consecutive Labor and Liberal Parties did not differ from this quasi-religious doctrine – to do so was regarded by the majority of the general public, the politicians and the press as tantamount to heresy. The Lake Pedder Action Committee (LPAC) not only created the Damania meeting and the subsequent Town Hall meeting but also provided the organisational infrastructure for the subsequent formation of UTG. The March 1972 Town Hall meeting also gave rise to the leader of UTG – Dr. Richard (Dick) Jones. If any single person could be attributed with the status of nurturing a whole movement, then Dick Jones deserves this accolade. Dick not only lead the first major national conservation battle in Australia but also brought about the political consciousness of a mass of people concerned not only with the environmental destruction of Tasmania but also brought to our attention the flouting of democratic principles by the perpetrators of this destruction. Dick not only concerned himself with the short-term battles (of which there were many) but also the longterm vision of how to prevent the re-occurrence of these problems. Through his leadership UTG challenged the establishment in Tasmania head-on through democratic elections. Although we did not realise it at the time, UTG was the first conservation-based political party in the world. Although UTG narrowly missed out in winning any seats in the Tasmanian state elections in 1972, it went on to contest nine more state and federal elections over the next five years. During this period UTG articulated Dick’s vision in specific programs and policies, which lead The Examiner to declare before one election that the UTG had more comprehensive policies than the other two major parties combined. It is sometime mistakenly suggested that UTG went downhill following the lack of electoral success in the 1972 State Elections. Nothing could be further from the truth. By the end of 1976 UTG had expanded with up to 17 branches across Tasmania, branches that usually met once a month, and reinvigorated the party with each successive election campaign (on average there was a new election campaign every six months). Also, UTG’s membership increased by 67% from 1974 to 1977. The last UTG election campaign was conducted in 1997 with Chris Rathbone as the candidate for the Legislative Council, winning a very respectable 6.1%. One of the key factors in UTG´s continuance, particularly today, is the need for an over-arching set of principles: A New Ethic, which was written by a unique political visionary - Hugh Dell. Why has the UTG reformed? (from UTG Journal No. 1, January 2018) The founder of UTG, Dr. Richard (Dick) Jones, and the author of A New Ethic (and UTG´s Constitution) Hugh Dell were concerned first and foremost about bringing ethical principles, honesty and sincerity to political processes and governments. Since the founding of UTG nearly 50 years ago such ethics and principles have declined, and the economic, social and political corruption we see in today´s politics is simply a continuance of what has been occurring unabated for decades in Tasmania. UTG has one central objective – bring ethics back into politics, across all political parties. The UTG was originally formed on 23rd March 1972, and contested 10 elections (state and federal) between then and 1977. [While a number of people contested the 1990 Federal Elections under the UTG name, this was basically a case of opportunistic use of a registered name.] The UTG was officially re-formed on 2nd April 2016, largely as a result of widespread and deep disillusionment with the the state of Tasmanian politics, and particularly 5 Section 1 THE UTG STORY the performance of the parliamentary representatives of the Tasmanian Greens who have drifted far from the spirit of the UTG’s New Ethic which many had hoped they would maintain. UTG argues that the present political parties: 1) do not have a set of ethical principles, such as those outlined in A New Ethic—in fact it is hard to determine what principles their leadership actually follows apart from media expediency, that is, focusing on getting media grabs; 2) do not follow democratic principles, having disdain for their membership, such that their parliamentary wings too readily cast aside formulated policies. Consequently, the public utterances of their parliamentary representatives are a) focused on power (or influence) for its own sake, rather than reflecting any underlying principles (such as outlined in the UTG A New Ethic); and b) very short-term in their thinking, with policies that lack depth and strategic thinking; c) perceive politics as if it is nothing more than a sporting contest, which they seek to win, rather than working in the public interest; and d) as part of their “sporting contest” approach, abrogate their responsibilities to govern for all, partly because that would sometimes necessitate supporting worthwhile policies that are also pursued by rival parties to whom they wish to concede no quarter. The major parties are particularly disengaged from environmental issues, despite the aspirations of many within even their own membership, partly because this would be seen as conceding ground to the Greens. Meanwhile, not even the Greens seem to retain any concept of the meaning of the word ‘wilderness’, and have been complicit in commercialising and thereby undermining national park and wilderness areas in Tasmania; and nor do they have any sustainable tourism policy, which is one of Tasmania’s major, immediate and ongoing issues. So what will UTG do about it? At the general meeting held in September 2017 UTG resolved that: 1) UTG would not contest the next state elections in Tasmania but, instead, will challenge all political candidates and parties to adhere to the set of ethical principles outlined in A New Ethic (which was updated and re-released in 2017). 2) UTG should try to address the ‘10% barrier’ problem (which affects Green parties across the world – 10% is an arbitrary figure but 8–13% has been the usual national result across the world, despite Green parties having been around for up to 45 years; actually, this 6 % has been declining around the world over recent years). The Australian Greens have been on the 10% barrier for years and the Tasmania Greens about the same overall as well (while being above that figure in a few, atypical electorates). 3) While UTG will not be re-registering as a political party at this stage it will support independent candidates who subscribe, adhere to and agree to promote A New Ethic. [Any candidate will have to demonstrate and sign a statutory declaration to such an effect and there will be a meeting of UTG members before agreeing to such endorsement.] 4) UTG will conduct a survey of all candidates in order to develop a ‘scorecard’ of adherence or otherwise to A New Ethic. 5) UTG will keep open the option of supporting candidates from other political parties who demonstrate adherence to A New Ethic, while acknowledging the impediments that candidates face when they are members of a political party. Does UTG ALIGN WITH THE LEFT OR WITH THE RIGHT? (From UTG Newsletter No. 7, June 1974) Dr Cass has just released the full report of the Australian Government’s Committee of Inquiry into Lake Pedder. This is a timely reminder for members of the UTG that Lake Pedder was the catalyst that brought us together. Our struggle to preserve Lake Pedder pushed us into the political arena. Our values were so threatened that we were forced to seek political power. Along the way, we rapidly gained knowledge about society and the condition of the community, which had become hung up on material well-being. Now we know that we are living in a period of imminent breakdown—social, economic, political, psychological and spiritual. The recent elections prove that neither Left (Labor) nor Right (Liberal) are appropriate to this situation. The electorate was not completely fooled —the results show that “the electorate” appreciates there is something to be learned from both Left and Right. We believe in reconstruction; the radical regeneration of our dying society. We do not believe in a future Heavenon-Earth (the aim of the Left) nor do we pine for a lost Golden Age (the nostalgia of the Right). It is futile to reproduce the conditions of another historical period, but we can incorporate certain vital elements of the past in our present ways of thinking, feeling and acting. None of the Old Days were good enough. The study of history shows not a single just society, in any place at any time; but individual injustices have been successfully THE UTG STORY fought, and more vigorously today than ever before. We belong to this tradition. History shows that all human plans, even the wisest and best, produce unpredictable side-effects. The dogmatic Utopias of the socialists are therefore doomed to failure. History teaches us to experiment; and we must begin at once. Present facts assure us that these experiments must be drastic as well as deeply considered. The traditional fault of the Left has been to believe that everything always gets better; the traditional fault of the Right has been to believe that everything always gets worse. The “tough” left-wing posture leads to a dehumanising progressivism, a modernist arrogance. It leads to contempt for the past; man’s origins and personality are subordinated in favour of the planned society. The “tough” right-wing posture leads to a hatred of every hopeful element in the present for fear that it will upset the conservative’s psychological and material comfort. Where does UTG Stand? The caricature of the Left-wing man is of an arrogant and in-humane social planner who welds his statistical “facts: and his arbitrary theories into a monstrosity of social over-organisation, in which the individual human being becomes no better than a unit of population. Nothing is left to chance; very little is left to choice. The caricature of the Right-wing man is of the crusty tycoon who opposes all social reform in order to preserve and increase his wealth; who hates the young because they no longer “know how to behave” and hates the Lower Orders (‘Niggers’ and ‘Foreigners’) because they no longer “know their place”. We do not believe that modern society is especially good or especially bad. We do not believe that our own time is the best time ever, but it is our own, and we owe it our prime duty and affection. The major virtue of our time is compassion and a hunger for greater justice between all men and all races. The major vice of our time is greed; a greed supported by a blind confidence that it can go on being indulged forever. The unique social phenomena of our time are contrasted by the rapidity and acceleration of environmental change in the advanced countries (increasing the gulf between the rich and the poor and therefore posing an immediate threat to the whole world by economic, social and psychological breakdown) with the period’s unmatched capacity for self-examination and its technical ability to make sharp and sudden changes of direction. We believe, with the Left, that rapid change is inevitable and that it can be a change for the good. We believe, with the Right, that a great deal of recent change has Section 1 been for the worse and that, if the world is to be saved from galloping self-destruction, we need to recover certain lost wisdoms of the past. We are not so idiotic as to sneer at science, nor do we despise or seek to discredit religion or the arts. We know there has to be a retreat from an economy of indiscriminate growth, but this will be accomplished by many new feats of technology rather than by reverting to prescriptions concocted by some romantic medievalist. The same sort of reconciliation is possible in regard to the accelerated increase in the centralisation of economic power in Canberra. This is a process that cannot be abruptly reversed. Nor can it continue in its present form and direction without dehumanisation and disaster. A central government is necessary to deal with the great central problem of economic resources and their just distribution. But man is naturally at home only in a small and largely self-governing community. Within the framework of central economic allocation, each small community must have the greatest possible freedom to decide how it wishes to live and administer itself. Some of us may still believe that the profit-motive is morally just as a method of social propulsion. Even so, we all believe that this method of social propulsion is economically disastrous. Yet that does not commit us to being an out-and-out socialist; we believe that personal possessions – at least up to a level of a house and garden – are needed by most people if they are to lead satisfied and fully human lives. And we know that the abolition of the profit-motive in the self-styled socialist countries has had very little effect in the way of radical reconstruction. Just as we reject polarisation to Left or Right, we see no need to set the young against the old. The more active members of the younger generation certainly deserve to be respected for their determination to experiment and for their profound dissatisfaction with all existing societies. But so do the middle-aged and the elderly deserve to be respected for the understanding they have acquired of the values inherent in stability and continuity. They are perfectly right to fear and hate the present fever for change as an end in itself. The young are right to want to change society radically. The old are right to believe that many of these changes should take the form of restoration rather than further innovation. But there is one vital respect in which the United Tasmania Group cannot balance the virtues and the enlightenments of Left and Right. We see the need for equality in terms that place us to the left of almost the whole existing Left. Even if we do not believe this by nature and on principle, we have been forced to adopt this 7 Section 1 THE UTG STORY position by the sheer dangers and demands of the present economic situation. The imminent economic breakdown demands that we should aim at a genuine equality of living standards, at least within our own Australian community to start with. It is not enough to advocate a proportionate equality of sacrifice; for the rich man to give up two of his three cars while the poor man gives up two of his three electric heaters. In the face of universal and drastic shortages, men must learn to share the available resources with absolute justice between them. There will be gross abuses, a black market and persistent and evident injustice. But the only conceivable alternative to a determined policy of radical equality is a totalitarian rule by the wealthy. We can safely predict that its life would be nasty, brutish and short. A radical social revolution is an urgent necessity. But we must take care lest this prove psychologically intolerable. The only way we have of insuring against such an event is by treasuring and honouring the past within the reconstruction. A living tradition prohibits not only fossilisation but also reckless innovation and thoughtless surrender to the inevitability of “progress”. The real problem of our time is concerned with urban life and how to make it tolerable. We Tasmanians may not be fully aware of the overwhelming nature of this problem. 8 But, with 80% of Australians living in cities, we fringe dwellers are the ones who will have to absorb much of the early flight from the cities. Every speculation about alternative societies therefore deserves encouragement. Every experiment in new – or old – ways of living deserves sympathetic examination. The rural communes which are springing up all over Australia – and Tasmania – are signs of life and hope; perhaps they may turn out to be pilot schemes which will teach us by their failures and their successes, how we can better accommodate ourselves to the coming “crunch”. But, above all, we have to make our governments take drastic action to preserve and regenerate our small-scale communities. Our task, over the next two years, is to produce policies for this purpose. We must seek political power to ensure their implementation. The squabbles of Left and Right are irrelevant to the need for reconstruction. We must not become diverted from this task by the seemingly pressing arguments of big political parties. The United Tasmania Group can be the instrument for achieving the first worthwhile community reconstruction in the developed world. If we were successful, Australia would be close behind. Traditional politics has little place in the minds of those who would reach for such goals. TRIBUTE TO DICK JONES AND FAMILY Section 2 Tribute to Dick Jones and Family The following is a revised version of a tribute written by Simone Yemm. From little things, big things grow. When Dr Richard Jones (Dick) took up a position as Senior Lecturer in Botany at the University of Tasmania in 1970, he had no idea he was about to become a key player in the development of a world wide greens movement. And when he and his heavily pregnant wife Patsy moved into their new home in Sandy Bay with their three year old daughter Kirsten, they had no inkling their home would become a hub of activity for the development of the world’s first green party. Dick first visited Tasmania in the 1960s and had fallen in love with the apple isle. He had a deep and abundant love of the wilderness and bushwalking, and a passion for trekking through the snow in the Florentine with university colleagues. Dick had developed an ecological outlook and a host of web-of-life ideas and became one of the first people to consider himself an ecologist. This ecological outlook would one day assist in the formulation of the philosophical charter of political ethics called A New Ethic, which was written by Hugh Dell. When Dick’s neighbours and colleagues discussed the proposed flooding of Lake Pedder, a pristine national park area, despite never having visited the area, he joined with a core group of supporters and became the founding chairman of the Lake Pedder Action Committee (LPAC). In March 1972, it became evident to Dick that the committee was not going to be able to stop the flooding of Lake Pedder unless they became more politically oriented and less community based. On 23 March 1972 during a public meeting of the LPAC at the Hobart Town Hall, the United Tasmania Group (UTG) was formed with the express purpose of fielding candidates for the imminent state election. Politicised from an early age, and a former Deniliquin (NSW) councillor, Dick stood as one of the 12 candidates. As a Mother’s Day gift to Patsy, on Sunday 14 May 1972, Dick organised for Bob Walker to fly the entire family to Lake Pedder. It was Patsy’s first trip to the lake. Dick had first visited on a previous occasion, but when that was and who he went with has long been forgotten. As Dick started campaigning for election, Patsy’s home became a bustling centre for the brief but frantic campaign. The UTG hired a campaign office in Hobart city for a short period of time, but despite receiving 3.9 per cent of the statewide vote, no candidates were elected but Ron Brown came within a couple of hundred votes of being elected. The Jones’ classic white weatherboard Sandy Bay home then became the informal office of the UTG. The garage and shed on the large suburban block became storage and office areas, with the family erecting a roof between the two buildings to become a replacement carport. A former outhouse became an unofficial storage room, eventually housing a large UTG printing machine. To this day, the family home houses the remnants of the party’s possessions – from old receipt books to a large UTG banner and even a dusty old bottle of fundraising wine. Dick and Patsy decided in 1976 to extend their home to create a little more space for their family. With Dick creating political history in the family room, and Patsy whipping up culinary wonders for the movement in the kitchen, they needed more open plan living spaces for the family to interact better together. Increased living space for the family brought the added benefit of increased social opportunities for the UTG. Over the years the UTG contested ten state and federal elections. Dick and his family were present and integral at every election. The two Jones children, Kirsten and Cam, were born and raised in the United Tasmania Group. Some of Kirsten’s earliest memories are of having fun at protests and rallies, chanting and walking through the streets, holding placards and shouting slogans. The flipside to all the fun of chanting at rallies was a large amount of hostility directed at the family. The children could feel the backlash as some vocal members of the community felt the UTG’s public campaign was attempting to put everyone out of work. The children were also present for the fundraising activities that were a key feature of the UTG. Dick is still remembered as a lover of gourmet foods and fine wine, so it seems only fitting one of the UTG fundraising activities involved bottling wine. The committee would purchase barrels of wine from interstate and have them shipped to the family home. There, the children’s paddling pool was filled with cold water and sterilised with sodium bisulphite. Committee members would turn up with their kids in tow and old wine bottles under their arms. Adults and children then dutifully scrubbed the wine bottles in the paddling pool. Once sterilised, the barrels of wine would be bottled, labels stuck on, and the fundraising began. Leftover wine 9 Section 2 TRIBUTE TO DICK JONES AND FAMILY was tasted and enjoyed for the afternoon and bottles were distributed to family and friends for a nominal cost. Patsy recalls the wine was not of the highest quality and had to be drunk fairly quickly. The wine barrelling turned into wine parties, and fun was had by young and old alike. The UTG also ran film and theatre evenings as fundraising activities. Patsy would make a block booking at the Theatre Royal, State Cinema or similar venue. The Theatre Royal allowed groups to use the upstairs foyer area for a supper after the event, so Patsy and Sylvia would provide ample quantities of wine and cheese for patrons to enjoy. In March 1974 the group saw David Williamson’s The Removalists at the Theatre Royal for $4:00 per head – including a wine and cheese supper. Old committee minutes show a total of $35 was raised on the evening with left over cheese distributed to the committee. These funds were used for the ongoing UTG campaigns. By 1974, the party had developed enough to have Geoff Holloway as full-time State Secretary. Geoff ’s office was in the shed at the back of the Jones’ residence, where Kirsten and Cam could regularly pop in to hassle him. This office had just the bare requirements for activism: a table, chair, typewriter and telephone. The ad hoc committee meetings of the LPAC were replaced with regular, intense meetings of the UTG. Dick was well and truly the public face of the party and life was busy and hectic. While wondering when some quiet family time might take place, Patsy was told by Dick, “If you want to see more of me, come and get busy yourself!” And so she did. In 1976 Cam started his first year of full time school and Dick decided Patsy should stand for the upcoming Legislative Council elections. After weeks of intense doorknocking, the election was held and the votes were counted. “I topped the poll at Fern Tree,” recalls Patsy. “I was horrified! Then they counted Campbell St and I only had two votes.” Clearly Patsy’s political career was not yet ready to take off. Decades later, when the children had grown up and left home, Patsy became the first Greens alderman for the Hobart City Council.2 Patsy’s hard work and dedication to the Green cause over her three year term has led to an unprecedented three Greens aldermen, including Deputy Mayor, at the Hobart City Council. But back in the 70s, UTG meetings were generally planned as all day events on a weekend, to allow members to come from all over the state. Sometimes 2 Patsy฀may฀have฀been฀the฀first฀Green฀city฀councillor฀ever฀elected฀ in Australia. 10 the meetings were held in different parts of the state, but a large percentage was held in Patsy’s dining room. Patsy would hurry to get the children’s music practice finished before the members arrived. Patsy and Sylvia would bring endless pots of tea and coffee and then feed everybody. Scones were made, platters of sandwiches laid out, countless chicken drumsticks and platters prepared. For the children, life at home was always busy, like a big gathering of old friends with lots of food and activity on offer all the time. In many ways, this was a reflection of the ideals that Dick and his colleagues had developed when writing the UTG’s charter, A New Ethic. The philosophy espoused living in an environmentally sustainable manner and eventually became the basis of the whole party’s policy platform. The UTG prided itself on not being a single issue party. While the Lake Pedder saga had been the instigation for the formation of the group, they had developed policies in many areas. They were also one of the earliest parties to ensure that women were equally represented. In each of their ten election campaigns the party endeavoured to have as many female candidates as possible. Dick’s daughter Kirsten and husband Paul are now living back at the white weatherboard home in Sandy Bay, raising their young family with many of the same ideals and much of the same passion her father once dedicated to the conservation movement. After living abroad for many years, Cam has returned to Hobart with his wife and young children. And Patsy is carrying on Dick’s legacy by remaining active on the committees of countless social and environmental causes. The little white shed that once housed the UTG’s state secretary is still out the back – now home to a podiatrist and his orthotic making equipment. The paddling pool has been replaced with a trampoline and the old carport now houses an old wooden boat. And the cooking ... There is still lots of fine wine and gourmet produce being produced in Patsy’s old kitchen. The legacy lives on. Section 3 A NEW ETHIC AND HUGH DELL Section 3 A New Ethic and Hugh Dell Hugh Dell: author of A New Ethic (from UTG Journal No. 2, February 2018) Hugh Dell was born in Launceston in 1936, where he became ‘very class conscious’ from an early age. But it was not until 1961, when he moved to Hobart to work for The Mercury newspaper as their political commentator that this consciousness really developed, especially as he became involved with the Labor Party at that time. When the ALP was defeated in 1969 he became Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition, Eric Reece. Soon after that he decided to go to university and study political science and administration, in both of which he excelled. The Labor Party returned to power in 1972. Meanwhile, Hugh’s political vision was beginning to develop, one based on ‘participatory democracy’ and with the objective of stopping the ‘secret favouring of small groups, business men to give them access to state resources (free)’. But it was the proposal to mine Precipitous Bluff that really made Hugh’s blood boil, as he says, ‘tipped him over the edge’. ‘These swine in the Labor Party were actually planning to mine it!’—so Hugh turned his attention to the conservation movement, which was in its infancy at that stage. He tried to get the Tasmanian Conservation Trust involved in the issue, ‘but no way would they get involved, they wanted to use the old-boy network as they always had done.’ Then, just before UTG was formed Hugh went and saw Dick Jones. Hugh said to Dick, ‘You are the answer to my dreams … ‘They (the Labor Party) would do any dirty deal to stay in power, and that has been the (main) characteristic of Tasmanian politics right from the beginning,’—and added that Tasmanian politics has not changed. Hugh went home one afternoon and wrote A New Ethic in just one session on various pieces of coloured paper—‘It was the culmination of what I had been thinking about for years’. Hugh gave Dick a copy of A New Ethic, and Dick got back to him some time later. Dick said, ‘We’re going to publish this for the State election’. ‘I was amazed!’ was Hugh’s response! Hugh explained a couple of aspects of A New Ethic. First, ‘A tyranny of rationality was put in deliberately … you mustn’t let clever (and corrupt) people take over society at the expense of everybody else’. Secondly, ‘The only way to get people to change is through educating them’—which is UTG’s main purpose, as declared in the last general meeting in September 2017. ‘But only some people are ready for enlightenment … (with) the capacity to think in abstract terms (and) not to see themselves as the centre of the universe’. Finally, ‘The most important problem for the world is over population—stripping the world of its assets and all the areas for wildlife and for nature (which) is being constantly restricted. We have to develop human consciousness … and develop the super ego’. 11 Section 3 A NEW ETHIC AND HUGH DELL A New Ethic (1972, slightly revised 2017) Introduction We, citizens of Tasmania and members of the United Tasmania Group, united in a global movement for survival, moved by the need for A New Ethic that unites humanity with Nature to prevent the collapse of life systems of the Earth, concerned for the integrity of the physical landscape, all living species and humanity and the value of cultural heritage, and rejecting any view of humans that gives them the right to exploit all of nature, declare the following: Social and environmental requirements for ethical and sustainable development 1. Reject all exclusive ideological and pragmatic views of society as partial and divisive; 2. condemn the misuse of power for individual or group prominence based on aggression against humanity and Nature; 3. shun the acquisition and display of individual wealth as an expression of greed for status or power; 4. acknowledge that Tasmania is uniquely favoured with natural resources, climate, form and beauty; 5. undertake to live our private and communal lives in such a way that we maintain Tasmania’s form and beauty not just for our enjoyment but the enjoyment of all future generations; 6. undertake to create aesthetic harmony between our human structures and the natural landscape where our individual and communal needs demand modification of the natural landscape; 7. undertake to regulate our individual and communal needs for resources, both living and non-living, while preventing the whole scale extraction of our non-replenishable resources for the satisfaction of profit; 8. undertake to husband and cherish Tasmania’s living resources so that we do minimum damage to the web of life of which we are a part, while preventing the extinction or serious depletion of any form of life by our individual, group or communal actions. And we shall 9. create new institutions so that all who wish may participate in making laws and decisions at all levels concerning the social, cultural, political and economic life of the community; 10. nurture a new community in which men and women of all cultures and capacities shall be valued for their personal skills, for the material and nonmaterial worth of these skills to groups and the whole community, for their service to the community, and for their achievements in all aspects of life; 11. prevent alienation of people in their social and work roles and functions while, making scientific, technical and vocational knowledge and practise free and open to all; 12 Section 3 Within a society where we A NEW ETHIC AND HUGH DELL 12. provide institutions for the peaceful and unimpeded evolution of the community and for the maintenance of justice and equal opportunity for all people; 13. change our society and culture to prevent a tyranny of rationality (or irrationality) at the expense of values, by which we may lose the unique adaptability of our species for meeting cultural and environmental changes. 14. live as equal members to maintain a community governed by rational, non-sectional and non-secular laws; 15. preserve specific areas of private and group life where private thought, speech and action is of group importance and does not interfere unreasonably with others; 16. vest our individual and communal rights in a parliament of representatives chosen by all to enforce our law for as long as that power is not used unfairly to advantage or disadvantage any individual or group in the community; and 17. encourage citizens from all sectors, all ages and backgrounds to participate in civil society and the political system, to create a society in which ethics, ecological practice, social justice, economy, state management and political practice are compatible with the long-term sustainability of this planet. 13 Section 4 ECOCENTRISM Section 4 Ecocentrism Ecocentrism is an all-encompassing concept that covers geo-diversity and biocentrism but extends the latter. Also, by definition, eco-centrism is the basis of calls for the Rights of Nature and is the fundamental basis of Deep Ecology (including Deep Green Resistance). Eco-centrism is the opposite of anthropocentrism. This creates a divide within the Green/environment/ conservation movement – but a largely unacknowledged divide (however, UTG has experienced many clashes with the anthropocentric section of this movement). As Kopnina et al point out (2018), anthropocentrism supports and is based on utilitarianism and human selfinterest. They also argue that there is no such thing as ‘good’ anthropocentrism or, for that matter, ‘legitimate’ and ‘illegitimate’ human interests. I have argued elsewhere about the limitations and consequences of utilitarian and bureaucratic attempts to redefine wilderness (Holloway 2018). Anthropocentrism is not just about capitalism and economic elites; it is about the ideology that privileges humans above the rest of nature (Kopnina et al, 2017). Also, often over-looked conveniently by leftie conservationists is the fact that ‘socialism’, however defined, is based on (over) exploitation of nature. The key ecocentric authors are Helen Kopnina and Haydn Washington (but there are many others), and the key journals are The Ecological Citizen (peer reviewed) and The Ecologist, which also has an email-based discussion group for ecocentrics. According to year 2000 World Values Survey, the majority of people across the world are concerned for nature first - 76% of respondents across 27 countries said that humanity should co-exist with nature, and only 19% said the humanity should ‘master’ nature (Leiserowitz et al 2005). However, breaking down this positive attitude reveals importance differences. For example, ecocentrism is at variance with sentientism, the belief that sentient animals have intrinsic value, or biocentrism, the belief that not just animals but plants also have intrinsic value. As Mikkelson (2019) points out, sentientism and biocentrism are both committed to moral individualism; whereas ecocentrism holds that “in addition to the well-being of its constituents parts … overall diversity and integrity within species or ecosystems” count as well. Ecocentrism is the only approach that is totally non-utilitarian or humanityfirst in its orientation. Ecocentrism includes maintaining geodiversity and biodiversity (see Washington, 2018, page 137). 14 The following definition of ecocentrism comes from Gray et al (2018) in The Ecological Citizen: Ecocentrism sees the ecosphere – comprising all Earth’s ecosystems, atmosphere, water and land – as the matrix which birthed (sic) all life and as life’s sole source of sustenance. It is a worldview that recognises intrinsic value in ecosystems and the biological and physical elements that they comprise, as well as in the ecological processes that spatially and temporally connect them. Ecocentrism thus contrasts sharply with anthropocentrism, the paradigm that currently dominates human activities, including responses to ecological crises such as the sixth mass extinction. There is a simple questionnaire in The Ecological Citizen, Vol. 1, No 2, page 131, if you would like to assess whether you are deep green or ecocentric. There is also a Deep Ecology eight-point platform in The Ecological Citizen, Vol. 2, No 2, 2019, page 182) which may be of interest. How does one arrive at an ecocentric perspective? Kopnina’s (2017) has discussed her personal experience of becoming ecocentric when growing up in Russia, Arizona and India. Her conclusion is that environmentalism is universal, not just Western – but also points out that a lot of activism is still anthropocentric and missing the point. This difference is sometimes characterised as ‘shallow’ versus ‘deep ecology’. All of this is based on Kopnina’s wilderness experiences and as she says, “For me, like many others, wilderness is a place of refuge, freedom and healing but also something else – something independent of me, but also far greater than me, something that may be part of me, or that I may be part of.” This is where anthropocentric, utilitarian, bureaucratically minded self-seekers in the politically institutionalised environment movement totally miss the point – more of that later. UTG – political experience: the birth of UTG on 23 March 1972 was based on the recognition that there was a fundamental clash of values in the State Government’s intention (actually, the Hydro Electric Commission was the real government in Tasmania back then, just as the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania (TICT) is becoming the real government in Tasmania today). The set of ethical and ecocentric principles underlying UTG is outlined in A New Ethic. ECOCENTRISM Ecocentrism finds intrinsic value in all of nature – that includes living and non-living parts of nature. Ecocentrism goes beyond biocentrism, which focuses on only living things, not ecological and geological aspects of nature. Scientism and perhaps biocentrism is represented in groups such as Animals Tasmania and its affiliate, the Animal Justice Party. Ecocentrism is an all-encompassing term in contradistinction with anthropocentrism, which is based on utilitarian, humancentred values. Anthropocentrism values non-human life forms through the lens of values for human wellbeing, interest and profits (Washington et al 2017). A few of the key players in the historical development of ecocentrism Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862; Civil Disobedience 1849 and Walden 1854) and John Muir (1838–1914; co-founder of the Sierra Club 1892) are arguably the founders of the wilderness conservation movement in the USA and staunch advocates of the intrinsic value of wilderness, which is the foundation of ecocentrism. Aldo Leopold (1887–1948) – who pointed out in A Sand County Almanac that ‘conservation’ in his day almost invariably focussed on economic interests (Bassham). Arne Naess (1912–2009) – distinguished between ‘shallow’ and ‘deep’ ecology. Shallow ecology is human-centred and resonates with the environment movement in Tasmania today. On the other hand, deep ecology is focussed on the inherent value of all things, including flora, fauna, ecosystems, rivers, mountains and landscapes. Rachel Carson (1907–1964; Silent Spring 1962), Paul R. Ehrlich (1932– ; The Population Bomb 1968), E.F. Schumacher (1911–1977; Small is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered 1973), and Christopher Stone (Should trees have standing? 1972). It was from Stone that UTG first drew its ecocentric set of values, as enunciated in A New Ethic (first published in 1972). Douglas Tompkins (1943–2015) and Kristine Tompkins (1950– ): The most notable, and practical, of deep ecologists in recent times have been Douglas and Kristina Tompkins who have created millions of acres of national parks and reserves by purchasing vast areas of land in Chile and Argentina then handing them back to the respective governments as national parks. In the world’s largest private donation of land in the world the Tompkins handed over more than a million acres of land to Chile on condition that the Chilean government contributes nearly nine million acres of federally owned land – which it did in 2018, representing an area about the size of Switzerland – as National Parks preserved for posterity (National Geographic 2018). The Tompkins also Section 4 donated vast areas in Argentina, including 163 thousand acres to Monte Leon National Park, 37 thousand acres to Perito Moreno National Park and 370 thousand acres of land in the Estuaries of Iberá, the second largest wetland on the planet. David Brower (1912–2000): first Executive Director of the Sierra Club, 1952–1969, which is left and founded the international organisation, Friends of the Earth, in 1969. He came to Tasmania in 1974 and said that he was very impressed with UTG who hosted him. Christopher D. Stone (1937– ), Should trees have standing? Towards legal rights for natural objects (1972): This was a seminal article that set the scene for what has recently become an explosion of interest in granting legal rights to non-human species and nature generally. Stone’s publication had a big impact on UTG and is the basis of UTG’s original adherence to ecocentrism. Since Stone’s seminal work Nature’s Rights have been expanding fast across the world, especially in recent times, but mainly to rivers and lakes. In 2008 Ecuador became the first country to enshrine nature’s rights in its constitution – but implementing these rights is another matter. In 2012 Bolivia also adopted nature’s rights in law, but again, fails to implement them when they clash with development. In 2010 Bolivia passed its own constitutional reform, including the Law of the Rights of Mother Earth but implementation of the principles has been distinctly lacking. Recent victories include Nature’s Rights for the Vilcabamba River in Ecuador, the Whanganui River in New฀Zealand,฀the฀Atrato฀River฀in฀Colombia฀(May฀2017),฀ and since then the entire Colombian Amazon (April 2018) and just recently for Lake Ohio, USA (March 2019). The Colombian Amazon is notable as it was initiated by a group of Colombian young people (Moloney, 2018). This is now being called “the next great rights-based movement” (Wilson and Lee, 2019). There are on-going campaigns in Mexico, Nigeria and Serbia (where 800 dams are planned!) and several other US communities. In Australia there is the Australia Earth Laws Alliance, which was established in 2012 (Director and co-founder is Dr. Michelle Maloney). Tasmania While Tasmania used to be at the forefront ecocentrism and Nature’s rights it has been going backwards over recent times. It could be argued that this is largely due to a ‘boys club’ (photo on UTG facebook site) that dominates the movement here. This ‘club’ has seen a shift to what Helen Kopnina and Haydn Washington refer to as ‘anthropocentric conservation’. As they point out, “it is anthropocentrism that hinders an ecologically sustainable 15 Section 4 ECOCENTRISM solution” to the key battleground for ecocentrism – protected ecosystems, ie, wilderness and national parks and reserves and their management (Kopnina et al, 2017). These anthropocentric conservationists “(who likely consider themselves traditional in their conservation orientation) argue avidly for protecting ‘ecosystem services’ (i.e. services to humanity) are decidedly (if implicitly) anthropocentric” (Washington, 2015). In the Tasmanian context these ‘services’ include bureaucratic management plans, which includes reducing wilderness to a category (as argued by Holloway 2018). The position held by anthropocentric conservationists is only going to get worse with 1,200 species of birds, mammals and amphibians about to be wiped out across the world (The Guardian, 2019). Democracy and ecocentrism Anthropocentric conservationists are very much tied to what Eckersley (2019) calls ‘environmental democracy’ which seeks to work within institutionalised, liberal democracy and has been a spectacular failure in addressing issues beyond local communities or states. ‘Ecological democracy’, on the other hand, offers a critique of these institutionalised politics and seeks to extend human rights to nature. This has given rise to some new organisations, such as Deep Green Resistance, which is developing a new form of radicalism. Environmental democracy, which began around the time of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and other such publications, has run its course and the result is an increasing number of failures in environmental campaigns (the most notable being climate change). Also, environmental democracy tends to focus on procedural rights and legal processes with less and less achievement in terms substantive environmental rights and environmental successes (Eckersley 2019, page 7) – again, this can be traced back to a failure to endorse ecocentrism. Another example of the limitations of environmental democracy is what I call the 10% barrier, which afflicts most Green parties across the world. This barrier is rarely crossed – despite nearly fifty years of Green parties. For this reason UTG is developing into a new form of political organisation – a network of autonomous but linked, non-hierarchical, community campaigns, rather than the oligarchical branch structure of the old parties and environment organisations (which includes the Greens). in everyday life by creating new and more ecologically responsible material practices in collective, embodied, and prefigurative ways. This is a marked shift in focus away from representative democracy ‘from above’ and towards more radical and participatory forms of democracy ‘from below’ through the creation of ‘publics’ and selforganising movements. How has the shift away from ecocentrism come about? Unfortunately, much of the energy of the ecocentrism of the 1970s seems to have dissipated in the smoke trails of hippy communities, Eastern mysticism and the romanticisation of indigenous peoples ‘Earth-wisdom’ – and that continues today in some parts of the Nature’s Rights movement. This is not to say that there is no Earth-wisdom within indigenous communities, just that I am not sure about various interpretations. Also, it is debatable as to whether indigenous perspectives are ecocentric, especially given survivability issues concerning some species (e.g. mutton birds). The starting point for many indigenous people is that there is no such thing as ‘wilderness’ (even though it is accepted by the IUCN that indigenous people living in wilderness areas does not preclude an area being declared a wilderness, not to mention having World Heritage status). Given the exploitative threats by tourism wilderness and national park exploitation strategies and the rapidly accelerating impacts to climate change there is a need to work together, with ecocentrism having primacy. As Washington et al (2018) have argued, there can be no ecojustice without ecocentrism and as Washington et al (2017) have also argued “ecocentrism is the key to sustainability”. First published 3 (with images) here – https://dgrnewsservice.org/resistance-culture/ movement-building/party-with-ecocentricvalues-challenges-the-political-orthodoxy-intasmania/?fbclid=IwAR3MwV-kNdlHOrMzm0olhk34y qf6CWY524JOrs6A2fDnXEYLyeVP_wxdXT0 As Eckersley (2019, page 11) summarises it, This article, first published in Deep Green Resistance News Service on 31 March 2019 and UTG Journal No. 5 in June 2019, was still being downloaded at a rate of 70 per week at the end of 2020. 3 Unlike the first iteration of ecological democracy, this new iteration seeks to connect ecology and democracy 16 ECOCENTRISM Section 4 References AIDA Americas, 2016. https://aida-americas.org/en/ blog/invaluable-legacy- douglas-tompkins Bassham, Gregory. Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic: A Critique. Chapter 6. Washington, Haydn, Bron Taylor, Helen Kopnina, Paul Cryer฀&฀John฀Piccolo,฀2017.฀Why฀ecocentrism฀is฀the฀ key pathway to sustainability. The Ecological Citizen, Vol 1, No 1. Eckersley, Robyn, 2019. Ecological democracy and the rise and decline of liberal democracy: looking back, looking forward, Environmental Politics, DOI: 10.1080/09644016.2019.1594536 Washington, Haydn, Guillaume Chapron, Helen Kopnina,฀Patrick฀Curry,฀Joel฀Gray฀&฀John฀Piccolo,฀ 2018. Foregrounding ecojustice in conservation. Biological Conservation. Volume 228. Gray,฀Joe,฀Ian฀Whyte฀&฀Patrick฀Curry,฀2018.฀ Ecocentrism: what it means and what it implies. The Ecological Citizen, Vol 1, No 2. Wilson,฀Grant฀&฀Darlene฀May฀Lee,฀2019.฀Rights฀of ฀ rivers enter the mainstream. The Ecological Citizen, Vol 2, No 2. Holloway, Geoff, 2018. Review. Refining the definition of wilderness, Tasmanian Times, https:// tasmaniantimes.com/2018/08/refining-thedefinition-of-wilderness-by-hawes-dixon-bell/ Kopnina, Helen, 2017. Ecocentrism: a personal story. The Ecological Citizen, Vol 1, Supplement A. Kopnina,฀Helen,฀Haydn฀Washington,฀Joel฀Gray฀&฀Bron฀ Taylor, 2017. “The ‘future of conservation’ debate: Defending ecocentrism and the Nature Needs Half movement”, Biological Conservation, January 2018. Kopnina,฀Helen,฀Haydn฀Washington,฀Bron฀Taylor฀&฀ John Piccolo, 2018. Anthropocentrism: More than just a misunderstood problem. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, Volume 31, Issue 1. Leiserowitz,฀Anthony,฀Robert฀Kates฀&฀Thomas฀Parris,฀ 2005. Do global attitudes and behaviors support sustainable development? Environment, Volume 47, Number 9. Mikkelson Gregory, 2019. Holistic versus individualistic non-anthropocentrism. The Ecological Citizen, Vol 2, No 2. Moloney 2018 National Geographic, 2018, https://news. nationalgeographic.com/2018/01/chile-newnational-parks-10-million-acres-environment/ The Guardian 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/ environment/2019/mar /13/almost-certainextinction-1200-species-under-severe-threatacross-world Washington, Haydn, 2015. Demystifying Sustainability: Towards Real Solutions. Routledge, London. Washington, Haydn, 2018, The intrinsic value of geodiversity. The Ecological Citizen, Vol 1, No 2. 17 Section 4 ECOCENTRISM Statement of Commitment to Ecocentrism [Developed by Haydn Washington, Bron Taylor, Helen Kopnina, Paul Cryer and John J. Piccolo, with editorial input from Patrick Curry, Ian Whyte, Joe Gray, Michelle Maloney and Mumta Ito] We, the undersigned, hold and advocate an ecocentric worldview that finds intrinsic (inherent) value in all of nature and the ecosphere. Ecocentrism takes a much wider view of the world than does anthropocentrism, which sees individual humans and the human species as more valuable than all other organisms. Ecocentrism is the broadest of worldviews, but there are related worldviews. However, ecocentrism goes beyond biocentrism (ethics that sees inherent value in all living things) by including environmental systems as wholes and their abiotic aspects. It also goes beyond zoocentrism (seeing value in animals) on account of explicitly including flora and other organisms, as well as their ecological contexts. Given that life relies on geology and geomorphology to sustain it, and that ‘geodiversity’ also has intrinsic value, the broader term ‘ecocentrism’ is the more inclusive concept and value, and hence most appropriate. We maintain that the ecosphere, including the life it contains, is an inherent good, irrespective of whether humans are the ones valuing it. It is true that (as far as we know) humans are the only species that reflects on and applies moral values. However, we can also understand that elements of the ecosphere have co-evolved to form a wondrous complexity – and contend that nature has value for itself. Ecocentrism recognizes that humans have responsibility towards the ecosphere, moral sentiments that are increasingly expressed in the language of rights. Such ‘rights of nature’ are now enshrined in some national constitutions, and are variously termed Earth jurisprudence, rights of nature, earth law and wild law. Ecocentrism is important for multiple reasons: in฀ethical฀terms: Ecocentrism expands the moral community beyond our own species, to all life, and indeed, to terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems themselves. There is compelling philosophical and scientific justification for extending moral concern to all of the ecosphere, both its biotic and abiotic components. in฀evolutionary฀terms: Ecocentrism reflects the fact that Homo sapiens evolved out of the ecosphere’s rich web of life, which has a legacy stretching back an almost unimaginable 3.5 billion years. Other species literally are our cousins and relatives (close and distant) – a biological kinship that many have recognized as conferring moral responsibilities towards all species. in฀spiritual฀terms: Historical and social scientific analysis demonstrates that many people (and some societies) have developed an ecocentric worldview. There is strong evidence that ecocentric values are increasingly being fused into nature-based, ecocentric spiritualties. With such spiritualties, even people who are entirely naturalistic in their worldviews often speak of the Earth and its ecosystems as sacred, and thus worthy of reverent care and defence. in฀governance฀terms: Governance systems – including our legal, economic and political systems – must recognize the interdependence of ecological and social systems and be transformed to respect the rights of nature to exist, thrive and evolve. in฀ ecological฀ terms: Ecocentrism reminds us that the ecosphere and all life is interdependent and that both human and nonhuman organisms are absolutely dependent on the ecosystem processes that nature provides. An anthropocentric conservation ethic alone is wholly inadequate for conserving 18 ECOCENTRISM Section 4 biodiversity. Ecocentrism is rooted in an evolutionary understanding that reminds us that we are latecomers to what Aldo Leopold evocatively called the “odyssey of evolution”. Ecology teaches humility, as we do not know everything about the world’s ecosystems, and never will. This leads quite naturally to a precautionary approach towards all the systems that constitute the ecosphere, so that where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, a lack of full scientific certainty ought not to be used as a reason for postponing remedial action. How ecocentrism can lead us to a sustainable future: Although we hold an ecocentric worldview because we believe it is ethically just, we contend that it is also practical because it counters humanity’s relentless drive towards ‘dominion over nature’. Society’s overconsumption and over- exploitation of nature has led to global and accelerating degradation of the ecosphere. Ecocentrism encourages us to see the rest of life as our kin, something we should respect for its own sake as well as our own. Those with an ecocentric worldview cannot silently tolerate mass anthropogenic extinctions, nor the suffering that accompanies environmental degradation. Ecocentrism encourages empathy with life, listening to the land and, above all, taking action to protect and heal the planet. Ecocentrism can also help lead to a sustainable future by encouraging a sense of wonder about the world around us. This can help us, and the ethics we require, if we are to take the difficult actions needed to sustain the ecosphere that supports our society. Whether it involves solving global crises like climate change or mass extinction, or contributing to local initiatives, ecocentrism can help humanity seek sustainable solutions. Conclusion: Everyone (even academics seeking objectivity) is influenced by his or her worldview, ethics and values. To date, most Western thought has been rooted in an anthropocentric worldview. Despite great progress on some environmental fronts, it has become increasingly clear that an anthropocentric worldview provides an insufficient basis for preserving ecospheric diversity. We maintain that a transformation towards an ecocentric worldview is a necessary path for the nourishing of life on Earth, including that of our own species. We, the undersigned, are convinced that the future of our living planet is dependent upon the recognition of the intrinsic value of nature, and strong support for ecocentrism as a worldview. We all have a duty to communicate this whenever possible and to undertake, promote and endeavor to inspire action in accordance with this worldview. [As at 18 May 2019 this statement had 769 signatories, including UTG.] To sign this statement see - https://www.ecologicalcitizen.net/statementof-ecocentrism.php#:~:text=We%2C%20the%20undersigned%2C%20 hold,of%20nature%20and%20the%20ecosphere.&text=It%20is%20true%20 that%20(as,on%20and%20applies%20moral%20values 19 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 Dr. Richard (Dick) Jones campaign policy speeches, 1974, 1975, 1976 POLICY SPEECH SENATE ELECTIONS 1974 (delivered at 63 Salamanca Place on 14 May 1974) Ladies and gentlemen, The United Tasmania Group again makes history tonight. This is the first occasion on which a publicly presented policy speech has been delivered to the voters of Tasmania by the U.T.G. We are conscious of the responsibilities thrust upon us by the growing number of people in the community who realise that something is wrong. Something is wrong with the political parties, who have refused, in any honest fashion to put before the people policies to cope with a problem, which will face Australia increasingly over the next few years. This is the problem of the worldwide shortage of resources; the problem of how Australia, a presently resources rich nation, is going to face the complicated international pressures and tensions that will arise from this paradoxical situation. The simple bidding match between the two big political parties on tax rebates, housing loans and interest rates, ignores the wider problems of how Australian society is going to function on the domestic and international fronts in face of the changing nature of the problems of economic management. The fundamental problem that will face the new Australian government is how to manage efficiently, intelligently, rationally, and at times generously, our resources, which are not just minerals but people. What steps will be taken to adapt to rapid change at home and abroad? A fundamental question that politicians will not broach with electors. It is no longer sufficient for labour to justify endless economic growth by dreams of eliminating poverty. Poverty in Australia is on the increase, as it is in the United States and other rich nations. Economic growth does not eliminate poverty, it simply modernises it. Mr Whitlam’s advocacy of a 6% growth rate in the national economy is advocacy of the ultimate suicide of our society. But the liberals would not have it any different. Their devotion to laissezfaire capitalism is based on an unlimited attack on resources backed up by the exploitation of publicly owned goods such as clean air, fresh water and environmental amenities. Both our big political parties and, as far as we can see, all the independent candidates in this election regard industrialisation and endless economic and population growth as inevitable and desirable for Tasmania. The United Tasmania Group says they are wrong. Do we want to preserve our unequalled natural beauty? Do we want our children to enjoy our peaceful, less worried life style too? Or do we want a Tasmania that is poor copy of the frantic, dirty and unhappy urban industrial sprawls of the Mainland? Is efficiency more important than people? Must people become mere cogs in the machinery of industry and economics? 20 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 We believe not. We need a new society with a proper community spirit – we need to care more for each other. We must reject materialism; we must recognise that materialism only encourages stress, loneliness, and inequality. Young people throughout the world were the first to see how dehumanising the urban industrial society has become. They saw the grim prospect of becoming part of a society that devalues humanity; they saw themselves becoming mere parts of a vast machine for the efficient production of material goods. Now many, many people are recognising that, in seeking to fulfil the dream of ending material want, man is selling his birth right; he is throwing away the values, the ideas and the culture that make him human. Material satisfaction is are no substitute for spiritual content; and spiritual content will be denied any society which has lost the ability to live in harmony with its environment. The United Tasmania Group is determined that this shall not happen in Tasmania; just as the Values Party is determined it shall not happen in New Zealand฀and฀the฀People฀Party฀is฀determined฀it฀shall฀not฀happen฀in฀England. One of the ways we shall try to stop this process of alienation of people and nature is by seeking a place in the Senate. As senators we can speak out for the preservation of Tasmania and against our home becoming a mere source of raw materials to feed the insatiable demands of industry. Yet this is what present politicians are so eager to promote – the sell out of our raw materials to absent profiteers. Politicians make us pay to have our forests, on publically on owned land, chopped down. Every ton of regenerated woodchip logs costs this state up to $3 more than it gets back in royalties. We are paying to be exploited. Add to this negative economic benefit the visual assault made on us all by wasteland clear felling methods and the negative environmental benefits to watersheds and wildlife. Add further, the negative social effects in shortages of timber, the closure of so many small sawmilling businesses and the shrinkage in the native leatherwood stands from which beekeepers got a positive return of $4 an acre. Add still further, the damage to roads, congestion of highways by woodchip transport, noise and the cost of the Bell Bay railway. It was not necessary to wait for the Committee of Enquiry into the National Estate to recommend that this iniquitous woodchip activity should be halted. Every Tasmanian could see the effects of this ill-conceived, rapacious industry. But not our politicians. Even now, they are backing and filling. The United Tasmania Group says that they should be replaced. As the replacements, U.T.G senators would fight to have the recommended halt to wood chipping brought about by the Australian Government by whatever means are available. How can our politicians allow a few pioneering entrepreneurs to steal the people’s assets? All around us the same processes are a work. Our politicians are content to allow American interests to rip off our fish stocks to make fishmeal. They don’t even have the courtesy to keep their smells to themselves. Our politicians would be content for all limestone to be mined a Precipitous Bluff. Private profits from public assets is the principle they would continue to promote. The state would have to fit the bill for roads and ports – there is no other way miners could afford to rape this place of outstanding magnificence. 21 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Our politicians are content that we subsidise the cost of power production for industry in our home electricity bills. Our politicians let industry poison us with heavy metals while pretending to control pollution with laws to fine us up to $500 for running a noisy lawnmower. Over and over again we are made to pay for being assaulted while politicians tell us this is necessary in order to keep people employed. The fact is that semi-automated industry, which is highly polluting and heavily demanding of publicly owned raw materials, does not help with the state’s employment problem. In Tasmania, the capital costs involved in employing a man in some aspect of a small family fishing industry are about $4,000. It costs about $120,000 in capital outlay to employ one man in capital-intensive fishing. The Burnie Acid Plat, some years ago, needed $140,000 in capital investment per man employed. Today, Temco, at Bell Bay, needs more than $250,000 in capital outlay to employ one man. At this rate, we can never expect to employ young Tasmanians if it costs so much to provide one job. Tasmanians have been misled by politicians into a false expectation that industrialisation will provide jobs. We must look to ways and means of providing more employment for a given capital outlay. What we need is labour-intensive, light manufacturing factories – industries with a high design content, employing local labour and materials. The objective would be to satisfy demands beyond the local market; penetrating the mainland market and eventually exporting overseas. These industries for making furniture, toys and craft production, with the emphasis on high quality, are relatively on polluting and synonymous with the tourist trade. The potential here is comparable with the situation in Scandinavian countries. Applied design can bring prosperity to Tasmania and a lifestyle appreciative of quality, enriched with beauty and determined by human values. Applied design can provide satisfying skilled work for Tasmanians, strengthen the economy and stabilise the environment. To achieve this, strong government backing would be necessary in many areas. Tertiary training of designers to a professional level is of paramount importance. We would need to establish a new State Design School in Launceston for this purpose. The United Tasmania Group is the only political party to recognise that existing training facilities for product design, craft manufacture, and graphic design are poorly financed and wrongly situated. A State Design School must be established as the embryo from which design based industries can flourish. In conjunction, there would have to be developed research facilities to determine new industries and to develop design policies together with an integrated marketing service and promotional machinery. Channelling of loan funds and special Commonwealth grants for these purposes is of paramount importance to Tasmania’s future. But before this can happen we need to elect politicians who support the planning of the Tasmanian economy in new imaginative ways. To do this effectively, we will need the help of the Australian Government, which is the source of economic initiatives. 22 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 We must remove the straightjacket of local political thinking, which has held this state in a vice-like grip for the past decade. We say that both major parties have failed Tasmania because their representatives have always placed party loyalties above the interests of the people they are supposed to represent. To the best of our knowledge, they have never joined as a united voice to protect Tasmania’s best interests. The people of Tasmania should no longer send party hacks, failed or disguised party adherents, or self-seeking political opportunists to Canberra to speak on their behalf. We believe they should elect men who speak for Tasmania’s best interests – nonmaterial as well as material, for quality as well as quantity. We say that you need the U.T.G. men in the Senate. U.T.G. senators would not be apologetic about Tasmania’s relationship to the Australian government. We would not apologise, as other political parties do, for Tasmania’s being somewhat of a poor relation in the Federation of Australian States. It is a fact that Tasmania received more from the national purse than it contributes. But tat situation was seen at Federation, and the Grants Commission machinery to implement national levels of living standards was created. The trouble is that our politicians have decided that Tasmania should feel guilty about this dependant status. They have guiltily sought to become independent of the other states by supporting any industrial development, regardless of the consequences to the Tasmanian community. The U.T.G. says that, far from feeling guilty because of material dependence on the federation, Tasmania should demand a share of the nations wealth to establish its potentially vital non-material contribution to the welfare of Australia. This contribution lies mainly in this island state not being a smaller version of mainland urban life. Tasmania is a place where the mainland dweller can find peace and harmony with natural beauty, wilderness, lakes, mountains and rivers, splendid beaches, a decentralised community, a less frantic pace to life. In other words, Tasmania can offer south-eastern Australians a high quality, unpressurised, comparatively inexpensive environment for recreation purposes – in return for the material support to establish an economic strategy, which will allow us to engage our environment on sound ecological principles. Because of our small population, Tasmania can offer unique advantages as the place where a less materially orientated economy can be put into practise. This is the place where individual Australians can attempt life styles different from the monotonous, competitive patterns common in huge cities. Tasmania has room for people to grow physically, emotionally and mentally by maintaining contact with natural and rural life. We should be able to work, play and sleep without being poisoned by smog, noise, congestion, tension and pollutants of all kinds. These are the values our politicians must hold. Party politicians have suppressed these values in the Senate, and the time has come to elect those who will speak out for Tasmania and its people. We need politicians who see that the only way to preserve a satisfying, rounded way of life for Tasmanians depends on our ability to examine the economic strategies open to us. 23 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES There is a future for Tasmania in developing labour intensive industries, which have small volume output and high value. Allied with an emphasis on recreation, which will give economic returns from our natural assets of beauty and historical features, this economic strategy could be an alternative basis for support of the Tasmanian way of life. But we cannot go ahead with large-scale development of tourist and recreation, unless there is proper recognition and support from Commonwealth funds of the concept of the National Estate. The Committee of Enquiry into National Estate felt the level of support should be at lets $20 million in the first year, and increasing annually. But there is no support for this recommendation from the big political parties. Neither policy speech contains any mention of the financial commitment to be made by the part of government. National expenditure on the National Estate should be regarded as an investment in the future. The National Estate should be the people’s bank for guaranteeing a decent life for our children. U.T.G. senators would press for the creation of an independent commission to carry out and to extend the recommendations of the Committee of Enquiry into he National Estate. We would press for large-scale expenditure by the Australian Government in this area to buy land, to purchase historical building, to set up research institutes, to evaluate the people’s assets, and to encourage state departments such as National Parks and wildlife. In this way the National Estate could be related to the community, which is the rightful owner. Managed properly, historical buildings and national parks can be integrated into a viable tourist system. Public access to forests, mountains, rivers and beaches could enhance the use made of developed areas and extend the jurisdiction and care of National Park services. We believe that all Crown Lands should be included in the concept of the National Estate. A classification scheme could be produced which would classify all lands from the permanent reserve to areas open to economical development. A value could then be placed on each parcel of land – a value in keeping with the importance each parcel has as an untouched part of the National Estate, enjoyed in its natural condition for beauty, wildlife, water catchment or recreation purposes. This would mean that a developer must pay the national estate price before any land is used to supply raw materials. If the price is paid, then the development would really be in the community’s interest – because the return would be greater than it would otherwise be by leaving the area untouched. In this way the community’s interest would not be sacrificed and the people’s possessions would not be used for making profits by a few exploiters. Under this scheme, woodchips would vanish, or else be reduced to proportions, which the land and the forests could easily sustain. The United Tasmania Group is unreservedly dedicated to preserving Tasmania’s National Estate. U.T.G senators would provide a voice in the national parliament to argue for the National Estate in Tasmania and Australia. A further essential feature of our economic strategy is the need to raise the level of Commonwealth services in Tasmania. Research, Education and Administration are areas in which decentralisation can be encouraged for this purpose. What has happened to Mr Everett’s proposal to set up an Ecological Research 24 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 Institute in Tasmania? Not even a nine-days’ wonder on the local scene, this project has had no support from Australian Government. Yet Tasmania, with so much unique flora and fauna is desperately in next of training and research facilities to catalogue, classify, and study its biological resources. Land and sea ecological research institutes re urgently needed. Tasmania has no Government Botanist or state herbarium. The National Biological Survey will do little for Tasmania because we do not have the basic establishments to accept the assistance funds being offered. Why are our politicians ignoring Tasmania’s handicap in this area? U.T.G. senators would not allow this position to continue. Basic research facilities are our right. Without them, our fish stocks will be exploited trough lack of basic biological data, our fauna and flora will no be valued, and the much-heralded environmental impact study cannot be used in the public interest. Tasmania is an ideal place for environmental education and there is no reason why administrative arms of the Commonwealth government, such as the Visual Arts Board, should not be located in Hobart. All of these things will need Commonwealth investment in Tasmania, to increase our capacity for planning, to foster regional initiatives, and to encourage decentralisation. We would have to induce the Australian Government to bypass the restrictions of he Grants Commission. New directions can be undertaken by special grants provided for in the constitution. Tasmania has a population of less than half that of the city of Brisbane. Commonwealth assistance to this state can easily be afforded by the rest of Australia. In return, the rest of Australia could well learn from us how to face the difficult tasks of achieving a properly sustainable and properly human way of life for all citizens. These policies of the United Tasmania Group are based on our knowledge of the environment principle. This amounts to something far more than one issue politics. Our new policies for environmentally sane husbandry of our resources have direct or indirect effects on all other issues. It is our opponents – opponents who treat environmental problems as mere conservation issues; who barely manage to include an environmental section in their policy speeches; who regulate Environment and Conservation to second last place in the ministerial hierarchy – these people are the people who are out of touch with the royalties of overriding ecological truth. We say their blindness could be disastrous for the wellbeing of our society. We must work at curing environmental ills if we would cure all society’s ills. Intensifying urban problems – traffic congestion, crime, physical and psychiatric illness, waste disposal, loneliness – all are a result of insensitive planning and lack of knowledge of the way to use resources and energy on a sustained, ecologically sound, individually meaningful basis. There are links between the quality of goods, built in obsolescence, economic growth, progress, morality, and the health and state of the environment. Today we need people in parliament who understand these complications. In a house of review, such as the Senate, government policies will need to be examined in the knowledge that all things are linked, all activities inter related. U.T.G. senators, who knew these effects, can best look after the needs of 25 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Tasmanians. They can protect Tasmania and Tasmanians – something our inward looking political parties have failed to do. We maintain that the national political machines, by making party politics dominant, have destroyed the proper operation of the Senate, loading to the recent incredible forcing out of office of a properly elected government. U.T.G. senators would counteract this process of taking party politics to a point of dangerous absurdity. We would constantly remind the Senate ad the rest of Australia that the Tasmanian community is more interested in preserving a decent, friendly and just human society. We will never cease advocating the preservation of the Tasmanian way of life, its precious assets, and its freedoms. We will never cease opposing pollution, urban sprawl, the plundering of our natural resources, the scarring and denuding of our mountains and valleys, the emptying of the sea of fish or the extinction of our priceless wild animals and plants. I, and my fellow U.T.G. candidates invite you to vote for the U.T.G. team on 18th May. A vote for the U.T.G. will be a vote for Tasmania – for the present and for future. POLICY SPEECH SENATE ELECTIONS 1975 The only policy speech to be delivered in Tasmania. Ladies and Gentlemen, Newspapers, radio, television, the Labor Party, the National/Country Party, the Liberal Party, Old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all have said that this is a polarized election. Without a by-your-leave, they have declared that you are polarized. Right from the moment that Gough Whitlam got his marching orders from the Governor General, you have been lumped into the Fraser camp or the Whitlam camp. Many people resent this. They resent it because they do not want to vote for Whitlam or Fraser. Labor mismanagement is a fact for many moderate voters. Coalition greed for power and the way it was obtained by Liberal and National/ Country Party politicians are also too much for moderate voters. How many people can be polarized when this implies support for one or other of the major parties that have let you down so badly? The lust for power by party politicians has brought Australia to the brink of chaos. Is this the stuff that wins votes? Or is it more likely that people feel abandoned by party political leaders that they feel unable to decide where their future lies, for they can no longer trust the choice before them? A La Trobe researcher has shown that 18% of the electorate has not decided how to vote. At least 18%, I venture to suggest, enough to elect 2 senators, do not want the major parties. The people are the losers in this election. We did not want an election. This is a politicians’ election; manufactured, planned, and executed by people who put their interests before the country’s. Despite swearing to represent your interests in the parliament, these party men have not done so. Let me tell you why the people are the losers in this election. First and foremost, we have lost what we have enjoyed for so many years – a stable parliamentary system. The misuse of the Senate by the big parties started the ball rolling. The people 26 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 of Australia had nothing to do with this corrosion of the fabric of our free democratic system. The people have been powerless to stop a process that, once begun, forced an unconstitutional dissolution of Parliament and stole from the people any expectation of stable government. Moderate voters lose if the result of this election is an accelerated conversion of Australia to socialism. Despite the undoubted value of many social reforms introduced by Labor, moderate voters are not prepared to see Australia become a socialist country. All moderate voters lose if the Liberal Party power lust causes a swing to Labor, which will be interpreted by Labor politicians as a mandate to alter the Constitution, abolish the Senate and nationalize our industry and institutions. Moderate voters lose if the result of this election is approval for a political party, which is prepared to abandon all conventions for the sake of power. Mr. Fraser has already appealed to voters to give the right to three years in office – something he has denied a duly elected government with a majority in the House of Representatives. Mr. Fraser cannot expect any rights, since he has failed to defend our rights. All moderate voters lose if the election gives a mandate to the unprincipled men who now control the Liberal and National Country parties. If they are successful they must expect large doses of their own medicine from every opposing faction in the community. This is why the people are the losers in this election. This is why the central issue on the people of this election is, therefore, stable government. In this situation, what can the electors do to guard against the losses imposed on the people by unscrupulous party men? I know you are in no doubt of my reasons for making such serious accusations. Whether it is a so-called independent Senator prepared to safeguard his own political future by betraying those voters who elected him, whether it is the demoting of a loyal party man for daring to be honest enough to express his reservations on the blocking of supply, whether it is allegations of corruption, internal dissensions and sackings in the government or conferring of ambassadorships on political foes for the sake of expediency do not exist in their behavior. Can we condone this behavior? Are these the standards we endorse? Yet endorse them we do if we vote unreservedly for the major parties. The United Tasmania Group believes that the Senate is the key to our dilemma. Our forefathers designed the Senate as a House of Review, a States’ House. They gave us a parliamentary mechanism to protect the people and the states. The Senate has worked well for seventy-five years. It can work well for another seventy-five, and many more. All it needs at this time is resuscitation. Our forefathers did not envisage its corruption by two party politics. The Senate can be restored by your votes – we have that power left – the power of the people. Ignore the seductions of the big parties. By all means elect a majority to govern in the House of Representatives. But put on the brake in the Senate. Stable government can only be restored when the Senate acts properly as a House of Review. The two-party system can destroy the Senate – and stable government. We must not give these parties another chance to wreck our parliament – they must not be allowed to polarize us all. The United Tasmania Group promises that UTG candidates would help 27 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES restore the Senate to its proper role. We would not block supply as a means for grabbing power. We would ensure that the party with a majority in the House of Representatives is allowed to govern for its full term. We would responsibly review all legislation and put Tasmania’s interests first. The Senate has been a very powerful means of protecting Tasmania’s interests in the past; we are the smallest state. We have special disadvantages as an island state, yet we are protected by equal representation for all states in the Senate. Nothing must be done to reduce our influence in the States’ House. Yet we read in our newspapers of statements attributed to Mr. Hawke for a reduction in Tasmania’s Senate representation in favor of the larger states. No reference to these views was made during his electioneering in Tasmania. Is this another example of the inherent dishonesty that marks major party politics? Parties put their interests before Tasmania’s. Our Senators must see their role as fighting for Tasmania, not for a political party. You can trust the United Tasmania Group to protect your interests. We have always spoken out fearlessly for what we believe is right. A vote for the United Tasmania Group is a vote to preserve our parliamentary system – your vote for us is a vote for Tasmania - we would be your contribution to stable government. The United Tasmania Group is Tasmania’s own party. We have produced more ideas relevant to Tasmania than have all the other parties combined so said the editorial in “The Examiner” after our policy speech at the last Senate election. Tasmania’s own party represents no sectional interests. The United Tasmania Group is the only party which advocates a policy of better management of all Tasmanians. Unlike the Labor Party, we are not restricted in our outlook by ideology based on class struggles. Unlike the Liberal Party, we are not the instruments of business interests. Unlike the National/Country Party, we would not divide the needs of rural people from the interests of city dwellers. Unlike some independents, we wear no disguises – nor have we emerged from the ashes of union disputes and ideological squabbles. Let me remind you of our beginnings. The United Tasmania Group became a political party because the two major parties were putting aside democratic principles in Tasmania. The first sign occurred when citizens were not allowed their right to enter the courts to challenge the validity of the flooding of Lake Pedder – and the Attorney General resigned because he recognized our legal right to test our claims in the courts. Secondly, the Pedder dispute proved that political parties were not prepared to deny the right of representation to some citizen – nether the Government nor the Opposition would allow the Pedder question to be debated in Parliament. So some citizens had effectively no rights in parliament. Thirdly, certain instruments of government had been subverted. Some government departments or semi-government authorities such as the museum, the Scenery Preservation Board and the Animals and Birds Protection Board had all reported to the Joint Advisory Committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of the H.E.C instead of making their reports to the public. Thus, the people were deprived of services normally available from these instruments of governments as independent authorities. Finally, we recall that the election in 1972 was fought on behalf of the major parties by the H.E.C. itself. This semi-government authority used its resources 28 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 to place advertisements which threatened increased domestic tariffs if Lake Pedder were saved. The United Tasmania Group would never have formed if all these blows against democratic principles had not been struck in Tasmania. Ever since then, the erosion of democracy in Australia has proceeded. The culmination, the most serious blow of all, is, of course, the event of 11th November in the national Parliament. The United Tasmania Group has its origins in fighting for democratic principles. Ever since 1972, we have reminded the electors of the dangers to our system left in the hands of politicians from the major parties. Ever since 1972, we have built up a set of policies based on political honesty and the need to work together for the benefit of all citizens, regardless of sectional leanings. We sink or swim together. The United Tasmania Group works and breathes by a New Ethic, which binds our members to work together without fear or favour for the benefit of all citizens. We are bound to uphold our parliamentary system and to enforce our law without unfair advantage or disadvantage to any individual or group. Our Ethic condemns the misuse of power. No other political party gives you this guarantee of ethical behavior from your representatives. Ladies and gentlemen, our guarantee is of long standing- it is freely available as witness to our commitment. This is what you require from those who would be your representatives in the Senate. This is your guarantee that you can trust the United Tasmania Group. You need have no doubt that a vote for us is a wise vote. You need have no reservations either, that UTG Senators might misuse power, even if we hold the so-called balance of power. I ask you – is there any earthly reason to fear the actions of one individual when the collective actions of so many men have been so dishonourable? Could we do worse than them? Besides, you have an example of Steele Hall and Cleaver Bunton – men who did not abandon their principles in the Senate. They have demonstrated that the ‘balance of power” bogey is another rumour manufactured by big parties to frighten moderate voters. You can lay this ghost and follow your conscience by voting for the UTG. You’ll find your conscience is a more reliable guide than scare-mongering party politicians. Ladies and gentlemen, we have been described as a one-issue party. What I have told you so far shows how false this rumour is. For rumour it is. Rumour spread by the big parties who are fearful of our getting your vote. Remember that one newspaper has acknowledged our policies as more relevant to Tasmania than the policies of the other parties put together. We have heard much about the economy in this election. But how meaningful are these policies for Tasmania? We challenge any party to match our policies for Tasmania. Have you ever heard of Labor’s economic policy for Tasmania? Have the rumour-mongers anything to offer themselves? The United Tasmania Group rejects the outmoded policy of hydroindustrialization. We must face facts. Industry is teetering in Tasmania. Large, capital-intensive industry will not come here, and we must work hard to save jobs of men and women currently employed n such industries. But most of all we must develop a new policy of co-operation between the private sector and the Government to promote Tasmanian initiative. 29 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Design-based industries using Tasmanian ideas, supported by the right sort of educational institutions and the appropriate promotion and marketing structures, are possible for Tasmania. Government help is needed to bring designs to the patent stage so that the private sector has something worthwhile to manufacture. We must do these things ourselves – industries established elsewhere will not be interested in Tasmania. Yet Liberal and Labor politicians keep tripping overseas in futile attempts to persuade industries successfully developed in other countries to come to outof-the-way Tasmania. It has never occurred to them that we could do our own thing supported by government through our own development workshops and marketing promotion devices. Of course we cannot go it alone. We need to take full advantage of Commonwealth help to provide the funds to get started. But our politicians will have to work hard to get those funds. Other states feel that the Grants Commission is too generous to Tasmania. We receive far more taxpayer’s money per head of population than the people in the more densely populated states. That is unfair, they say, and our politicians apparently agree because they’re so apologetic about our need for help from the Grants Commission. But there is no unfairness in this arrangement. Grants Commission help for Tasmania has had its benefits for other states. Most of our extra funds have been used to benefit companies registered in other states; people outside Tasmania have acquired our minerals and they have processed in Tasmania the raw mineral resources mined in other states. Grants commission funds supplied to Tasmanians have been the means of harnessing our water resources for the benefit of all Australians. Grants Commission funds have allowed paper companies and pulp companies to harvest Tasmanian forests with the aid of power supplied from water resources. These products have supplied all Australians and they have eared export dollars. It is not true that Tasmanians have waxed fat at the expense of our fellow Australians. Grants Commission support for Tasmania has been the means of releasing Tasmanian resources for use in other states. At the same time, Grants Commission support has not supplied us with protection services in soil conservation, a government botanist or national park management comparable to those services in the standard states of Victoria. Our politicians have let us down. They have not argued that we need something better from those who have acquired Tasmanian resources so cheaply. Put simply, Tasmania supplies raw materials needed in other states. The Grants Commission has been the means of opening up our resources for use by all Australia. We might expect reciprocal help in this arrangement. Would it be unfair, if we miss out on help to establish protection services for our resources, to further compensate us by zoning Tasmania for special tax concessions to offset our transport disadvantages? Would it not be appropriate to arrange for tourist concession fares to assist us in developing a viable industry based on our natural environment? We could initiate a new sort of educational tourism, which would provide a more meaningful experience for tourists, and Tasmania compared with the impersonal rip-off type of tourism as catering for Tasmanian needs in education, recreation, and accommodation at the same time as supplying the needs of visitors. 30 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 Would it be unfair to seek special help for our rural industries when so much of our timber supplies a Melbourne market and so much of our forests earn export dollars in Japan? Mr. Hunt has announced special environmental help to farmers. But what will we do for farmers who cannot regenerate the trees they’ve had to sell to service their overdrafts? What will he do for farmers who have to pay increased death duties because the woodchip industry has imposed new values on forested farmland? What will big parties ever do to keep our rural land in production? Farmers have not received a proper return for their produce and are being forced to leave land and join the unemployed in the towns. And governments assist this process. Inefficient farms must go, they say. So we see apple trees bulldozed out of the soil and the farmer given a handful of dollars to go out of production. One of the greatest tragedies for Tasmania has been the decline in our apple industry – who speaks of the Apple Isle now? The small family farmer has been the victim of callous disregard by us all. The United Tasmania Group believes that we should make every effort to keep people on the land – not destroy the basis of our existence. We need a new community effort, which encourages rural production. We must develop new ways of food processing in Tasmania so that new markets can be supplied. But we need a new local outlook, which sets out to supply more of our own food needs. Bass Strait is a natural tariff barrier which could be used to favour local food production for local markets. The real tragedy for the man on the land has been the promotion of capital intensive, business-oriented farming. The close association of the National/ Country Party with the businessman of the Liberal Party has deprived country people of spokesmen geared to their interests. Efficiency has destroyed the viability of the family farm. Business efficiency and the methods of mechanization and high-volume production have relentlessly pursued the small farmer and, like the corner store and the small private firms, the small man has to be destroyed. This trend must be reversed. The United Tasmania Group knows the importance of the family farmer to Tasmania and, as the State’s own party, can work best to support their interests in the Senate. Senators who must give their first allegiance to interstate-based parties cannot put the concerns of Tasmanian farmers first. Ladies and gentlemen, the United Tasmania Group is contesting this election in the Senate – we are not attempting to become the government through the House of Representatives. It is not appropriate for us to compete with big parties on the national level on every major area of policy. We believe that it is most important to generate ideas on how to manage Tasmania. We have those ideas and have told you about some of them tonight. We can represent those ideas for Tasmania in the Senate. No matter what the big parties do, you would be assured of a watchdog in the Senate to put a Tasmanian viewpoint. UTG Senators would have as their prize concern the need to give the Tasmanian government the maximum opportunity to set in motion a viable economic 31 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES programme for Tasmania. We have in mind the need to give new opportunities to Tasmanians to generate new industries, to find new jobs, to work together for our common benefit – unions, farmers, public servants, business men, even politicians. It is most important that the work is started – it is not important to squabble about the interests of politicians. Our concern is for the defense of democracy and our parliamentary system. We must defend our institutions in order to have a free, prosperous community that is worth protecting. The UTG is pledged to restore the Senate to its proper role. You have no guarantee of stable government in the Senate if you rely on the major parties. They have let you down; they have failed to do the job they were elected to do. We believe you have two choices. Vote for the United Tasmania Group to voice your protest at the deteriorating standards of the major parties and then choose one of those parties as your second preference. The proportional voting system ensures that your vote is passed on if we fail to win enough votes to elect a Senator. Or you can do something more positive. That is to set out to elect UTG to the Senate as a deliberate choice to improve the standard of representation in the Senate – to vote against the major parties because they have brought about the unstable prospects for government in Australia by their grip on the Senate. If you set out to break that grip, you will vote UTG and you will be less concerned where your next preferences go – because you intend your number one vote to stay with us, to elect us as an alternative to the wreckers of democracy. In this way you get the best of both worlds. You will have made a positive effort to restore stable government, by voting for people dedicated to making Senate function properly. In addition, you will have supported a party, which looks forward to meeting the challenges of Tasmania’s future. We do not waste our efforts looking backwards for the nostalgia of a golden age. That way disaster lies; history is strewn with civilizations, which lacked the courage to look ahead. Our positive programme for Tasmania is designed to meet the future with expectations of results in proportion to the effort we all make to work together. The United Tasmania Group offers you these things: •฀ We฀offer฀political฀honesty—you฀can฀trust฀our฀UTG฀candidates. •฀ We฀offer฀true฀Tasmanian฀representation฀in฀the฀Senate—the฀UTG฀is฀฀ ฀ Tasmania’s own party. •฀ We฀offer฀good฀government฀before฀power฀politics. •฀ We฀offer฀a฀safeguard฀for฀Australian฀democracy฀–฀we฀put฀the฀people฀before฀฀ our personal ambitions. •฀ We฀offer฀restoration฀of฀the฀Senate฀to฀its฀status฀as฀a฀House฀of฀Review—we฀฀ would assure an elected government in the Hose of Representatives of its right to govern. In all these things the United Tasmania Group offers the Tasmanian voters an alternative. All moderate voters who find neither Labor nor Liberal/National Party politicians acceptable for the December 13 elections now have an alternative, responsible choice. 32 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 THE UNITED TASMANIA GROUP POLICY SPEECH, STATE ELECTIONS, 1976 Delivered by Dr Richard Jones, U.T.G. State President Whereas the Laborial parties were granted free time on the A.B.C. the U.T.G. was forced to have its policy speech delivered on a commercial T.V. station for $1,000 (equals $7,000 in 2020)– all because the U.T.G. is a minor party. The UNITED TASMANIA GROUP’s policy has two main thrusts and thus concentrates on the need for: 1. Economic Direction and 2. An improved standard of Government. GENERAL ECONOMY The Tasmanian economy needs to be built up, but most of all it has to be diversified to give it greater resiliance to economic fluctuation. It needs to be tailored to the requirements of the population, allowing Tasmanians a rich and full existence, rather than have no other purpose than the pursuit of economic growth for its own sake. The UNITED TASMANIA GROUP is deeply concerned that Tasmania now has its highest level of unemployment. We believe this is a direct result of the economic policies, or lack of them, pursued by recent governments. In the 1972 State Elections the UNITED TASMANIA GROUP warned that employment would continue to decline unless existing industry is supported and balanced by smaller diversified industries. Clearly the Tasmanian Economy needs new directions and its long term goals need to be clearly identified. In the past too little attention has been given to increasing and enhancing assets Tasmania has as part of a quality of life that is not available in Melbourne, or Sydney or Chicago or Hong Kong. Over several decades a sizeable amount of state money has gone into a system for the production of relatively low-costing power. It has imagined that the availability of such power would attract heavy industry. In all but a few cases this plan has not worked because:1. Heavy industry is not labour-intensive; 2. Heavy industry is often based on the extraction of non-renewable resources and must in any long-term planning be viewed as enterprise of limited lifespan; 3. Heavy dependence on such industries is a weakness in our economy; 4. Large industry is almost wholly funded from outside the state and therefore directed by considerations which may not always be in the interest of Tasmania; 5. Such industry is susceptible to world market fluctuation and quite outside Tasmania’s control. These are the reasons why Mt Lyell is now closing down at Queenstown and people are out of work. Because of the failure to diversify our economic base, these people have no alternatives to turn to. THE PRIVATE SECTOR Economic diversity will only be achieved if encouragement is given to the small and medium-small business. Current trends are towards bureaucracy in 33 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES both the private and public sectors and the small-business man, whether in the city or on the land, is being squeezed out. This trend should be reversed. Incentives are needed to encourage small businesses through low interest government loans, a sliding scale applied to payroll tax (with its abolition altogether for the business with few employees), marketing and distribution assistance for exporters and further freight subsidies on processed exports. Family businesses should be encouraged by the abolition of death duties on all on-going family businesses. The development of labour-intensive industries based on the processing of our raw materials and primary products deserves priority. Examples are quality and specialised food processing such as health foods from organic agriculture, gourmet foods, wood products, fabrics and ceramics. Design-based industry and alternative technology industries should be initiated and developed through the instigation of the appropriate technologies and skills through education, through establishment assistance and through marketing distribution service. It is not enough for state Ministers to junket round the world trying to talk industries successfully developed elsewhere into coming to Tasmania. We have to generate our own industries through our own skills and efforts. This is why education must be integrated with our economic policies. For example, our textile workers will always have uncertain jobs while we make fabrics that have no distinctive quality. To gain this quality, to be better than our competitors, we have to provide designs that are distinctly Tasmanian. But, to do that, we have to provide highly skilled designers and we need appropriate courses and teachers for that purpose. Education should help our economic base. Marketing and distribution assistance are also essential features of the self-help diversified economy. The last five years have seen the destruction of the apple industry, at least in part, because of a failure to solve marketing and distribution problems. There is a need for government to build up marketing and distribution expertise as a service to Tasmania’s exporters and prospective exporters. These are some ways in which the private sector of the Tasmanian Economy, which is on the whole in a weak condition, can be assisted by an appropriate partnership with government, which recognises and encourages personal initiative. The United Tasmania Group believes that the keystone to stimulating initiative in the private sector would be the setting-up of a Tasmanian Foundation within the Treasury with a small board of management of 3 or 4 people, appointed by the Premier. The Foundation’s job would be to generate policies directed towards establishing and assisting small businesses, to research and plan for this purpose and find ways of establishing markets and to promote the distribution of products. The Foundation would be supported financially from consolidated revenue and by levies on those who make greatest use of Tasmania’s natural resources. In this way, better economic use would be made of Tasmanian resources for the benefit of all Tasmanians. THE PUBLIC SECTOR The public sector of the Tasmanian economy must ensure that, in every facet, it draws its full share of Commonwealth funding. In certain areas, such as Tertiary Education, this does not happen at present. We cannot afford to elect politicians who will not fight all the way for a fair share for Tasmania. Examples are the short-sighted acceptance by both Labor and Liberal Parties of an overall reduction in commonwealth spending on tertiary education. They have also raised little protest at the prospect of some 40 families leaving the state by the 34 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 closure of the Tasmanian section of the A.B.C. programme T.D.T. They were also undisturbed at the recent recommendations put to the Commonwealth Government for the abolition of the Tasmanian Symphony Orchestra. Service industries on the whole provide equitable employment, and expansion in line with overall growth is a desirable aim, not their curtailment. As part of the Australian Federation, Tasmania needs to work constantly for its share of Commonwealth funding and the flow-on from Commonwealth spending. The Commonwealth should be encouraged to decentralise its various departments. If it does not do this and the major centres of population continue to take the biggest share of such spending, Tasmanian should seek just compensation. For example, education should be regarded as a major industry for Tasmania and we should argue our case to establish centres of excellence to the point that we can attract from outside the state. From summer schools run by Adult Education to special developments in Colleges of Advanced Education, particularly in the north and north-west, Tasmania should argue for more commonwealth spending on education in compensation for other state’s taking the lion’s share in other areas, such as defence, public works, transport and the public service. While a large amount of public funds are expended in services, expenditure which is designed to assist and act as a catalyst to the private sector such as forestry, agriculture, power, industrial development, tourism and vocational education, should be reviewed and tailored to the long-term goals of the economy as a whole. The cumbersomeness of the present public sector needs to be replaced with vigour and flexibility to meet the present challenge. FORESTRY For example, forestry presently accounts for 22% of Tasmanian exports. This is a vitally important industry to this state, yet forestry is not being managed in a way which best caters for all sections of the community who have an interest in our forests. Farmers are not getting an economic return for their trees, particularly those who have interests in the woodchips industry. So much extensive forestry is producing environmental damage, while intensive forestry management is an alternative which the Government has never encouraged. The UTG proposes the setting up of a forest resources council with a small membership representative of the various bodies interested in forest use and management. The functions of the council would be the production of multiple use of our forest resources by directing research, promotion of co-operation between forestry interest, research interests and conservation interests, provision of an assessment panel for assessing Environmental Impact Statements in conjunction with the Department of Environment, and the setting-up of a Forest Planning Board. Funds would be obtained from various research bodies, both state and Federal, and from the woodchip companies as it would be for their benefit in the long run that the forest Resources Council would operate. POWER The same degree of re-orientation is needed in other areas such as the HydroElectric Commission. For far too long the outlook for the H.E.C. has been gloomy, and many people whose jobs are provided in the power industry have felt that things are closing in on them. This need not be the case because the challenge in this area is not the provision of more electricity, of which we have an abundance, but the need to develop some 35 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES means of providing our own liquid fuel needs. Tasmania at present provides 46% of its power requirement from liquid fuels as against only 32% from Hydroelectric power. If, and when, liquid fuels become harder to get, Tasmania is going to be at a very real disadvantage unless we can find an alternative to the present dependence upon imported liquid fuels. The advantage we enjoy in hydro-electricity will not mean much if we can’t find some means of providing our own liquid fuels. This means that Hydro-electric Commission needs new directions, which harmonise more closely with coming shortages in power supplies of liquid fuels. A deceleration of dam construction would be in order to increase our capacity to undertake research and development in these new areas. The United Tasmania Group believes that there should be a Ministry for Fuels฀&฀Energy฀of ฀which฀a฀reconstituted฀Hydro-electric฀Commission฀would฀ form a vital part. Three separate divisions within the Ministry are required to give appropriate autonomy to Retail sales, Construction, and Research and Development. This arrangement should give greater opportunities to staff and a very real role for people in the power industry to play in Tasmania’s future development. AGRICULTURE In Agriculture the UNITED TASMANIA GROUP recognises the need for some of our greatest efforts to restore a basis for our very existence. We can see that the trend towards huge mechanised farms is ecologically undesirable, socially undesirable and wasteful of energy and resources. Farmers have not received a proper return for their produce and are being forced to leave the land. And governments assist this process because they look at things only in terms of financial accounting. Inefficient farms must go, they say. So we see apple trees bulldozed out of the ground and the farmer given a handful of dollars to go out of production. The U.T.G. believes that we should be making every effort to keep people on the land. We need a community spirit which encourages rural production. There is scope for local food processing, the setting-up of farmers’ markets, local food production for the Tasmanian market and government assistance to research alternative farming methods. The United Tasmania Group therefore supports proposals which have been made to introduce new agricultural courses at a variety of levels to stimulate a revitalised interest in farming. In particular, we propose that tertiarylevel courses in food processing and food technology, with an emphasis on commercial applications, should be fostered by the Tasmanian Government. We envisage the Tasmanian Foundation we have advocated as a key economic initiator, would play a vital role in finding the necessary incentives to stimulate agricultural production and the returns to the man on the land. TOURISM The U.T.G. has long recognised that tourism offers one of the greatest challenges to Tasmania for appropriate development as an investment of importance. It is not enough for the Liberal Party to offer management skills of its politicians. That won’t make much difference. We first have to recognise that tourism is more than just leisure activity. Tourism is now identified with knowledge-seeking, and this is a far more satisfying concept than the commercial money-grabbing of traditional tourist activities. 36 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 Out tourist activities should be developed with a view to sharing our island’s special attractions and unique environment with those who want to learn about these things as a means for enriching their life experiences. We must reject the sort of tourist promotion based on channelling the greatest income to advertisers and interstate hotel chains. The UTG recognises that we can’t be exclusive about the use of the environment and that there is a great need to make more opportunities for all sections of the community to enjoy outdoor recreation. We see that this can be achieved by giving more access to many areas close to developed parts of the state. Thus there should be more access to beaches and the coast, more rights of way for walking purposes through forests and into the mountains and generally across the countryside. The UTG believes that tourist promotion should encompass these concepts, which involve management of many more accessible features of the landscape and therefore the creation of employment opportunities in rural areas. The UTG believes this development would be best under the auspices of local government as would many other aspects of the tourist industry. State bureaucratisation of the tourist industry will inhibit local initiative and stifle opportunities for growth in the hands of Tasmanians. IMPROVING THE STANDARD OF GOVERNMENT “There needs to be an injection of these new ideas and new initiatives into the Parliamentary processes in Tasmania. The United Tasmania Group offers you this alternative to disillusionment with the major parties.” The UTG asked for support to provide a real opposition in Parliament. If the Govt is bad, then the opposition must have been equally bad to allow the Govt to stagnate, to allow the Govt to frustrate the needs and lives of so many people, to allow the economy to deteriorate so far so rapidly, to allow Tasmanians to become polarised north and south more than ever before. If the election had left us with a way in government the United Tasmania Group would have promoted greater participation in decision-making by the people who are affected by decisions made in Parliament. If we educate people, we must allow them to apply that education by being involved in the process of government. Our politicians have not attempted to work with the community they serve. Yet, in Tasmania, we have a greater opportunity for politicians and people to work together than in any other state because our politicians are well known to us and overall, from Parliament to local government, are numerous enough to be readily accessible. The UTG sees no merit in sacking politicians. When we are short of jobs in Tasmania, this would be a backward step. Rather they should be made to work more responsively by making Parliament a place of community input and inquiry. The select committee system of the Legislative Council could be extended to the Lower House as one means for politicians to seek information – not to sit in judgment – and act as a channel for public input. The UTG believes that our Parliamentary system is failing the people unless participation in decision-making and the disclosure of information are priority reforms of government. We are not impressed with recent promises made about disclosing information by the passing of a Freedom of Information Act. How can the Liberal Party 37 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES be sincere in making this promise, when the Liberals are so reluctant to take the first step, and that is to give the people of Tasmania a Hansard record of Parliamentary proceedings? Mr Bingham has made no commitment to this elementary system for making politicians accountable to the people. The UTG promises its support for a Hansard Record of Parliament. HEALTH The UTG believes that the need for more responsive decision making is so fundamental to the policies we decide are best for Tasmania that we must consider many aspects of government administration such as health, education, conservation, transport, housing and forest management in this context of improving the standard of govt. For example, in health, Tasmania has reasonably good health services, and the UTG supports the concept of more community involvement through community health centres. But, public involvement in the decision-making processes within our health administration is so low that no less than three major disputes have recently disrupted the Ambulance Commission, the Royal Hobart Hospital and the Radiotherapy service. The UTG believes that health administration would be greatly improved through provision for greater involvement by the public and the medical profession. This can be achieved through the appointment of an advisory council with direct access to the Minister for Health and the setting up of a Policy Planning Board to research and advise on the best services needed for the community. EDUCATION In Education the UTG is aware that the Government has moved further apart from the people by adopting decision-making procedures, which exclude those most vitally concerned. We cannot ignore the callous disregard for students and staff displayed by the Labor Government in its recent handling of the review of post secondary education in Tasmania. The UTG favours an education system which would allow people to proceed without barriers to the level dictated by their own inclinations and ability. We believe in the greatest possible diversity of educational opportunities being available to the community. We would like people to be able to return to education at any stage of their lives and we believe education should be accessible to people outside the major centres. Therefore the UTG will encourage: (1) an amalgamation of the technical, matriculation, and adult education areas within the community college concept. (2) the breaking down of barriers to allow freer movement of students at post compulsory level between community colleges, colleges of advance education and University. (3) the establishment of an external studies centre to instigate and coordinate external studies through existing institutions. (4) increase emphasis on continuing education by the increased availability of part-time study. (5) the reconstitution of the Council of Advanced Education to become a state council for Advanced Education representative of the interests of the North, North-west and South with initial responsibility to develop two distinct centres for advanced education at Mt Nelson and Newnham. 38 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES Section 5 Tasmania has very low retention rates in secondary education and particularly so in the North and North-West. The UTG believes that decentralisation of primary and secondary education is required to increase participation and open the way to greater involvement in tertiary education in these regions, just as decentralisation is a desirable way to allow community participation in the schooling process and to create greater diversity of education models. The UTG therefore believes that the most serious consideration should be given to involving local government in the administration of education. Schools would benefit by having their own community councils responsible for their overall functioning. Areas of professional responsibilities for teaching staff would, of course, be clearly defined and protected. Teachers need not be shuffled about the State system any longer. They could apply for positions offered by particular school councils and could obtain tenured positions in particular schools. Schemes for area allowances could be developed to encourage staff to take positions in the remoter areas. The United Tasmania Group recognises the low participation rates in tertiary education in Tasmania and the resulting low level of commonwealth funding and low levels of academic employment, general and ancillary staff employment, student study allowances and qualified work force that results as a consequence of this situation. In these circumstances the UTG is opposed to the destruction of existing institutions such as Mt Nelson College of Advanced Education. The UTG believes there should be immediate efforts made to expend tertiary education in the North and calls on Tasmanians to demand their full share of Commonwealth funding to allow such expansion. The UTG considers the Karmel Report as a formula for keeping Tasmania’s share of Commonwealth Tertiary Education funds at their present low level. Worse still, the United Tasmania Group believes that acceptance of the Karmel Report by Tasmania’s politicians means an acceptance of Tasmania’s lower participation in tertiary education than any other state. The UTG opposes this result of blatant injustice. The UTG recognises that Advanced Education in Tasmania is of two kinds: (1) the Tasmanian college System with campuses in the North and the South, and (2) the Maritime College in the North, funded and controlled by the Federal Govt. All advanced education should be brought under the control of a state Council for Advanced Education on which all colleges would be represented through elected members of the colleges and appointed members for the community (on a regional basis), the University and the Education Dept. The State Council for Advanced Education would be responsible for the financial affairs of advanced education while the campuses at Mt Nelson and Newnham would be administered by autonomous boards comprising of academic staff from each college. Note: The records covering this policy speech are incomplete. This speech was only reported as part of a series in the UTG Newsletter, which failed to deliver the final instalment that would have covered ‘Local Government’, ‘The Individual’, ‘Transport’, ‘Conservation’ and ‘UTG in Parliament’. Most of these topics are covered in the section on Policies but perhaps not completely. 39 Section 5 DR RICHARD (DICK) JONES CAMPAIGN POLICY SPEECHES THE UTG’S ROLE IN THE TASMANIAN COLLEGE OF ADVANCED EDUCATION ISSUE — A BRIEF REPORT. *Why did UTG take on the education issue? *How does it relate to our basic philosophy? *At first glance, the Karmel Report would appear to follow our basic ethic – Decentralisation of resources; a fair opportunity for all. *The report is based on statistics, the accuracy of which no one doubts. *Through bad planning the North of the State had been deprived of a fair share of education resources in relation to the south. *How do we rectify the situation? 1. If we want to rectify the situation “tomorrow” then the only solution is the Karmel approach … rob Peter by pay Paul … but in the process we must waste resources, destroy a flourishing viable institution and play around with people’s lives as if they didn’t matter. Labor M.P. Harry Holgate and the northern media would settle for nothing short of instant gratification. Their argument was fuelled by age old North/South prejudices and, or course, Harry wanted to retain his seat in Base (which he did) no matter what. 2. A more rational approach would be to divert capital expenditure where the need is greatest until such time as an equitable balance is reached. 3. The Karmel report matches Tasmania’s negative economic policies and hence its appeal to our negative state government and negative opposition. The Tasmanian Taxpayer is paying through the nose again and again for bad planning. Witness the Joy Report on rail transport and the loss of our apple industry. UTG’s economic policy involves a new approach to economic planning putting an emphasis on labour-intensive and service industries as an alternative to destructive hydro-industrial growth economics. There is scope to increase spending on service industries such as tertiary education. 4. At present Tasmania receives less than all other states, on a per capita basis, for advanced education. Thank our negative politicians for that! 5. Tasmania needs educational diversity for economic reasons and to provide freedom of choice. The net result of the Karmel Report is a shift towards University Education at the expense of other forms of education. 40 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN Section 6 Section 6 A Future for Our Children in an Environment Fit for People (Dick Jones, 9 May 1974) No other party is talking about any but short-term solutions – none has given us its idea of the long-term future. Thus they have a patchy, ad hoc policy set and the major parties are squabbling about which cure, not prevention, to use. The systems they are meddling with are too complex for the simplistic solutions and limited training of today’s politicians - there has never been a mention of the social effects of political decisions, nor of the long-term needs in industrial continuity. Only the energy crisis has jolted the complacency of our present leaders. Not one of them is calling on people to prepare to face shortages and worsening conditions – this is not popular. But a famous historian (Toynbee) sees famine, misery and autocracy ahead. Courage, inspiration and a community will to overcome are what is needed now – we have been tricked and educated to think that the world which runs on energy, food, and houses runs on economic policy, paper money, and waste. Who wants growth? Whom does it benefit? The very changes that growth brings shocks us, as children are shocked when furniture is removed or changed. Space-age gimmicks are for the few. Most of us labour along as we did centuries ago – yet even in toys the glamour of the space- age is stressed. Of what use are rockets to people who have no hot water? Of what use the super-car to those who lack food? A society tied to the values of technology must crash, as demands for oil overcome concern for pollution, and we wind off into the final nightmare. A great debate is needed – it may well have commenced: where are we going? Can we stop? Can we reverse the growth ethic? These are the questions the U.T.G. is asking. Are there any other parties concerned with the rush to extinction? We say no. Yet the 1970’s is the time to change while we have the options. Political leadership is needed, not political opportunism. Poverty Poverty in Australia is on the increase. A lot of people seem surprised by this, but it is the same in other countries, including the mighty United States. There, 21 million people are officially classified as poor. This apparently happens even in growth. The Henderson Report estimated that 8% of Australians are in dire poverty, and up to 18% in partial poverty – “on the breadline”. Economic growth does not eliminate poverty, it simply modernises it. It is true that the poor in Australia have an income and a command over material goods that is 20 to 30 times higher than that of an Indian or an African in Nigeria. But our cities are designed for a resource-intensive way of life. A citydweller, with no public transport, several miles from work and several miles in the other direction from a shopping centre, with children going to different schools in other directions, needs two motorcars. To be without them is to suffer from a sort of deprivation, which can presumably be classified as poverty. This is modernised poverty. But modernised poverty is very costly in terms of non-renewable resources. We simply cannot go on using resources in this way. 41 Section 6 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN The only realistic strategy for combating poverty is to redesign our society so that far fewer material goods are required for the purposes of everyday living. Take the motor car. It is probably required for three purposes only: to go to work, to visit the family, and to show off. Surely it would not be too difficult to design a society in which people work closer to their homes, with family and friends living closer by, and it must be relatively simple to devise less disruptive methods of showing off. Work places can be moved much closer to living places if the principles of decentralisation are observed. Such a society would have to be highly decentralised, and economic activity could be on a considerably smaller scale. It would be a far more human environment than the one we live in today. No other methods of solving the poverty problem will work; they cannot work when the elimination of poverty is given as the justification for econ-omic growth. The Labour Party does not understand this, and the Liberal Party creates the same problem by fostering economic growth for other reasons. Unemployment We have to go back to pre-industrial times to find a society with permanent full employment. Australia is at present a lucky country with high employment. But other industrial countries, like Britain, have passed through this stage and are now, and forever, involved with increasing employment problems. As industry increases in a country, so it becomes increasingly capital-intensive. This systematically reduces the number of jobs which can be provided for a given amount of capital investment. In Tasmania, the capital costs to employ a man in some aspect of a family fishing industry are about $4,000. On the other hand, it costs about $120,000 to employ one man in capital intensive fishing. Expansion of Temco at Bell Bay has a capital cost of more than a quarter of a million dollars per man employed. At this rate we have the resources to provide only a fraction of the jobs required. We can never employ the children of Tasmania when it costs so much to provide one job. Smaller and simpler machines are required which do not replace so many men and put them out of work. This would permit us to provide more employment for a given capital outlay and fewer resources would be needed to feed the work capacity of the big machines. Family-size business, recycling, and design-based industry are the answer, not monopoly, continued “growth”, and waste production. Homelessness The finances and resources needed to build more houses are getting harder to obtain. Timber and nails are scarce and there is little prospect of this position improving. Tasmanian saw-millers are going out of business while our forests are levelled to produce pulp for waste packaging. Regardless of the government in power, the number of new houses built will continue to fall. But is homelessness really the result of a shortage of houses? Homelessness seems to be the result of a combination of factors, including the population increase, urbanisation, mobility, and the disintegration of the family unit. The last is probably the most important. Family is also a phase in our lives 42 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN Section 6 between being single and elderly, and we are not building for single or elderly people in state programs. Today there are little more than two people to a house. In the past, when family units stayed together, 8 or 9 people used the same dwelling. This means that the demand for housing is four or five times what it once was, before the disintegration of the family unit. Complex units are not being built or designed. The only realistic long-term strategy for solving the housing shortage is to reestablish the family and build bigger houses for more extended “family” units. This will only be done by de-industrialising and de-centralising society. We need active financing by government to encourage family and group use of existing structures, and a swing away from monopoly building to new (perhaps very old) self-help systems such as we saw after the war when people “built their own”. Councils must permit earth and used-timber construction, and dwellings can be reduced by building multi-size housing. Unless people own housing, it deteriorates, and the present rental systems actively encourage degradation. We need a variety of smaller, cheaper houses and flats, “cottages” in the old sense, and more shared families in larger units. One way of satisfying the demand for children to care for is to live in a group, when a few children can be cared for by more adults, instead of splitting up the vulnerable nuclear families into two-parent homes, prey to disease and death loss, and strain from keeping up with the Joneses! UTG supports varied, owned housing and a wide front of design and initiatives from people prepared to help themselves; it opposes the waste of temporary urban multi-storey building and the waste of timber and materials in other areas. Crime and Disease We are more and more coming to understand that crime and disease are social distress symptoms – and can’t be cured by pink palaces (Risdon Gaols) or cream castles (Royal Hobart Hospitals). Crime is absent only from integrated societies – armoured cars are no answer, nor should people (police) be pitted against people (criminals). Our Tasmanian police are trained in combat, weapon use, riot control, but are deficient in sociology, rehabilitation and community understanding. The end can only be tragedy. Cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and injuries are signs of stress and are again tied to growth politics – we pay with our bodies for the riches of the few. No amount of adaptation can keep us healthy on a diet of no exercise (the car), chemical food, and urban stress. And for the problems of crime and disease there are no technical, only social, solutions. We can’t pay our way out of diabetes, or out of gaol. We can prevent ourselves getting in such messes only if we look to human values, human living, and a sense of community. No other party has these values. There are dozens of ways to assist health by recycling waste – unpolluted water, growing our own vegetables, and banning chemicals, but the end way is to make these homely values prized, not the amount of money we bring in, but the responsibility we show to society. A welfare state brings its own ills – the state becomes the pater familias (the 43 Section 6 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN father of all), and our need for each other is decreased. Self-sufficiency brings health and lowers crime – and monopoly government, monopoly products bring disease and social pathology. Where we are needed, we survive and feel well. Where our needs are taken care of we fall into listlessness and apathy. The young fall back on pot, the housewife on Valium, the businessman on alcohol. All are unhappy and feel unwanted. No amount of wages can pay for feeling wanted. The UTG wants to restore community, health, and safety by asserting the values of small, interdependent communities where each of us can give something to others. This is the only way to reduce crime. We must learn to care for each other. A material society is a society of unhappy, isolated individuals. Education Education is for ourselves, and from ourselves to others. It cannot flourish under a rigid school system wedded to limited values. To make education work it must open out to all ages and join in all spheres of living. We are losing more and more of our people to illiteracy and ignorance as schools become enormous factories stream-lined to produce “useful” (= trained) people, and are unable to seek out what each child wants or has to give. Only when we get a total (global) concept of life-long learning and teaching can we return to the state where each of us feels of value. Only when people see useful ends will they adopt means. People in poverty see no sense in education; their concern is in crime and resources; only the middle-class values our present system, and they too will see little sense in this system as its failures become apparent. Values must be taught, and enthusiasm. And what people learn must always be related to their life. Where life is threatened as it is, education in the classical sense is rejected. Again, it is time for the great debate – where are we going? Do we have a future? What mathematics works against waste? What poetry against the bomb? What skill against social disarray? We must educate to survive, not exploit. We must educate to value life systems, to take great care of each other and the world. This is not the direction of today’s learning. We in the UTG want a debate, a community involvement, and a value for each person. To leave our fellow man behind in an educational rat race is to leave him to the financial wolves, and this is not the way man has survived, or can survive, as a society. Ignorance is not something that can be removed by capital investment. Labour could well be squandering our resources in a futile attempt to qualify everybody to exploit a consumer society. Far better that we educate our children to be useful members of the family and the community. Again, the answer will depend on how successful we are in decentralising society. The Failed Community When we sum up what it is that we see as wrong with present-day politics, it is the ignorance, and ignoring, of the effects of freeways, change, suburbs, high-rise, growth, education, and policy on men and women. The pattern of society is fragmented by almost enforced mobility – suburbs separated from businesses, shops, schools, each other. Few see or understand what their fathers or mothers do at work. 44 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN Section 6 The chairman of BHP has stated that industry has no social responsibility – and these are the industrial ethics government is adopting. We must be just as tough, and say society has no time for industries and governments that adopt this view – we are better off without these who have abdicated their responsibility to their people. If social disruption is (as is now known) a result of non-planned expansion, then the price is too high for us to pay. When our homes are no longer our castles but will fall to the wrecker’s hammer, despite protests, it is time to resist fully. What society is saying more and more loudly, and in some countries with explosive force, is ‘stop!’ The UTG. says stop! Take stock, and regroup. There is still time, not a long time, to try to redesign the mess of recent decades. To assess the value of the National Estate, to re-establish communities of human size, where each of us has a name and a value. Not to follow the blind extinction. If we cannot solve our problems, what can we do for the Third world? We are rightly suspect as we founder in our own mess. We need to clean up our house, our streets, our governments, and let the light of human values clear the deathly fog of materialism from this country. Agriculture No study of agricultural efficiency has shown that farmers are on the land for the love of that land and that life. Many are on too-small estates, tied by uneasy contracts to monopoly processers, and rarely able to survive probate. Small family farms of sufficient size are more efficient than “land-poor” estates where enormous capital input produces little gain. Yet it is on the farm that al the food, much of the oil, and the natural fibre industries depend. Like the dweller, the farmer is the victim of the chemical culture, tied to expensive fertilizer and pesticide use to keep up monoculture and contract cropping. Like the urban dweller who revolts against high rise, individual farmers everywhere are attempting the same withdrawal “off drugs” and towards natural solutions. Few agricultural officers can advise on keyline systems or organic solutions to fertilizers but are as hooked as the salesman of the chemical companies. But the waste society sends most of that very rare commodity, phosphate, down the drain. Tons of produce are carted off farms, but the back loading from municipal waste is null. Mulching and composting, once an essential part of farming, is much reduced, as is green manuring by legumes, and crop rotation. Yet all these methods, given the economic farm size, are cheap, healthy, and feasible. We can no more afford to flush phosphates down the drain than we can afford to run overpowered cars. Bold initiatives in natural farming are being made, and the transition can be speeded up by frequent field days for demonstrating new methods, and the encouragement of such farmers by reduction or abolition of probate. We have little enough time to conduct such trials, and the time to start is now. The U.T.G. wants ‘mining’ taken out, and farming put back on the land. Publicly-owned farms such as Hagley could be the examples for surrounding districts, where field days and long-term trials of organic methods could take place. Today, successful organic farmers are established; the ideas of yesterday 45 Section 6 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN have been proven, yet little government support is available to extend these ideas to other people on the land. Specifically, the U.T.G. wants to keep farmers on the land, on economic–rigid farms, where possible with centralized cooperative facilities, to protect these from monopoly contracts, and to obtain realistic prices for their products. At the same time, we support and encourage healthy methods of food production, and the return of essential elements to the soil. We would encourage the growth of tree crops, these to be insured, and a realistic annual value paid to the farmer until maturity. We would also encourage a healthy diversity in primary production and processing, and pay close attention to disease and efficient bulk transport and market outlets. Governments in the past have put too much energy into trying to teach farmers how to farm, not enough into seeing that they are rewarded for effort. Our energies would go in that direction. Sea Fisheries The measure of success in fisheries policy is the health, or yield, of fish stocks. In these terms, we can only list failures in Tasmania:1. Loss of the surface kingfish, not unconnected with steam trawling operations in the 1890’s. 2. Loss of the D’Entrecasteaux scallop fishery, once the permanent support of 40 fishermen and shore facilities – directly connected with heavy metal pollution and the “sputnik” dredges, plus flotillas of up to 100 heavilypowered vessels, line abreast. 3. Loss of the adult shark fishery around the coast – directly connected with the฀accumulation฀of฀mercury฀from฀paper฀mills฀and฀the฀Zinc฀Company. 4. Loss of the “size” crayfish on the east coast, and much of the absolute fishery – directly connected with overfishing, overregulation, and destruction of habitat by wholesale abalone removal. 5. The present threat to surface (pelagic) inshore stocks by the granting of an unrestricted licence to a fishmeal plant at Triabunna. Many local stocks of flounder, shark, scallop and abalone have been seriously depleted. The bay-whale (blackfish) fishery is gone forever, and the fur-seal and sea elephant stocks, once so productive, are mere remnants of the populations so abundant before 1830. Not a pretty record, and not a bright future prospect. What have we left? Depleted and residual stocks of sedentary fish, hard-pressed by pollution and over-fishing, and a threatened pelagic fishery, a restricted gill-net fishery not yet fully exploited, and a drop-line fishery susceptible to modern efficient exploitation but of unknown yield. Fish farming (as oyster leases) was hardly commenced, in Ralph’s Bay, before the first sick people suffering from zinc poisoning put a stop to that. Heavy sewage, dieldrin, and heavy metal pollution in the north increases annually, unchecked. Eutrophication of estuaries (the spread of silt and weed) is proceeding at a measurable rate as is the loss of drift kelp from pollution and over-harvesting. Of the 26 major rivers surveyed by the Inland Fisheries Commission 1961-3, 23 were carrying a wide variety of pollution loads, from raw sewage to mining waste. The sands of the north coast yield arsenates, the major rivers arsenic, cadmium, zinc and mercury. Tin-wash, dairying, sprays from orchards and clear-felling for woodchips add their load. 46 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN Section 6 It is clear that unless drastic pollution control is instituted, this essential protein resource (fish) will be no more, and the expensive regulatory systems will have failed, at great public cost. We believe that drastic action is needed to prevent pollution, preserve residual stocks, and rehabilitate the marine inshore environment. The necessity is to create a perpetual resource from a degraded fishery. There are various actions which need to be taken now on this major problem:1. Instant cessation of discharge of long-lasting pollutants such as mercury, cadmium, beryllium and dieldrin. 2. Crash treatment programmes for sewage wastes, and their return to the land. An end to the dumping of any waste at sea – particularly jarosite. 3. Assessment, verging on understatement, of the yield of all stocks, and quotas placed on these. 4. Recolonization of old deserted grounds with seal and other sedentary stocks. These rookeries fertilize surrounding areas and were noted as net fisheries before seals were wiped out. 5. Severe restriction on over-efficient gear, such as the depressor-plate dredge in shallow waters (to 20 fathoms), and “softer” trawls below that depth. 6. Inshore limits to large trawls and seines, except beach seines. 7. Completely reserved breeder areas, as for the abalone on Maria Island, selected for best out-migration potential. 8. Alternative occupation and compensation for any displaced vessels and crews, some of whom could certainly be employed in inland fisheries, sports fishery, and marine fishery re-establishment. 9. Imaginative and innovative techniques for increasing fish habitat including the subsurface damming and flushing of estuaries, reef construction, and small-boat facility construction at shore stations. 10. A re-thinking of “minimum” size limits that dwarf sedentary species such as crayfish and abalone and leaves the fast-growing breeder to be harvested. 11. A simple single licence system and a reduction of administrative and non-productive research investment, in favour of applied habitat and yield research aboard-vessel. 12. Research funds channelled to professional vessels, and vessels employed in a variety of ways in charter and short-haul freight when off season. 13. Support for local design, repair, building, and slipping facilities, harbour construction, and coastal beacons. Low interest loads and long-term repayments for local vessels and facilities. 14. Support of traditional families and ports. 15. Opposition to monopoly interests, very large and too-efficient units, easy entry to restricted fisheries, and open-ended catch limits. Restriction of large scale operations to outside a five-mile limit, and extension of the federal limit to be 100 miles offshore. 16. Small waste-reclamation plants at processing installations. 17. Investigation of farming and re-seeding techniques for sedentary and estuarine species. 47 Section 6 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN 18. A much greater diversification in both catching and processing operations including trial fish fermentation, drying, and smoking techniques for low quality and waste products. Active market research. 19. The constants and open publication of policy, financing, licensing, and research operations. Constant consultation with fisherman on local conditions, “runs”, and the need for special local policies. (Circulated to P.F.A, M.F.A, Fish Processers, for comment). Aboriginal Policy – Commentary The U.T.G. were the first and are still the only party to adopt aboriginal policy for aborigines. U.T.G. members Bill Mollison, Phil Hackett, and Beth McRae have worked for Tasmanians in Abschol, and have personal knowledge of the problems in Tasmania, as well as a good idea of how Labour and Liberal governments have ignored the people in the past, and how white public servants have benefited from and mishandled aboriginal grants. We have put in months of our time helping-out. We are unreservedly for Tasmanian aboriginal people as a party, and in policy and if you can improve our policy, write to us! We have come a long way since 1968, but there is an awful long way to go, mistakes to make, and on-going policy to develop as new problems arise. We must get spirit into the movement of aboriginal rights, and make the major parties see that their policies too need updating. There is too little warmth of feeling and too much rule of law in most policies imposed, and no sense of recompense for past injustice, a principle that we believe justifies any amount of assistance to (and time spent in putting things right in) aboriginal communities. Let us all pull together now – we can only afford quarrels when we are successful. Principles: The U.T.G. supports positive discrimination for aborigines, until they have a fair chance of life, (and we believe that aboriginal people should oversee aboriginal affairs), and that we adopt aboriginal policy for aborigines. Specifics: 1. As a matter of urgency – a special health survey of Tasmanian descendants, 51% of whom are known to have illnesses brought on by stress and low nutrition. Nursing services on a travelling basis, and a qualified nurse resident on Cape Barron Island. 2. Full land rights on Cape Barron Island and to a mile offshore; to be managed by a Land Council appointed by the people. Support the Tasmanian lands rights application. 3. Special, exclusive rights to the commercial mutton-bird islands, a right the฀Maoris฀have฀in฀New฀Zealand. 4. The return of Truganini’s remains to her relatives, and a State funeral for this heroine of her people, so inhumanely treated despite her dying wishes. 5. Full state cover of primary school scholarships at 50% of the current secondary school scholarship value. 6. Urgent housing grant for housing on an owned basis. Development of an aboriginal building co-op employing aboriginal builders and contractors. 48 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN Section 6 7. Free radio and television time for information to aborigines; we envisage an aboriginal programme of news and information fortnightly (1/2 to 1 hour). 8. Urgent review and preservation of hut sites, carving, large midden sites, quarries and “ballawining” (ochre) mines in Tasmania. Aboriginal rangers appointed to preserve and explain these sites, and the sites to be protected against vandalism. 9. Support for aboriginal sports teams and music groups – recording and publishing of traditional and folk songs. 10. Support for aboriginal information service centres and field officers in legal, health counselling and employment areas. 11. Aboriginal studies and history, on a truthful basis, introduced into school curricula. Special secondary schools for those who wish it; adult and preschool services with special assistance to slow learners. 12. Support for aboriginal lecturers at tertiary institutes, and to give young aboriginal people an outline of the living culture. 13. Strict anti-discrimination laws for all people, with an investigating and prosecuting committee of lawyers and sociologists. 14. The establishment of training workshops, in conjunction with qualified tradesmen and adult education, to give special training courses at all levels to those who seek them; courses from home financing to tertiary levels. 15. Extension of present legal service to advice on hire purchase and property deals. 16. Encouragement of aboriginal credit union and emergency group services through the information centres. 17. Endorsement of aboriginal candidates for U.T.G. at state elections, especially in Bass where most supporters reside and there is a good chance of getting candidates elected. Population Policy Tasmania, and the most of rural Australia, still have a quality of life that is preserved only by the fairly low population of these areas. There are some terrible examples before us in India, South America, and the large cities of the world, of the failure to control population. Where populations get out of our control, famine, explosion of minority groups, civil unrest, infanticide, abortion, and war are the tragic alternatives to forethought. Let us then use that forethought, and preserve our country as a place to enjoy life. We cannot aim for an increase and just stop. We must stop now, and wait for numbers to level off. Middle and upper income groups have already achieved “zero population growth” and have ceased to have big families. It is the lower income groups, poorly educated and without the necessities of life, that continue to have families of five or more children. When the family is poor and large, the children have already a risky future, and people in gaol, institutions, and defined as “slow learners” are in this group above all others. The remedy is humane – lift up the 8% in poverty, and give them a proper expectation of life. At the same time we must oppose monopoly interests (BHP for one) who are constantly urging the admission of migrants as labour and 49 Section 6 A FUTURE FOR OUR CHILDREN customers. This last policy will ruin our society, overstrain our resources and pull more of us down to the poverty level. The U.T.G. adopts, as principles, the ideal of a stable population at present levels, and if possible a decrease in city populations. The methods we propose are: ฀ ฀ •฀ The฀cessation฀of ฀assisted฀migration,฀and฀an฀end฀to฀in-migration฀by฀1978. •฀ Assistance฀to฀families฀of฀3฀or฀more฀children฀at฀poverty฀level฀as฀a฀weighted฀฀ minimum wage. •฀ The฀cessation฀of ฀child฀endowment฀to฀families฀where฀total฀income฀฀ ฀ exceeds twice the minimum wage. •฀ Complete฀public฀family฀planning฀clinics฀with฀a฀variety฀of฀contraceptives฀฀ and rearing advice, counsellors, and para-medical staff. •฀ The฀gradual฀translocation฀of฀inner฀city฀populations฀to฀small฀rural฀฀ ฀ centres. Every humane means in our power must be used to halt and eventually decrease population before we reach the critical limits that have always led to tragedy where unplanned population expansion is permitted. Photo: Graham Wootton, Hobart Town Hall, inauguration of UTG, 23 March 1972, Dick Jones in foreground. 50 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES Section 7 Section 7 Brief early policies from the five UTG Extras UTG EXTRA Number 1, April 1972 4 THE UTG AND YOU One in four Tasmanians are fed up with the sort of government they get from party politics. That’s why the United Tasmania Group will do well on April 22nd. The United Tasmania Group came into being when a packed audience at the Hobart Town Hall demanded a better deal from Parliament. At the heart of the movement is the belief that much of Tasmania’s heritage is being destroyed or sold out to overseas interests because of the complete lack of concern for the environment among current politicians. Reform Many say that Parliament itself is in need of reform. There is too much party in politics and not enough individual conscience. Parliament does not even have a Hansard record of its debate for an accounting to the people. Others believe that Parliament has become such a rubber stamp for public administrators that the politicians have abdicated their authority to govern. As a result, individuals and minority groups are regarded as irritants, or irresponsible, by the bureaucratic machine. Politicians who are in tune with the people would know that the opinions of minorities are valuable indicators of public concern. Democracy After all, democracy as we know it is no less a concern for majority rule than a concern for the future freedom of minorities and defence of individual rights. The United Tasmania Group defends these rights. People can see that this Group of 12 Tasmanian citizens are united in seeking election under a common banner of protest and constructive new thinking for better government. We need a ginger group in Parliament. We need a watchdog group to protect Tasmania from being plundered for profit. And we need people who care about the heritage we pass on to our children. UTG Candidates The United Tasmania Group has grown out of the people. Twelve candidates of sterling quality, sturdy in their origins of hard work, forward-looking in their abilities to conquer barriers to self government, keen to represent the people through a genuine willingness to serve. They are pledged to launch Tasmania on a newlife economy and to preserve stability and a quality of life in Tasmania that will be free of pollution and the thoughtless destruction of natural beauty. OLEGAS TRUCHANAS We must try to retain as much as possible of what still remains of the unique, rare and beautiful. It is terribly important that we take interest in the future of our remaining wilderness, and in the future of our national parks. Is there any reason why, given this interest, and given enlightened leadership, the idea of beauty could not become an accepted goal of national policy? If we can revise some of our attitudes towards the land under our feet; if we can accept a role of the steward, and depart from the role of the conqueror; if we can accept the view that man and nature are inseparable parts of the unified whole – then Tasmania can be a shining beacon in a dull, uniform and largely artificial world. - Olegas Truchanas, 1923–1972. Lake Pedder’s impending destruction to provide power production for about half a century must be regarded as the greatest ecological tragedy since European settlement of Tasmania. – UNESCO. Both major political parties sanction this tragedy. Only United Tasmania Group candidates will guard our heritage. THE STRUGGLE TO SAVE PEDDER 4 25,000 copies of this UTG Extra were printed and letter-boxed across Tasmania—the฀ first฀ time฀ any฀ political฀ party฀ had฀ undertaken฀ such฀ an฀ exercise in Tasmania. Lake Pedder, in South-West Tasmania, 1972, is the focus of world-wide conservation concern, as the water of the Serpentine River slowly creeps up the valley behind the Serpentine Dam to annihilate forever this unique scenic gem. 51 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES History Lake Pedder was first sighted in 1835 by John Wedge, Assistant Surveyor, who named the Lake after the then Chief Justice of the Colony, Sir John Lewes Pedder. In 1897, H.M. Nicholls wrote a letter to “The Mercury” in which he stated: “I do not know whether our Tourist Association has ever considered the possibilities offered by Lake Pedder as a means of attracting tourists to our shores, but if such is not the case I think it is time that this comparatively unknown “beauty spot” was brought under their notice … It is one of the prettiest spots I have ever seen.” It is difficult to adequately express the impact this remarkable area impresses on one’s consciousness – the unbelievable quietness, broken only by the call of the abundant bird life, and the gentle flurry of a breeze released from the majestic grandeur of the surrounding mountains. It has a depth of beauty and isolation that has to be experienced in its many moods to be fully appreciated. The existing natural Lake Pedder and the area which surrounds it is so beautiful, that in 1954, it was recommended by bodies interested in conservation to be safeguarded for the future as a scenic reserve under the Scenery Preservation Act, 1915. The area has rugged, majestic scenery peculiar to Tasmania, and is of considerably scientific interest. In 1967 when the H.E.C. asked Parliament to approve its Gordon River Power Development Scheme, there was immediate opposition from all who were aware of the gravity such destruction of this primeval area would involve. The realisation that this area so unique to Australia should be desecrated for all time for short term economy and vested interests was beyond comprehension. Immediately a Save Lake Pedder Committee was formed, but despite considerable support and 10,000 signatures, The Gordon River Power Scheme was approved, and the H.E.C. given a free hand in the obliteration of a National Park. Since that time, public awareness and appreciation of this area has been steadily growing. More and more people have visited the Lake by light aircraft and on foot, and have seen for themselves how irreplaceable this loss would be. In 1955, as a result of efforts by conservationists an area of 65,000 acres around Lake Pedder was declared a National Park by Act of Parliament. But in Tasmania the peculiar situation exists where a region can be called a national park and yet be sacrificed to mining interests, timber, woodchip companies, or in the case or Lake Pedder National Park – to the H.E.C. It is significant that Lake Pedder has, by its own unique beauty, attracted thousands of visitors, who come again and again to marvel at its unbelievable grandeur. It is also significant that not one cent has been spent by the Tourist Authorities to promote this natural tourist attraction. This surely, is evidence sufficient to justify its retention, in its natural state. So it was, that in 1967, only twelve years after the official declaration of the Park, the Tasmanian Government decided to “modify” the area by dam construction which would create two vast lakes: Lake Gordon, the immense storage lake, and Lake Pedder, both to be submerged under 50 feet of water from the Serpentine and Huon Rivers extending over an area of 97 square miles. During the long weekend February-March, 1971, a massive “Pedder Pilgrimage” was organised when nearly 2,000 people walked and flew into the Lake. This was an unforgettable experience, and it was here that we decided to call a Public Meeting in the Hobart Town Hall the following week. The meeting was attended by over 500 people who unanimously supported the Hon. Louis Shoobridge, M.L.C. in the move to table a motion for Referendum in the Legislative Council to save Lake Pedder. At this meeting the nucleus of the Lake Pedder Action Committee was formed. That statement made 75 years ago, and we are still having to fight the apathy, ignorance and lack of foresight politicians, and those in authority to recognise that they are condoning such an act of stupid vandalism. The Beach The outstanding feature of the area is the beach at Lake Pedder. This beach, composed of fine-grained white quartzite sand, is two and a quarter miles long, in the summer months is up to 600 yards wide, and is one of the natural wonders of Australia in beauty and magnificence. The still, shallow waters, reflect the surrounding mountains and appear friendly and inviting. Muted colours and delicate shapes – the real and unreal are divided and held by the encircling white sandy shore. At the eastern end, the beach widens into a shimmering crescent from which long fingers of sand extend into the golden depths. 52 The following day in the Legislative Council the motion for a Referendum was defeated in the presence of an unprecedented overflowing gallery. It was clearly evident that most of the members were not prepared to reassess their thinking in the light of changing environmental opinion throughout the world. The enormous figure of 26.8 million dollars was mentioned for the first time. At the time of the 1967 Select Committee’s Report the cost was said to be $5-$8 million. The Government Leader, who announced this figure appeared reluctant to put his BRIEF EARLY POLICIES good name behind it. “The Hydro has given it to us. We don’t know how it is made up. Is any Hon. Member prepared to say it is wrong?” he went on just before the vote was taken. “Any Hon. Member contemplating a vote in favour of the referendum should have ready advice where we can get this kind of money”. Three weeks later the A.B.C. Australia Wide Television programme “Four Corners” came to Hobart to cover a documentary on the Lake Pedder question, so farreaching and controversial had the implications of this issue become. Members of the Lake Pedder Action Committee participated in this coverage, and herein the Premier, Mr. Angus Bethune, stated in an interview that it was too late for any alteration to the plans. Parliament had settled the matter in 1967. Asked what he envisaged the power requirements would be in the foreseeable future, he replied that “the next forty years would be near enough”. For that short estimate of power production, irreplaceable Lake Pedder and the rest of the magnificent Gordon River area would be sacrificed. (It must be stressed here that Lake Pedder was not intended as a storage lake but only to act as a convenient run-off for the Huon River which would be diverted into the vast Lake Gordon). The Lower House of Parliament was never told that there existed alternatives that would save the Lake. It was not until the very end of the Legislative Council Select Committee that Members even became aware that an Alternative Plan existed, drawn up the H.E.C. itself. The unwillingness of the H.E.C. even to mention the possibility of saving Lake Pedder was further confirmed. One Member of the Select Committee has since publicly stated on two occasions that he now knows that the wrong decision was made. In May, 1971, three members of the Lake Pedder Action Committee gave evidence to the Federal Wild Life Select Committee on the subject of Lake Pedder. They were Dr. Richard Jones, Mr. Brian Proudlock, and Mrs. Brenda Hean. In November, an all day Symposium was conducted by the Action Committee in the Hobart Town Hall to a capacity audience. The speakers were – Chairman, Dr. Richard Jones, Senior Lecturer in Botany at the Tasmanian University, Mr. S. Eldridge, President, Tasmanian Conservation Trust, Mr. Milo Dunphy, Conservation Foundation, from Sydney; Mr. Bruce Davis, Lecturer in Public Administration, University of Tasmania, Dr. Geoff Mosley, Assistant Director, Australian Conservation Foundation, Mr. Neil Batt, Section 7 Member House of Assembly, Tasmania, and Dr. Bruce Davidson, Senior Lecturer in Agricultural Economics, University of Tasmania. The papers delivered at this Symposium are in the hands of the printers, and will contribute valuable knowledge and considerable interest to the future overall planning of Tasmania’s environment. Representatives from the Symposium met the Premier (Mr. Bethune) in a Deputation, relating to the Four Motions passed at that meeting. He considered the advice of experts, from the H.E.C. without question, he abruptly terminated the interview. Politicians, he stated, were capable of a much broader assessment of issues. During the year, Senior Branches of the Lake Pedder Action Committee were formed in Burnie, Melbourne, Tamar, with affiliated bodies in Canberra, Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth. Over 50 petitions have been presented by Members of the Federal Parliament, amounting to more than a quarter of a million signatures. The Shadow Minister for the Environment Mr. Thomas Uren, has asked for a Non-Repayable Government Grant which would save the Lake. A flood of telegrams and letters followed this request. A further effort was made in March this year, 1972, when a Public Meeting was again held in the Hobart Town Hall, with the attendance of over 700 people, stating adamantly that Lake Pedder MUST be saved, and an inquiry thoroughly investigated by independent authority. The result of this meeting was to form an Independent Group to nominate candidates for the forthcoming State Election. Lake Pedder has become the symbol for Conservation versus the exploitation of land use throughout Australia, and indeed the world, and to this end the United Tasmania Group has decided to stand to defend these vital issues. There is no more pressing conservation issue in Australia today than the flooding of Lake Pedder. The twelve candidates standing for this election are consciously aware of their responsibilities toward the environmental problems of chipmilling, beachmining, forestry, and power generation. The United Tasmania Group seems to be the first political conservation group in Australian politics. It was formed largely through the efforts of the Lake Pedder Action Committee. Lake Pedder will live or perish by the will of the people, as did our aboriginals. God forbid that we allow such a tragedy to happen again. 53 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES A lot of people are voting for UTG candidates because they care about their countryside and want an environmental watchdog in parliament, they see the dangers in a State dominated by Hydroeconomics. They do no want to see the fruit and fisheries industries left on the scrap heap. They want woodchipping and mining controlled so our resources are not pillaged for the profit of outsiders. They want to know whether it is really necessary to destroy Australia’s most beautiful lake and they want the flooding postponed to allow a full independent investigation. They are tired of squabbling and hypocrisy of past parliaments. Manufactured goods have to bear added freight costs, which makes them uncompetitive with goods manufactured on the mainland. I believe that both parties have failed Tasmanians by not setting up a select committee to inquire into the treatment Tasmanians should receive under the Commonwealth constitution. If necessary a case should be taken to the High Court to compel the Commonwealth Government to provide finance to subsidise shipping and air services so that Tasmanians do not suffer any disadvantages because we are the Island State. We will have to be ruder to our politicians. - The Duke of Edinburgh. The issues which will make and break governments in the ‘70’s will be those of conservation, pollution and the environment. - Andrew Peacock. Join them by voting United Tasmania Group. UTG’s New Deal for Aborigines The Tasmanian – Mainland Isolation Madness An Exercise in Government Ineptitude by Sir Alfred White Tasmanians have always been handicapped by the 280 miles of sea separating us from the mainland. Yet we live in a world of fast transport. It is farcical, for instance, to have four air flights each day to Tasmania, yet, because of the coinciding times of the two airline system, there are only 2 arrival and departure times. During my years as Agent General in London I became very aware of the isolation of the whole of Australia from the rest of the world. The Australian Government encouraged migration, and by so doing separated families for ever. The greater proportion of our migrants came from the industrial centres of England and the parents and relatives did not have the financial means to come and see their folk in their new land. It cost Australians millions of dollars in the numbers of returning migrants – I talked and fought to have this ridiculous situation altered. At long last a move is being made, but more has to be done. I have returned to Tasmania to see the great need to stop the present isolation of Tasmania from the other Australian states. Our young people who go to other states are penalised by the high fares, both sea and air to visit their home state. By contrast, it is easy to travel from one end of the continent to the other, but excluding Tasmania. Today with motor transport and the great advance in the range of motor vehicles, land distance is no bar – but we live on an island. 54 The United Tasmania Group will not just talk about Tasmanian aborigines, but act for them. UTG members of Parliament will press hard for land rights to part of Cape Barren Island, special rights in the muttonbird industry of the Furneaux Group and government aid in the development of small local industries based on public service resources. Aboriginal people will be employed in any position created to administer aboriginal funds or enterprises and will be assisted in the establishment of a training workshop on Cape Barren Island. UTG members will emphasize that state and Commonwealth funds, intended for aboriginal people should be administering through a Council elected by the people. These issues are crucial to prevent the destruction of a stable and self-supporting community on Cape Barren Island. It is U.T.G. policy to make a positive move to assist Tasmanian aboriginal people, a group that has been neglected far too long. Australia’s First Conservation “Party” – by Milo Dunphy All round Australia conservationists are watching the progress of the United Tasmania Group. The United Tasmania Group is the first group of parliamentary candidates in Australia organised around a core of environmental and conservation policies. The obvious prize is Lake Pedder – Australia’s most beautiful lake. But even more is at stake. Success of the United Tasmania Group at the polls is likely to spark a massive policy stocktaking among Labor and Liberal Party hierarchies around Australia. BRIEF EARLY POLICIES Mr. Peacock, Minister for the Army, recently said that the issue which will make or break governments in the 70’s will be those of conservation, pollution and environment. Liberal Party Make-Believe However, no Australian Liberal Government has so far seen fit to endorse Mr. Peacock’s statement by producing comprehensive policy statements in these fields. At best Liberal Governments have produced face saving releases and isolated pieces of legislation which they effectively frustrated by denial of staff and funds. The true policies of the Liberal Party in environmental matters are revealed in statements by such leaders as Mr. Bolte: “Australia can be a quarry for the whole world,” or again: “Conservation and pollution are important – but not as important as a multi-million dollar industry.” The Federal Government Such disastrous policies are confirmed in the Federal Government’s recent decision to allow uranium mining operations to proceed in the Top End National Park. It has also agreed to penguin and seal hunting by northern hemisphere firms in the southern seas. It supports the use of supersonic Concorde aircraft over Australia despite the fact that it been banned by such countries as USA and Japan because of its potential for major damage to the environment. Tasmanian Liberal Policies And in Tasmania the list of Liberal disasters continue: an Omega tracking station in the Cradle Mountain National Park, a rampant chip-milling industry allowed to operate even over the Tooma Wildlife Reserve, destruction of the Southwest National Park by the Hydro Electric Commission, uncontrolled firing of native forests, beach mining, widespread pollution, etc., etc. UTG has been formed to bring a new environmental responsibility into Tasmania government: its success will be reflected throughout Australia. Section 7 Indeed we congratulate the press for focusing attention on what is a national test case of the value and even the survival of Australian civilisation. The Centenary Convention of the Institute in May last year had as its theme “The Consequences of Today.” Speaker after speaker emphasised that destruction of the natural systems of the world by blind obedience to a policy of unlimited growth literally threatens the very survival of mankind. Sir Mcfarlane Burnet said “Science and technology and the use of high level intelligence to manipulate our legal conventions have produced the vast organisations that are destroying the non-recurring resources of the earth …” Sir Robert Matthew noted that speaker after speaker “emphasised the ecological crisis has no responsibility of solution without very large measures of agreement on restraints.” Mr. F.S. Buckley (N.S.W. Manager, I.C.I.) said “I would like governments in their instrumentalities, such as power and transport undertakings to set a practical example to industry, commerce and the rest of the community in environmental protection.” Dr. Stephen Boyden (Department of Human Biology, John Curtin School of Medical Research, A.N.U.) concluded: “Our ability to understand the situation in a comprehensive way to overcome the threats to the survival of our species depends on the extent to which we prove ourselves capable of bringing together the knowledge acquired in many different academic disciplines, spanning across the natural sciences, and the humanities and of using the knowledge creatively and with imagination in the true interests of humanity. I consider that such integrative scholarship represents the great intellectual and emotional challenge of this era … and on its success of failure may rest the future of civilisation and of our species. Save Lake Pedder It is hard to find a more apt illustration of these problems than the Hydro Electric Commission, Tasmania. Devoted to the growth concept, boasting only professional engineers and economists “highly specialised in their fields,” readily manipulating the legal conventions, this powerful and single minded authority refuses to acknowledge that it has begun the destruction of the natural systems of a whole region.” The Royal Australian Institute of Architects, on whose behalf I am writing, fails to see that “it is both surprising and unfortunate that the Lake Pedder issue has been raised yet again.” (“The Australian” Letters January 19 and 20th). To any reasonable man the imminent flooding of “Australia’s most beautiful lake,” Lake Pedder, is a disaster. To suggest as do Sir Alan Knight and apparently Premier Bethune, that Australia should not consider turning back from this disaster, even at the eleventh ROYAL AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS TAKES STAND ON PEDDER The Editor, Sir, 55 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES hour, is absurd. It reveals a total lack of awareness of the change in world attitude to the evaluation of the true costs of development. This is a situation in which the prime funding authority, the Commonwealth must show itself capable of setting a practical example and imposing restraints in the interest of the total community. In practical terms this means first: opening the prematurely closed valves on the Serpentine Dam within the next few weeks; secondly, a full scale public enquiry and discussion of alternatives. On behalf of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, I implore the Commonwealth Government to ACT NOW. Yours faithfully, J. A. FISHER. Chairman, Federal Environment Committee Royal Australian Institute of Architects, Canberra. Hydro Economics - What is it? Unlimited production of hydro-electricity on the assumption that industries will be automatically attracted to Tasmania is the first ingredient of hydro-economics. The second ingredient is one large measure of blind faith in the assurance that unlimited industrialisation is “good for us”. Both Liberal and Labour are barracking for a continuation of this HEC-economy which dominates Tasmania to the exclusion of all else. This economy simply has no room for ecology (the relation of life to the environment) as shown by provisions for industrial development within national parks in both Liberal and Labor platforms. What makes this policy dangerous in its dependence upon situations and promises which are seldom realised. The whole of the State economy is committed to a programme of possibilities rather than realities. This is simply gambling with peoples’ lives, their living standard, their land and their destiny. The whole of human history is blotted with such sorry gambles. The United Tasmania Group makes a clear distinction between gambling and government. It wishes to see good government not dangerous gambling reflected in hydro economics. The last three years has been a shattering experience of unrealised industrial targets. No less than 47 new multi-million dollar industries have been promised to Tasmania by Mr. Bethune. Many have been reported as “enormous users of power” but the only enormous use of anything to emerge has been a plethora of words, and a ruthless continuation of a gigantic money-eating organization for which every section of society suffers. The United Tasmania Group believes that the gambling with possibilities must cease, and that diversification 56 of State investments is the essential key to economic security and satisfaction in Tasmania. Independent Study Refutes HEC Claims Only 13 per cent of Tasmanians want to see Lake Pedder flooded. Fifty seven per cent want it preserved. This is the result of the first independent survey of public opinion on the Lake Pedder controversy. The survey was carried out by students of the Department of Environmental Design of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education several weeks ago. A sample cross section of 140 Tasmanians were interviewed. Dr. R. Jones, Co-Director of the United Tasmania Group, said the survey completely refuted recent claims that only a few Tasmanians had ever seen the lake. Dr. Jones said it is almost certain that a much smaller proportion of people from N.S.W. would have visited Kosciusko than the proportion of Tasmanians who have visited Lake Pedder. Dr. Jones criticised the major parties for failing to recognise the regard the majority of Tasmanians have for Australia’s most beautiful lake. “The only way for democracy to triumph in this, as in so many other issues in Tasmania today, is for Tasmanians to seat a responsible group of Independent Candidates in Parliament,” he said. Beach mining is open cut mining – the most destructive form of land use on our most fragile and precious seashores. Your vote can protect Tasmania’s prime recreation areas from environmental disasters of the South Coast of Queensland and the North Coast of N.S.W. TASMANIAN FRUIT INDUSTRY HEADED FOR COLLAPSE by Ron Brown One thousand acres of orchard were grubbed out in 1971. Another 1,000 acres is badly neglected and will go immediately after this fruit harvest. The Apple and Pear Growers Federation and the State Fruit Board have expressed alarm at the situation. In every district numbers of orchardists are saying that this will be their last year in production. Yet the situation can be remedied. The condition into which the orcharding industry has been allowed to lapse by so-called responsible government amounts to a scandal of the most disreputable kind. The attitude of both parties has been one of appalling indifference to this most valuable industry known conservatively to be worth $20,000,000 annually to Tasmania. In spite of urgent requests to the Government to set up a State fruit authority the buck BRIEF EARLY POLICIES was passed to the Commonwealth. This was done against the dire warning of the Grant report published as far back as 1970 that the delay in setting up a Federal authority would be intolerable to the industry. Huon and Tamar Valleys Economic Backwaters The threat to these areas and to the Mersey Valley orchardists is a reality. The UTG is convinced that if action is not taken immediately to provide legislation to establish a State authority for the 1973 season that these richly productive areas will become economic backwaters. The insecurity and pessimism of the cities of Hobart and Launceston are looming high. With the loss of the fruit industry the volume of shipping entering the Port of Hobart would be drastically cut and its main role could well become that of a Japanese fishing port. The United Tasmania Group declared that the fruit industry could pass the point of no return in 1973 unless the present crisis is resolved. Production is likely to be reduced from the present 7,0000,000 bushels per annum to 3,500,000 within two years. With this reduction it would be difficult to maintain a viable shipping programme. At its peak there were 1,200 growers. They are now reduced to less than 700 in number. From 26,000 acres under production at its peak the area of orchards in the state is now reduced to 18,000. UNLESS GROWERS ARE PRESENTED WITH A PLAN OF POSITIVE ACTION C O N F I D E N C E W I L L N O T B E R E S T O R E D. The Grant Report said that unless a State Authority capable฀of฀enabling฀us฀to฀compete฀with฀New฀Zealand฀ and South Africa, was speedily established, it saw the valuable fruit industry being lost to Tasmania. U N I T E D TA S M A N I A G R O U P W I L L A C T I M M E D I AT E LY The UTG recognises that the number of growers leaving the industry is an indictment of government inertia. It agrees with growers that the delay of the Government in its handling of the Grant recommendations showed a serious lack of responsibility. Section 7 new Parliament for creating a Tasmanian Authority for the handling of the 1973 crop. •฀ This฀ authority฀ shall฀ be฀ controlled฀ by฀ the฀ growers฀ and run by experts in their field employed by the authority. •฀ The฀Authority฀must฀be฀capable฀of ฀serving฀all฀practical฀ needs of the industry. No Half Way Measures The UTG believes there are no half-way measures to the urgent problems of marketing, transport and production. It will not accept useless time-wasting compromises. Growers, your industry is headed for total collapse. Don’t let it happen. You have the power in your vote to prevent disaster so use it to elect the UTG team. Accept their specific commitments to save the industry and beware of the vague generalities in the promises made by the two major parties in their policy statements. They have had their chance and have failed the industry. UTG cares about you. Mountainous Waste (the waste trend is up and the picture is dark). Dumping of apples year by year has reached astronomical figures. Under the last years of the Liberal Government the figures have skyrocketed. In 1969 32,000 bushels of fruit were dumped around the countryside. In 1970, this figures jumped to 237,000 and in 1971 it amounted to 773,000 or 10% of the total crop. This is deplorable in the eyes of growers who are appalled at the staggering waste. When the count goes up for 1972 this industry is likely to have dumped and wasted over 1,000,000 bushels of fruit or approximately 15 per cent of the total crop. Neither party has promised effective specific and immediate action. A former Labor government refused to set up an authority during its term of office and the Liberal government has dallied inexcusably. UTG promises immediate action and your voting power could put this group into a position in which it could save your industry from collapse. POLLUTION •฀ That฀ growers฀ should฀ possess฀ their฀ own฀ industry฀ authority consistent with any democratically controlled business of importance. Recently the Americans rediscovered the long-forgotten fact that sewage is good for plants, and commenced reestablishing forests on mined-over areas using sewage. We pour ours, untreated and part-treated, into some of our best beaches and estuaries, with disastrous results. The UTG is concerned to change this state of affairs, as outlined below by Dr. R. Jones, co-director of the UTG campaign:- •฀ It฀will฀insist฀on฀legislation฀in฀the฀first฀sitting฀of ฀the฀ A five-year programme to eliminate pollution was called Grower Controlled Authority for 1973 The UTG urges that: 57 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES for by Dr. R. Jones, Co-director of the United Tasmania Group, at the opening of the UTG northern headquarters in Launceston. “It is ludicrous”, Dr. Jones said, “to commend the promises of the Liberal Party on pollution control. Alderman Fisher is misleading the Launceston people by praising the Premier’s luke-warm promises on this matter. It is much more to the point that Alderman Fisher does not know where the money will come from for Launceston’s sewage treatment plant.” Dr. Jones said that United Tasmania Group members of Parliament would move for an immediate enquiry into ways and means of raising the necessary finance to allow local governments to install proper treatment plants for sewage disposal. “There is no reason why a determined government should not have a comprehensive programme for sewage treatment under way immediately.” Said Dr. Jones. “In 5 years pollutionfree waters would be a reality.” “The Liberal Government has made a mockery of environmental control,” Dr. Jones said. He described Mr. Pottinger, the Director of Environmental Control as “the man the government muzzled.” Mr. Pottinger has no statutory authority, no staff, and no funds. How could people possibly believe that the Liberal Party are in favour of combatting pollution with such a record?” Dr. Jones asked. Dr. Jones said that there is serious mercury pollution throughout Tasmania. The people are not being made aware of the health dangers to this very dangerous poison. Dr. Jones criticised the dumping of arsenic wastes in Bass Strait. Arsenic concentrations of several parts per million occur in places along the shores of Bass Strait as a result. In such places no marine organisms are to be found alive. Dr. Jones said United Tasmania Group members in parliament will awaken parliament’s conscience on the matter of poisoning by industrial wastes. We will demand action too, to stop this island from becoming the cesspit that other countries have become through greed or carelessness or apathy. Strong pollution controls are needed now.” Dr. Jones criticised the Liberal and Labor Parties for using pollution as an electoral gimmick. Alderman Ron Excell of Hobart has been fighting a lone battle against pollution for years. Yet Labor refused to endorse Alderman Excell as a candidate for this election in which pollution is a major issue. “Only United Tasmania Group Candidates care enough for the Tasmanian environment and the rights of people to clean pure 58 water and unspoiled countryside to fight these rights in Parliament,” Dr. Jones said. POSTAL VOTES If you are going away for the weekend, or are unwell, you can vote now at the Electoral Offices. Postal votes are available from UTG Headquarters, 137A Liverpool St. Hobart, 34 5543 For transport on Election Day ring 34 5543, 34 5859 and 34 6442. A Raw Deal for Tasmanian Fishermen by Norman Laird Sir Alfred White said recently that Hobart under the Liberals would soon be just a Japanese fishing port. Even Premier Bethune recognises this danger, for one of his promised “multi-million dollar industries” is a proposal to “trash” edible fish for an American pig-food enterprise. In a world running short of protein, this solution of the Premier’s typifies the short-sighted approach of the Liberal Government to future problems. Hydro projects get enormous financial aid to produce a product that sells under cost to big industry. But our small boat builders, unequalled in the world, cannot obtain help to develop modern vessels for our own offshore fishing industry; and so the Japanese exploit these resources unchallenged. The local industry is overburdened by red tape, permits, licences and surveys. Add to this a minimum of taxation relief, and local fishermen operate at a competitive disadvantage. As if this weren’t enough, the fishing industry is subject to all sorts of external influences which often threaten local productivity. If pollution increases – and it has already affected oyster farms฀and฀N.Z.฀shark฀fishermen฀–฀the฀fisheries฀are฀the฀ first to go. Ongoing and thorough analysis is needed of pollutants in fish stocks. Firms causing such pollution could well pay into an insurance scheme for any loss of income to fishermen. We do not need expensive large industries that destroy viable small industries. We do need clean food industries, and in the world of tomorrow, fish will be of far greater importance than zinc or newspapers. The UTG believes that intensive market research and far more direct aid to fishermen should parallel investment in expensive patrol vessels and shore installations. Fisheries training and travel grants to fishermen should be given for conferences outside the state. Market research and centralised marketing advice is also essential, and processors, builders and fishermen all need a vigorous programme to develop our own excellent Tasmanian fish stocks for local consumption and export. BRIEF EARLY POLICIES PRESIDENT JOHNSON’S CREED Let us proclaim a creed to preserve our natural heritage with rights and the duties to respect those rights: •฀ The฀ right฀ to฀ clean฀ water฀ –฀ and฀ the฀ duty฀ not฀ to฀ pollute it. •฀ The฀right฀to฀clean฀air฀–฀and฀the฀duty฀not฀to฀befoul฀it. •฀ The฀right฀to฀surroundings฀reasonably฀free฀from฀manmade ugliness – and the duty not to blight. •฀ The฀ right฀ to฀ easy฀ access฀ to฀ places฀ of฀ beauty฀ and฀ tranquillity where every family can find recreation and refreshment – and the duty to preserve such places clean and unspoilt. •฀ The฀right฀to฀enjoy฀plants฀and฀animals฀in฀their฀natural฀ habitats – and the duty not to eliminate them from the face of this earth. These rights assert that no person, or company or government has a right in this day and age to pollute, to abuse resources, or to waste our common heritage. The work to achieve these rights will not be easy. It cannot be completed in a year or five years. But there will never be a better time to begin. - Message to Congress, President Johnson, 1966. Amongst The more memorable claims made by the HEC over Lake Pedder, are the creation of beach foreshores and that the new reservoir will be of even greater beauty. Have you seen a HEC reservoir lately? Have you seen the foreshores at Lake King William, the Great Lake, Lake Arthur, Lake Binney or Lake Echo? Shannon? The evidence is there in abundance, yet we the public are expected to ignore the devastation of large areas of the hinterland and believe that the new reservoir will have “greater scenic appeal” than the most beautiful lake in Australia. Our Rivers Becoming Open Sewers by Rod Broadby Raw faeces and lavatory paper on Hobart’s once clean beaches are mute witness that local sewage disposal methods are hopelessly inadequate to keep pace with city development. A sign on a former popular swimming beach warning that bathing there is no longer permitted because of health reasons is a tragic indictment of the indifference of local and governmental authority to the growing menace of pollution in the Derwent. Haphazard Dumping of Waste When the cities of Hobart and Launceston came into Section 7 existence legislation allowed the dumping of community waste into the local rivers. Disregard of the quantity and nature of the waste products being dumped has resulted in polluted waterways and polluted air. The Derwent, with its tidal estuary, has accommodated the effluent for many years – but it has reached saturation point and must now be considered a foul environment and a hazard to the health of the community. Growing Filth Investigations have proved that raw faeces, oil, debris and rubbish end up on the beaches in the estuary where children are accustomed to swim and play. Daily cleanup campaigns have become necessary. The discharge of chemical wastes into the Derwent has altered the ecology of the river and will result in a cumulative poisoning effect which could cause ill health to the community. Existing legislation needs amending to bring it into line with modern scientific knowledge. The longer these steps are delayed the more difficult and expensive they will become. Tourist Trade Hit With the opening of the Casino in Hobart it is hoped there will be an increase in tourist trade, especially from spending passengers aboard ocean liners. Currently, big ocean liners cannot spend longer than 12 hours in port because the Marine Board provides no link up sewage facilities. Our Casino could become another white elephant because of the lack of co-operation between governing and civic organisations. Industry must come into line The existence of large industries such as the paper mill at฀Boyer฀and฀the฀E.Z.฀Co:฀ensure฀a฀balanced฀economy.฀ The dictates of these companies cannot be tolerated, however, when they insist that the effluent they discharge is harmless, and if it isn’t then it doesn’t matter. Adequate legislation would be insisted upon by the United Tasmania Group to require equipment in factories to provide for the re-use of their effluent or to render it harmless. Before Tasmania sinks into the mire that engulfs big cities elsewhere a concerted effort must be made by all sections of the community to accept the advice of experts and place the necessary controls on industry. Pollution legislation which is proposed for purely political reasons will not be tolerated. The exemption to the Health Act currently given to mining companies will be revoked. 59 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES Director of environmental control The Director of Environmental control, appointed twelve months ago, has received little co-operation from the Government in carrying out his appointed task. The report of a sub-committee on a proposed bill to amend the Public Health Act has been in abeyance for nearly two years. The legislation should make provision for a complete embargo to be placed on air and water pollution, unless an exemption has been obtained and a licence granted to the appropriate industry on payment of a prescribed fee. Licences should be renewable annually to enable the commission to reconsider its attitudes to the particular pollution problem. Five years to clean up The UTG believes that local government authorities and industry should be given a period of five years to eliminate pollution or to have controls under way to an acceptable degree. The community must no longer bow to the financial dictates of big business. The people are not being made aware of the health dangers of the serious mercury pollution throughout Tasmania. Paper pulp wastes dumped at Wesley Vale and the wood chip wastes at Long Reach and Triabunna endanger the fishing industry. Marine organisms are no longer found alive in areas along the north coast where arsenic wastes have concentrated as a result of dumping in Bass Strait. United Tasmania Group members in Parliament will awaken Parliament’s conscience on the matter of poisoning by industrial wastes. In addition, we need an immediate enquiry into ways and means of raising the necessary finance to allow local governments to install proper treatment plants for sewage disposal. Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution A three-year National Parks programme for Tasmania (The first comprehensive park programme ever put forward by a political group in Australia). A system of secure national parks should be the foundation of the future tourist industry of Tasmania. Such parks would preserve the major scenic attractions of the state and maintain representative samples of our unique natural environments. A comprehensive system should also include historic sites and areas of anthropological interest such as aboriginal carvings and middens. Parks as Political Footballs For too long both Liberal and Labor parties have treated national parks as political footballs for election vote catching. This attitude can no longer be tolerated. Vital and irreplaceable areas are being lost daily to exploiting companies, and government vandalism further reduces the size and value of already dedicated reserves. The UTG will fight to ensure that the rate of alienation does not continue to keep pace with dedication, and will strive to increase the proportion of Tasmania in parks and reserves from the present 6.7% to over 10%. UTG will press hard for a comprehensive system of parks as part of a three year programme of dedication. It believes the system should include: •฀ A฀56,000฀acre฀Norfolk฀Range฀National฀Park฀between฀ the Pieman and Arthur Rivers •฀ The฀Prince฀of ฀Wales฀Range. •฀ Extension฀ of฀ the฀ South฀ West฀ National฀ Park฀ from฀ Macquarie Harbour to Port Davey. A further 20,000 acre extension to include Precipitous Bluff on the South Coast. •฀ A฀recreational฀reserve฀in฀the฀Central฀Plateau฀with฀a฀ wilderness reserve in the western half of the Western Tiers in the Walls of Jerusalem area. Tasmania has a wide range of serious pollution problems and it provides a particular lesson that the mere abundance of water does not of itself give a guarantee against water pollution. It may in fact be an invitation to extravagance and careless use of water resources. •฀ Part฀of฀Flinders฀and฀Cape฀Barren฀Islands. Tasmania differs not at all from the other States in the serious nature of its pollution problems and the need for abatement is just as urgent. •฀ A฀ sampling฀ of฀ coastal฀ lagoon฀ and฀ coastal฀ health฀ environments. We noted that the Hydro Electric Commission, which controls and administers a large percentage of the States’ water resources, did not avail itself of the opportunity to give evidence. As a consequence, the Committee was not able to determine the extent to which the Commission gives consideration to questions of pollution. 60 •฀ A฀National฀Park฀to฀protect฀Australia’s฀biggest฀cave,฀ the 10 mile long Exit cave near Hastings. The cash value of parks Tasmania,฀ like฀ New฀ Zealand,฀ can฀ cash฀ in฀ on฀ its฀ environment by conserving it. Provision of adequate national parks will enable Tasmania to compete with the attractions of Lake Manapouri and the Milford Sound track฀in฀New฀Zealand฀or฀Kosciusko฀in฀N.S.W. BRIEF EARLY POLICIES A Central Plateau Reserve could become a centre for fishermen, hunters and walkers. Strahan has a potential as a tourist centre equipping regular guided parties to walk through a West Coast National Park to Port Davey. The UTG rejects the recent recommendations of the Australian Mining Industry Council that mining be allowed in reserves. The exemption provisions of the National Parks and Wildlife Act are totally unacceptable. It appreciates the need for wider notification of applications for mineral exploration leases and an extension of the time available for objections to be lodged against the granting of any such lease. Where limestone is sought there should be an examination of applications by an authority competent to assess its potential effect on caves in the area. Rock Engravings There is an urgent need to preserve the twelve known aboriginal rock engravings sites in Tasmania. The UTG strongly opposes the proposal to dump industrial waste in the Shag Bay area on the Eastern shore of the Derwent River where the presence of aboriginal artefacts has recently been disclosed. Attempts have been made by Mr. Peter Sims for eighteen months to to secure reservation of the important rock engraving site at Sundown Point. Despite the promise of a Liberal Minister to look into the matter 12 months ago no action was taken. The Director of the National Parks and Wildlife Service has advised Mr. Sims that nothing can be done due to lack of specialised staff. We cannot permit the loss of Tasmania’s priceless antiquities because of the lack of one qualified man. Section 7 destroying values or to preservation and life enhancing values. - Prof. May (Physics, Sydney) EDUCATION REPRESSED by Kelvin Scott There is a real crisis in Education in Tasmania – a crisis that has resulted from the failure of successive State Governments to realise the absolute necessity of ensuring each person the opportunity to educate himself to the fullest. The major parties are content to quibble about the extent to which state aid should increase. Their fascinating struggle for supremacy on this particular issue lends to a distortion of the real needs of education. Progressive ideas are desperately needed. The great inequalities of opportunity, aided by this state’s population spread, need to be remedied now. The system whereby professional people breed professional people and university graduates breed university graduates still largely exists. The UTG recommends immediate action. Major policy commitments include: •฀ An฀ immediate฀ enquiry฀ into฀ areas฀ of฀ educational฀ depression in this State. •฀ Removal฀of฀the฀Treasury’s฀control฀of฀Education. •฀ Flexible฀ and฀ non-directive฀ curricula฀ for฀ secondary฀ schools. •฀ Abolition฀ of฀ the฀ bonding฀ system฀ for฀ trainee฀ teachers. Park Staff Needed •฀ Greater฀de-centralisation฀of฀tertiary฀education. People should not be satisfied by Labor’s promise of a Minister for Environmental Control. It is no better than the Liberal promise of three years ago that gave us a National Parks and Wildlife Service and no funds to run it. The Service urgently needs forty new staff, including a field officer, tradesmen, scientific and office staff. •฀ Special฀financial฀provisions฀for฀students฀undertaking฀ tertiary education from outlying areas of the State. An expanded park system benefits the state by increasing employment. The range of employment opportunity in a parks service is very wide. With suitable promotion greatly increased income from mainland and overseas tourists can be expected. The UTG will press for action now so that Tasmanians can reap the benefits in years to come. I am personally convinced that nothing short of a great wave of new thinking spreading rapidly through all sections of the community can possibly hope to save up from eco-catastrophe. - Dr. Stephen Boyden. Eventually a society is committed to conquest and life •฀ Extension฀of ฀Adult฀Education฀facilities. The complete UTG Education Programme is designed to rectify the great deficiencies in the present system and to give the same opportunities to all children regardless of parentage, neighbourhood, religion, or social pressures. Senate Select Committee on Water Pollution Tasmania has a wide range of serious pollution problems and it provides a particular lesson that the mere abundance of water does not of itself give a guarantee against water pollution. It may in fact be an invitation to extravagance and careless use of water resources. Tasmania differs not at all from the other States in the serious nature of its pollution problems and the need for abatement is just as urgent. 61 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES We noted that the Hydro-Electric Commission, which controls and administers a large percentage of the States’ water resources, did not avail itself of the opportunity to give evidence. As a consequence, the Committee was not able to determine the extent to which the Commission gives consideration to questions of pollution. UTG EXTRA Number 2, November 1972 THE UTG, EARTH CARE, AND YOU Some political parties are beginning to talk about the environment in their public policies. To them, the environment means pollution. To get as far as seeing the need to preserve wildlife and wilderness as necessary acts to maintain man’s physical and mental health, political parties will need a lot of encouragement and persuasion. Yet, the people of Australia, being part of the world population, are now facing the world crisis that endangers the future of the community, of mankind and of life itself. Perhaps the problem is too glib for domestic politics since individuals feel powerless to act in response to a global problem. We, in the United Tasmania Group, believe that this crisis will not be resolved solely by traditional conservation activities, obstructionist tactics, force of arms, unilateral government action or independent or uncoordinated efforts; nor will the solution be found in the new scientific discoveries or technological advances. We propose a fresh response to our environment: a self sustaining way of life in which man views himself as part of and dependent upon the natural environment. On the other hand, if current trends are allowed to persist, the breakdown of society and the irreversible disruption of the life support systems of this earth are inevitable. The problems of accelerating industrialisation, rapid pollution growth, widespread malnutrition, depletion of non-renewable resources, and the pollution of the environment must be tackled in a new movement whose philosophy of life sets goals that can be achieved without destroying the environment. We will need a precise and comprehensive programme for bringing about the sort of society in which this purpose can be implemented. This UTG Earth Care Policy is therefore extremely critical of: •฀ Unlimited฀ population฀ growth฀ and฀ unlimited฀ economic expansion … 62 •฀ people฀living฀in฀luxury฀and฀privilege฀while฀others฀live฀ in hunger or oppression … •฀ individuals฀victimised฀by฀the฀impersonal฀machinery฀ of technology … •฀ men฀ and฀ women฀ viewing฀ themselves฀ as฀ separated฀ from the earth and the inspirations of nature … •฀ people฀turning฀to฀violence,฀anarchy฀or฀totalitarianism฀ to resolve their dissatisfaction with government, technology, or society. We see at least three main tasks before us. These are set out below: (1) To make the community and our political leaders aware of the crisis and of the fact that it does affect them … (2) To undertake constructive campaigns to halt, or at least, limit the excessive growth of our population, the depletion of our resources, the growth of industrialisation, and the pollution of water, earth and air … (3) To develop basic alternatives to our present way of life and our present view of the world so that the alternatives will be more functional, more adaptive, and more stable in the future. We believe that the time for decision is now. You can join us by voting for candidates who accept this philosophy as a means of preserving our quality of life, our values and our culture for our children. UTG Will Decide Poll A recent survey of the Denison Electorate showed that the United Tasmania Group had by far the largest following of any of the smaller political groups. Carried out by researchers in the Political Science Department of the University of Tasmania, the survey showed at least twice as many people support the UTG as support the DLP or the Australia Party. In a press interview this week Dr. Peter Boyce, Reader in Political Science, revealed that the major parties had an almost equal following. This means that those who vote for some other party or group could determine who gets the seat. The UTG would therefore decide the issue on its preferences. But it is by no means clear that UTG candidate, Alderman Brian Broadby, will actually be carved up in the preference allocation before Liberal and Labor candidates. Brian Broadby is a man who has been working hard in the electorate close to the people. Brian has become well known as a dynamic, young, forward-looking bloke who knows what the people want. Together with Alderman Ron Excell, Brian Broadby has injected new life into the old guard in the Council. BRIEF EARLY POLICIES When we add to this the general feeling of dissatisfaction with Liberal and Labor, it would seem that Brian Broadby could be a man to wrest the Denison seat from the power-hungry party machines. No-one is fooled by the instability bogy this time. People now know, following the denial of justice to the Pedder people over their court writ, that a parliament composed of the members of Labor and Liberal alone is a parliament without representatives for the minority, for the little man, for the chap demanding his rights. A balanced parliament must have independents to act as watch-dogs and to look after people before party. Because Brian Broadby is of an independent mind, because of his standing in public affairs and because of the UTG image of responsibility for earth care, there is more than one way that the UTG could decide the Denison poll. HOBART ALDERMAN STANDS FOR DENISON Young Hobart alderman, Brian Broadby of New Town, has adopted the Earth Care policies of the United Tasmania Group in his election campaign for Denison. “Too much party politics means a real lack of representation in government”, Brian claims. “Only the UTG sees clearly the need for justice for all citizens, including equal rights for women, adequate pensions for the old and the right to proper access to the courts for individuals and minority groups. Party politics cannot ensure these things because party candidates have a first loyalty to a group that seeks power, not to the citizen they are supposed to represent”. Brian Broadby is a law clerk with a Hobart firm of solicitors. He is married with three young children. For the sake of his children, Brian has been active in three Parents’ and Friends’ Associations in the interests of improved educational facilities. He has been very active in civic and community affairs and has held office in organisations devoted to municipal reform, local community development and justice for pensioners. During his campaign, Brian Broadby will be advocating public participation in Parliamentary decision making and community involvement in government at all levels. He will be pressing for a national superannuation scheme and the creation of a just minimum family income, for a complete health cover under any future national health scheme, including full long-term hospital cover and for the inclusion of cover for all para-medical services and dental care, and equality of opportunity in education. Section 7 On the financial side of government, he will be advocating representation for local government on the Loan Council and for Commonwealth participation in urban renewal, for a complete review of the Grants Commission formula and for the national equalisation of transport costs so that Tasmanian Governments can regain their independence. Brian Broadby says that he shares the sense of urgency for the implementation of a comprehensive earth care policy which had led the UTG to call itself a survival group. “Authoritative estimates suggest that the human race has something like a decade to control pollution and population, husband the Earth’s dwindling resources, and find acceptable substitutes for the present ‘progress’ or growth economy”, he says. This is a huge task which must be started now. It overshadows any other single political or social issue facing government today”. For anyone, including Members of Parliament, to hide their heads in the sand in an attempt to avoid seeing this fact was to accept the extinction of the quality of life as the present generation of Australians know it. Brian Broadby claims that the pressures inherent in the present political party system stifle initiatives which might bring acceptance and the implementation of an integrated ecological programme. “Politicians and behind-the-scenes manipulators bicker like children while precious time for action is frittered away”, he says. The United Tasmania Group has Earth Care as its fundamental objective. It is not just another political party. It abhors the usual practice of politics, which is concerned with the gaining of personal power, not with communal welfare either in the present or in the future. “I am proud to have the backing of the UTG as I am an individual citizen who shares the deep concern of the independently-minded members of the Group for the preservation of the environment and our cultural heritage”, Brian says. “Like members of the UTG, I want to take every opportunity that our society offers to gain a voice in the making of decisions which affect us all. And when I do, I shall be the people’s representative, available at all times to help with their problems.” EMPLOYMENT AND EARTH CARE: Any contradiction? “My main concern is for people, not trees”. How often we hear this sort of statement today. But 63 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES the people who say this simply do not understand Earth Care. The need for jobs, and the need for people to get satisfaction from their work are fundamental ideas of Earth Care. The simple fact is that the social system of today can not provide either. Progress as we know it today consists of increasing the high ratio of capital to job availability. This ratio must be reduced if our man-power requirement is to go up. It is a mistake to believe that jobs increase by increasing the numbers of factories. All that happens is that the pollution level goes up as an inevitable by product of such capital growth. Instead, there must be a change-over to industry that is non-polluting, labour-intensive and in favour of quality manufacture. Now this shows real care for people. The switch in emphasis from quantity to quality will not only stimulate the need for man-power, it will also give much greater satisfaction to the workers themselves. Men and women should not be used like computers or machines producing increasing quantities of components: men should be trained and given the opportunity to improve the quality of their work. The keynotes for successful manufacturing in Tasmania should be durability and craftsmanship. Such an emphasis on quality should ensure us export revenue while providing our manpower with more enjoyable occupations. A fundamental part of Earth Care is the urgent need for measures that will prevent the breakdown of society and the irreversible disruption of the life-support systems of this earth. While such unpleasant possibilities are likely by the end of this century, the measures to be taken must be comprehensive and creative. No policy on conservation is sufficient if it does not acknowledge these facts. The Earth Care policy of the UTG is therefore as much concerned with society and the need for satisfying employment as it is with a wholesome and stimulating environment. The point to be made here is that work must be provided by the community for the sake of that community’s stability and not because one group wishes to profit from another group’s labour or capital. Yet this is the sort of system we now endure. The need to make profit and the need to produce efficiently ensure: (1) that people are organised in a way that work is done in anonymous, undemocratic, faceless, impersonal, smoothly functioning institutions; (2) that our labour becomes a commodity to be bought and sold thus ensuring inequality of income; 64 (3) that work is divided into minute parts with each employee doing only one small task thus denying all creative instincts. The UTG policy of Earth Care includes the following ideas for a continuing and stable society in which men and women can realise satisfaction in their work and pleasure from their roles as individuals and members of the community. (1) decentralisation of government and industry and a return to neighbourhood control of schools, social services and so on for a sense of community to emerge; (2) some sort of community control over what is produced; (3) some sort of workers’ control (4) a change in the way income is distributed. Neither Labor nor Liberal policies recognise these important social goals. THE UTG AND WOMEN’S RIGHTS “All women suffer from the laws which deny them the right to control their biological destinies by adequate sex education, inexpensive contraception and elective abortion. The problem of population, environment or resources is neglected, creating a threat to our children’s present health and future survival.” Jeannine Bevan, a spokeswoman for Women’s Electoral Lobby, recently explained how women’s needs tied in with UTG policies of Earth Care. These particular problems, which affect women so intimately and individually, can be tackled now from the view of individual rights, social justice, or population management. UTG policies stress the need for new social measures to prevent the breakdown of society through overemphasis on the growth economy. Fundamental to this policy is the need for jobs or work satisfaction. This policy applies to all people, and therefore does not tolerate discrimination against women. “Currently women are discriminated against at work, at school and in the home,” Jeannine Bevan explains. “Married women suffer many anomalies in tax benefits, medical and welfare payments. Single women are discriminated against through credit systems, home loan policies and insurance schemes.” The UTG believes that existing political parties pay nothing but lip service to the rightful demands of women to rectify these anomalies. There is no place in a modern society for those who regard women as second-class men. It is only by the adoption of the new ethic of Earth Care, which is all-embracing in its regard for the preservation BRIEF EARLY POLICIES of our environment and our culture through measured social change, that the necessary short-term or longterm benefits will be achieved. Quote: “Yes, that’s it,” said the Hatter with a sigh: “it’s always teatime, and we’ve no time to wash the things between whiles.” “then you keep moving round, I suppose?” said Alice. “Exactly so,” said the Hatter: “as the things get used up.” “But what happens when you come to the beginning again?” Alice ventured to ask. “Suppose we change the subject,” the March Hare interrupted, yawning. Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. HOW TO VOTE TWICE On election day you, the Denison electors, will be required to rank in order of preference, candidates representing a diverse range of life-styles, philosophies, world views and conceptions of what constitutes the national good. Most of the electoral fare offered will be irrelevant if man cannot come to terms with the environment crisis. If man chokes in his own pollution, if he squanders limited natural resources, if he crowds himself off this precious planet or if he fails to control the insatiable appetite of materialism what does it matter which party forms the government? The “environmental crisis” is with us now. That delicate equilibrium required to sustain life is under siege. That this very real threat exists has been too well documented to be doubted. Even those who question whether the position is as serious as most experts believe, concede that there is still a very urgent problem which should be accorded higher governmental priority than it in fact it is. It is in this context that the existence and continued electoral property of UTG is of such significance. A reasonable primary vote to UTG will demonstrate to all Australian governments that the principle of earth care cannot be lightly dismissed. The UTG Earth Care policies represent a new ethic, a new and urgent priority for those who can think beyond today. It transcends traditional political thinking and party allegiances. It embraces and gives voice to groups concerned with the responsibility of man to the web of life, with a new sense of values, with the participation of the individual in government, and with the rejection of the constraints of traditional role playing and preoccupation with the materialistic. Section 7 But of course, we must inevitably come back to present political realities and concede that while UTG cannot yet form a government, Labor and Liberal can. And this is the beautiful thing about our preferential system of voting: by using your vote wisely you may vote twice! Thus if you feel any environmental commitment, by voting 1 UTG and 2 the major party of your choice, you will not only be presenting your message to the incoming government in the clearest possible terms, but you will have as much say in which of the major parties is to govern Australia in the next three years as those people who vote only once – i.e., those who give their first preference to a major party. Take this opportunity; vote twice. Give the first preference to the UTG and make your protest known. THE REAL CHOICE: GROWTH OR WELFARE? One of the “good” things in Mr. Whitlam’s policy speech, according to the newspapers, is the promise of economic growth amounting to a vote-catching six or seven percent. Now, why is the promise of “growth” capable of catching votes? What do we know of growth? In what way is economic growth supposed to be good? Could it be that we might be responding involuntarily, almost blindly accepting a concept that nobody can even start to prove to be good? It is heresy to ask why growth is good? Most of us have grown up in the belief – because this is the accepted position of the society in which we live – that economic development is one of the few positive and universally acknowledged aspects of human endeavour. There is no fundamental difference between political spokesmen from the right or the left or dead centre. Growth is A Good Thing in everybody’s political language. Yet doubts about the blessings of further economic growth have been increasing over the last ten years. These doubts were first raised in the United States; this is really not surprising since the United States have felt the results of economic growth more powerfully than any other country. The evidence is piling up that the production of more economic goods brings about a host of economic ills. Polluted rivers, bays, beaches and lakes; litter, congestion, slaughter on the roads can no longer be ignored as unfortunate but marginal side effects of continuing economic prosperity. These dismal features of our civilisation are sometimes regarded as inevitable costs of growth. But has anyone asked you whether you are willing to pay these costs in 65 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES exchange for some additional output in production? More and more, our modern economy is depriving people of the choice of living under conditions where basic rights to peace, quiet, fresh air and clean water are readily available. Under our existing laws, the spillover effects of others’ activities – such as noise, smoke, smell, pollution – are too costly for the private individual to prevent. not take into account the needs of future generations. In economic terms, the benefits to present generations are discounted, but the benefits to future generations are not counted at all. By not counting the interests of posterity, we are literally robbing the children to pay for the parents’ luxuries. We might say: the children ask for bread and we give them DDT, mercury, lead and litter. Yet these costs are not inevitable. No person should be made to absorb the disagreeable by-products created by others. There is no justification for allowing people to treat such things as quiet, fresh air, scenic beauty as free goods. The industrial growth so fervently sought by the Establishment only moves us closer to the kind of suburban wasteland already covering America. We see the signs of deterioration around us, but we are not making the effort – political leadership is certainly lacking – to produce the required changes. That means the electorate must show the way, unless we all suffer from the boiled frog syndrome. That these goods have a very high value is borne out by the growing concern of so many families to find a home in a pleasant quiet place not too far from work. What we need is legal protection – by proper amenity legislation which protects our rights to clean air, fresh water, beauty and quiet. So long as the rich continue to enjoy legal protection of their property, they have less need for legal protection from the spillover affects of others. The richer a man is, the wider his choice of neighbourhood. If the area he has chosen to live in is declining because of pollution effects, he can always move to more pleasant surroundings. In contrast, the poorer the family, the less opportunity there is for moving from its present locality, regardless of how noisy or dirty it has become. Thus, legislation that upheld citizens’ rights to the free goods of a clean environment would provide for a general rise of environmental standards. It would raise them most for the lower income groups who have suffered most from unchecked “development”. There is no need to fear dire consequences of placing the cost of bearing spillover effects squarely on the shoulders of those who generate them. The market will continue to operate even if the law is changed in this respect. If we continue to permit industrial spillover, the market operates on the assumption that society is indifferent to the fate of the victims of spillover. If we operate the market on some other assumption – such as the costs of spillover should not be borne by the victims – a solution under ideally competitive conditions will operate just as it does for existing assumptions. The growth advocates are ever ready to point to the widespread use of drudgery-reducing inventions such as the vacuum cleaner and washing machine. Certainly some of the creations of technology should command general approval, but the candies, cigarettes, girdles, slimming tablets, lotions, electric carving knives and a host of push button gadgets are goods that contribute only in trivial ways to our ultimate satisfaction. But the demand for natural resources to produce these goods does 66 Experiments on frogs have shown that a frog, when put in a bowl of hot water, will react fiercely. It will struggle to escape. On the other hand, a frog in a bowl of cold water that is gently heated will boil to death without stirring. At the moment we are slowly being brought to boiling point. The first sign of action is to vote for change. Vote for welfare and individual representation, not growth and party politics. Quote: There are three imperatives to reduce war to a minimum; to stabilise human population; and to prevent the progressive destruction of the earth’s irreplaceable resources. Sir MacFarlane Burnett, 1966, the Boyer Lectures. Let us in all our lands … including this land … face forthrightly the multiplying problems of our multiplying populations and seek the answers to this most profound challenge to the future of all the world. Let us act on the fact that five dollars invested in population control is worth one hundred dollars invested in economic growth. President Lyndon B. Johnson, Speech to United Nations, 1965. Population and wilderness Many of the problems that must be faced by Governments in order to bring about a self-sustaining way of life require a long-term policy for enlightened social change. But some aspects of the policy can be implemented now. The encouragement of population stability is one means of coming to grips with the problem. The UTG supports the following methods designed to encourage population stability:(1) responsible sex education … (2) free information on birth control through family planning clinics … BRIEF EARLY POLICIES (3) removal of restrictions on contraception advertising … (4) abolition of the luxury tax on contraceptives … (5) end of migration except on compassionate grounds … (6) easier adoption facilities … (7) tax disincentives after the second child, but increased endowment for two children. There is not much point in producing a stable population if, in the meantime, our use of resources has been so rapacious that little is left of the world as we know it. In an age of crowded, dirty cities, the wilderness has come to symbolize a refuge, the last place where man can breathe clean air, drink freely from streams, and get away from other people. We must have the wilderness, but not for selfish gratification. At stake is the survival of our natural systems – the landscape in all the power, beauty and variety that attracted our forefathers – free to change in accordance with natural variations in the environment, without interference from man with his notions of good and evil, a last refuge of absolute freedom in a world of increasing technological control. The UTG places high priority on the preservation of Tasmanian wilderness, particularly as the Tasmanian wilderness must become one of the most highly prized natural assets in the world. So little is left elsewhere. Tasmanian Governments must not be burdened with the preservation of wilderness; only Federal Governments have the resources to protect national assets. The UTG advocates a national programme of wilderness preservation supported by commonwealth funds, together with increasing aid to the states for the provision of national parks for the recreational benefits of its increasingly urbanized citizens. Quotes: In the West, our desire to conquer nature often means simply that we diminish the probability of small inconveniences at the cost of increasing the probability of very large disasters. - Kenneth E. Boulding, 1966. The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true. - James Branch Cabell, 1926 THE POTTINGER REPORT ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION: A FIRST STEP Two weeks ago, the Minister for the Environment, Section 7 Mr. Everett, released the Report of the Director of Environmental Control on Environmental Pollution in Tasmania. Since then, the local media have given a lot of coverage to the Report and its ramifications, most of which, unfortunately, has clouded the Report’s real significance. What did the Director of Environmental Control, Mr. John Pottinger, really have to say? In a nutshell, he reported that waste disposal in Tasmania was unsatisfactory and that “many of the state’s river systems are badly polluted.” The data on which these conclusions were based came largely from the industries and the municipalities themselves; when this was not available, estimates were made from already existing statistics. The Derwent and Tamar Rivers were sampled at a number of stations. The Report did not deal with the environmental impact of agriculture, forestry or fishing. Different sections of the Report dealt with water pollution, air pollution and the disposal of solid wastes. WATER POLLUTION The Report estimates the total runoff of Tasmania’s main rivers to be 15,000 million gallons per day. The state’s total effluent production per year was found to be 38,000 million gallons. 84% of this was industrial effluent, largely from mining, metallurgical industries and paper making. Industrial effluent contained 25,000 tons of metals, and significant amounts of organic fibre, alkaline and organic extractives, acids and heavy metals. Paper making industries were found (i) to have a significant effect on rivers, and (ii) to be taking no effective pollution control measures. 6% of the state’s total effluent was sewage, none of which was being effectively treated. The Derwent and Tamar rivers were severely polluted as a result. Food processing generated 1% of total effluent, and often caused severe local problems. AIR POLLUTION Again, because of their use of fossil fuels the paper and metallurgical industries were the main causes (61%). Emissions included sulphur, particulates, fluorine and heavy metals. Automobiles caused 31% of air pollution. Seasonal burning off, when it occurred, caused clearly the greatest amount of solid particle pollution. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Solid wastes were estimated to amount to 110,000 tons per year. In many municipalities, disposal facilities left much to be desired. 67 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES RECOMMENDATIONS The Report suggested that legislation based on enforceable scientific standards was needed, along with a “comprehensive programme of environmental monitoring” to provide data for control standards and to evaluate trends in environmental quality, the need to stimulate public awareness was recognised: “a national programme of publicity and public education is … essential.” UTG COMMENTS Little in the Pottinger Report is new. What the Report has done is to qualify things that most observant people could see already. But most government bodies realise that things are bad only when the facts are presented in the form of an official document. Because of this, the Report has done a great service for all Tasmanians. By the same token, Mr. Pottinger’s recommendations are a much needed step forward. But they could have gone further. What Tasmanians need is a situation where any individual has the legal “standing” to take action through the courts to defend the environment. This is the case in many states in the U.S. At present, a Tasmanian has legal standing only if his own property has been effected. With this change in the law, every Tasmanian would be a pollution monitoring station, and the anti pollution laws would have a real chance of working. UTG EXTRA Number 3, May 1974 A New Future for Tasmania What Sort of Tasmania do we want in 10, 20, 50 years from now? Do we want a Tasmania which is a poor copy of the frantic, dirty, unhappy, urban and industrial sprawls of the Mainland where most people are mere cogs in the vast industrial and economic machines? Or do we want to preserve our unequalled natural beauty – our peaceful, less worried, life style – our necessary concern for our fellow citizens – and our feeling that with a little effort, we can understand and participate to some degree in our own government? Both our major parties, and as far as we know, all the independent candidates in this Senate election, regard industrialisation and endless economic and population growth as inevitable and desirable for Tasmania. 68 We of the United Tasmania Group say that they are wrong. As anyone with the wit to see can see, that path leads to all the worst problems which mankind has and is facing, and it is a path which is already being rejected throughout the world. First, young people saw the denial of their humanity in the urban industrial society organised purely for material production to satisfy artificially created needs. Now whole nations are recognising that in fulfilling man’s dream of endless material want, Man has sold his birthright: he has thrown away the values, the ideas, and the culture which make him human. The U.T.G. is determined that this shall not happen in Tasmania. One of the ways we shall try to stop it is to seek a place in the Australian Commonwealth States House in Canberra to speak out FOR the preservation of Tasmania as a place for PEOPLE living in harmony with nature and AGAINST it being a mere source of raw materials to feed the insatiable foreign and mainland demands. Why do other political parties seem to regard Tasmania as a poor relation in the Federation, dependent for its survival on Commonwealth handouts? It is true that Tasmania receives more from the national purse than it contributes to it, but that situation was seen and recognised at Federation, and the Grants Commission machinery to implement national levels of living standards was created. The trouble is that our politicians have decided that Tasmania should feel guilty about this dependent status, and seek to overcome it by supporting any industrial development, regardless of the consequences to the Tasmanian community. The U.T.G. says that far from feeling guilty because of material dependence on the Federation, Tasmania should demand a greater share of the nation’s wealth to enhance its potentially vital non-material contribution to the welfare of Australia. This contribution lies mainly in this island State NOT being a smaller version of mainland urban life. It is a place where the mainland dweller can find peace and harmony with natural beauty, wilderness, lakes, mountains, and rivers, splendid beaches, a decentralised community, a less frantic pace of life. In other words, Tasmania can offer South-Eastern Australians, for holidays or for settling, a high quality, unpressurised, comparatively inexpensive environment. Because of its small population, it can offer unique BRIEF EARLY POLICIES advantages as the place where Australia can try out experiments in social change and where individual Australians can attempt life styles different from the monotonous, alienated industrial worker’s, or the competitive, materialist middle class, patterns of living in huge cities. Tasmania has room for people to grow physically, emotionally, and mentally, to maintain contact with nature and rural life, work, play, and sleep without being poisoned by smog, noise, congestion, tension, and pollutants of all kinds. Our opponents seem to believe that no price is too high for Tasmania to get rid of its status of dependence on the Commonwealth, and that all the ills of industrial society will have to be borne. We will never cease opposing the destruction of what we are so fortunate to have here in Tasmania, and what we must hand down to our children and their children, for the sake of satisfying the narrow egos and ambitions of politicians who notoriously refuse to look further than the ends of their noses on any problem. We say that Tasmania is a sovereign State – sovereign over its precious assets, its freedoms, and its way of life, and we shall not see that sovereignty sold out to political or economic exploiters from the mainland or overseas. Editorial Section 7 accelerating. Our industry is hamstrung by insufficient cargo service. Essential materials in some cases cannot be obtained and others are in short supply. Something is rotten in the State of Tasmania. If there has been any feeling from our political servants it was either stillborn or cuckolded by expediency. Certainly there is nought in the catalogue of official bungling to create the slightest suspicion that our elected politicians have any idea of what the quality of life means. In contrast, there are reasons to support the view that tribal egotism at the centre of our so-called political leadership has reached the stage of overruling personal ethics. This is the same leadership which spoke mockingly of “splinter-groups”; which negotiated with the UTG for its preferences (not given) in 1972, and at the same time called for a mandate of absolute power! Despoilers on trial in the future? A not unthinkable reaction by people consistently cheated of the quality of life. The only flaw is that the criminals may not be around when the boom drops – nor may we if we do not act speedily to break the unhealthy deadlock of the two major contenders in their wretched game. We require of all of you a personal dedication to the future, an implacable opposition to the ethics of growth politics, and the sense to vote for mobility and restraint. UTG’S NEW POLICIES William James once said, “Our judgments concerning the worth of things, big or little, depend upon the feelings of the things arouse in us. Where we judge a thing to be precious in consequence of the idea we frame of it, this is only because the idea itself is already associated with a feeling. At the heart of the U.T.G. movement is the belief that Tasmania’s environmental and social heritage is being sold out or destroyed because of the excessive emphasis by today’s politicians on traditional growth economics. Many authorities the world over are recognising that more growth is not the answer to economic problems, like inflation and scarcity of goods. Taking the wisdom of James as a starting point, it may be asked if the political parties of this State have not been more predatory than benign in their obligations to the human condition and the environment? Man has put his faith in an increasing rate of technological development to satiate his appetite for more and more wealth. It is not all seen at once but there is an escalating disorder in the entire environment which affects everything we see and know, and much that we do not see. Woodchipping has run riot. Municipal roads are ruined bringing insupportable burdens to local government. Our river systems are polluted and poisoned. Sea fisheries are declining. The Avoca shooting cult continues. Poison warfare operating against our native fauna is edging it towards a Silent Spring. Monoculture of our foods threatens the purity of them. Much of the heritage of our early art and architecture crumbles unheeded. Road deaths, land grabs, vandalism, brutal crime and drug addiction are everywhere Now, even the schoolchildren will tell you that the Earth’s resources are limited, that extraction at an everincreasing rate can only end up with the eradication of life as we know it, either by this resource reduction or the poisoning of our existence by pollution. It’s largely a question of whether we run out of resources before we kill ourselves. Only a new philosophy can arrest these disaster-prone trends. It is only by questioning the value of our worldly articles, that we may come to the real meaning of having that extra polluting car or two-door fridge. Through such an analysis you may come to the conclusion that some of the really valuable assets to our lives are t hose things previously taken for granted, such as trees, animals, fresh 69 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES air, clean water and a quiet view. to a way of life and survival into the 20th century. The United Tasmania Group sees the alternative to industrial development in the following principles: We were, from foundation, the first group to adopt aboriginal policy from that framed by aborigines, both Labor and Liberal governments have failed to understand that imposed policy is distrusted, and rightly so, by aborigines. The Liberals don’t even recognize the existence of a Tasmanian aboriginal people. 1. Good development is that which is considered on a regional basis and in the light of the new awareness of environmental consequences. 2. The historical, scenic and recreational assets of Tasmania should be developed and conserved as valuable assets. 3. The largely peaceful, uncluttered communities in Tasmania should be encouraged as an alternative to urban conglomeration. 4. Long-term, imaginative planning should be introduced to all phases of economic and social life, with proper consideration and participation of the community. 5. Economic returns can be increased by management of Tasmania’s natural assets in conjunction with recreation and tourism. 6. Development of Commonwealth services in Tasmania can be promoted through investment in ecological institutes for land and sea research, food processing and the location of administrative services in Tasmania. 7. Return to the environmentally conscious methods of organic farming and traditional methods of fishing, thus encouraging the traditional farmer and fisherman who are losing their vocations due to technological and monopolistic practices of today’s business enterprises. 8. Investment in National Estate (parks, wilderness areas, historical buildings) to establish an administration to value natural assets owned by the people; to buy neglected historical monuments and to adequately protect the resources of the state by an expanded Parks and Wildlife Service. 9. Development of design-based industries with a high craft content could lead to manufacture of lowvolume, high-value Tasmanian goods. UTG Politics = People Care The discrimination against groups of people in our community is a symptom of social pathology. For the future, we need to be more tolerant and kinder to each other – all of us are people and need real concern. Child-care, community centres, services to people, are all needed to free us to have a part in our community. Discrimination in law or by intolerance is just not on. We need, as never before, a united people seeking solutions 70 It does matter deeply to Tasmanian descendants that their land rights on offshore islands, securing their home on Cape Barron and their rights to traditional mutton-bird industry (a right long given to the Maori) are recognised. It does matter that one of their people, Truganini, is treated like a zoological specimen, boiled down for bones, against her wishes and those of her white friends. They want her buried in her home mountains as she wished. It does matter that aboriginal affairs are in aboriginal hands, and that assistance in schooling is given from primary level; that before schooling will work security in good homes is needed, and protection from police persecution and “welfare” interference is also necessary. The U.T.G. is pledged to uphold these policies. It is not a long hop from the plight of the aborigine to that of women in this society. Women are still inferior citizens when it comes to securing homes, holding responsible jobs, and receiving equal pay for equal work. Unions, parties, business and religions are male-run and dominated. Widows are crowded into all-female housing department ghettos; but like the aborigine, women are joining together to force their opinions at the polls. Here again, the policies of U.T.G. are the policies women want for themselves, including rights to say what happens to their bodies (as in safe abortion); their careers (as in equal opportunity, education and union representation); and their worth (tax deductions for child-care expenses). We support these and like claims for women, and as in the past we are actively seeking women who will nominate for candidates for U.T.G. Unlike the Liberal party, we have had women, Brenda Hean, Noreen Batchelor, and Julia Weston in from the first. 20% of all our candidates have been women. South West Under Attack The threats to Precipitous Bluff and the Lower Gordon River areas emphasise the need to view the South West as a unified whole. Piecemeal development of this wilderness region is not allowing for the consideration of integrated impacts of one area upon another. The urgency for a management plan for the South West is further compounded by the increasing rate of recreational usage by mainland outdoor enthusiasts. The South West is currently under attack from every BRIEF EARLY POLICIES quarter, by mining, forestry and hydro-electric interests. The South Coast between Port Davey and Recherche Bay is evolving into one of the principle areas for wilderness recreation in Australia, but is threatened both by encroaching forestry roads at the eastern end and the proposal to mine Precipitous Bluff. To the north of Port Davey Hydro-Electric Commission development proposals threaten most of the western rivers. Flooding of the almost totally unspoilt Davey Valley is becoming more likely. The Franklin River provides the ultimate in canoeing experience in Australia and is also threatened by H.E.C. development. Downstream of the Pedder scheme dams on the Gordon and Serpentine Rivers lie the Gordon Splits, a magnificent canyon over 200 ft deep and only 10-15 ft wide. A feature of such unique scenic grandeur should not be sacrificed on the altar of short term economic gain. With adequate planning and promotion Tasmania could use its scenic and recreational assets as successfully as฀ New฀ Zealand.฀ Proper฀ management฀ can฀ minimise฀ disruption of our way of life. Yet successive State governments have failed to capitalise upon the opportunities available and seem to have actively opposed any alternative to the heavy industrial expansion which they espouse. Near Ida Bay lies Exit Cave, with some 10 miles of passages it is the biggest limestone cave area in Australia. The State government has resisted efforts to accord this feature the national park status it unquestionably deserves. The Government has blocked the initiatives of a conservation minded and well financed local group in the Dover area to develop this cave for tourism. Thousands already visit the lower reaches of the Gordon River annually by tourist launch. Now this successful enterprise, the life blood of Strahan is threatened by proposals to dam the river as part of a power scheme. Tourism provides a labour intensive form of economic development as an answer to the capital intensive industries sought so unsuccessfully to date and which demand the destruction of so much of our scenic heritage, pollute our waterways and atmosphere and utilise too much power and all too little labour. U.T.G. senate candidates will press for the recognition of not just the south West but other remaining Tasmanian wilderness areas such as the Norfolk Ranges in North West Tasmania. They will not support financing of habitual and ill-founded capital intensive development but will support instead grants to individual Tasmanians and Tasmanian companies seeking to establish Section 7 themselves in tourism enterprises in suitable peripheral areas of a true national park in the South West. Who runs Tasmania? Who runs Tasmania? – Who runs this State? These are the sort of questions being asked by editors as chaos in society builds up; they are in a very good position to answer – but they wont! For they too are owned.฀Lines฀of฀descent฀traced฀from฀Con-Zinc฀Rio฀Tinto฀ (U.K.) and Morgan Enterprises (U.S.A.) show a complex of mineral/paper/media ownership all centred outside Tasmania in nepotic, powerful, and remote financial centres. Tasmania is not owned by Tasmanians’ nor do they have any say in how their natural resources are disposed of to exploiters. Most of our most powerful people are as puppets in the international power scene – colonials dancing to the tune of distant manipulators. Whether we look at the large food companies (Bakers Milk, Cripps bread), the mines (Savage River, Mt. Lyell), the media (The Mercury, Channel 6), the chief employers (Zinc฀works,฀Paper฀mills)฀we฀can฀trace฀the฀control฀across฀ Bass Strait, via powerful families, and to an elite few, Small businesses have little chance of eluding the net if they are successful. All Tasmanian business have left are Tasmanian names. The position is very dangerous, as we are more and more taken over by monopolies, and less and less able to have any say in our fate. One thing is for sure – Tasmanians don’t own Tasmania anymore, even though they work here, live here, and vote here, and this is because they have no alternatives but to vote for puppets. The U.T.G. presents such an alternative – regional independence and community self-control is a central policy; the opposing of economic rape is the reason why we were formed. Did we flood Pedder for Tasmanians, or Comalco? Did we cut our forests for house or waste industry? Our rallying cry is “The return of power over Tasmania to the Tasmanians”. UTG wants renewal of values in life systems Labor promises growth and industry. Liberals promise growth and industry, and the whole dead army of unions, bureaucrats, and businessmen back them with cash. Let’s have a look at Tasmanian growth and industry. Take a clean forest, sea, and cheap power (paid for by the people). Proceed, by a series of political moves to use the cheap power to support mining and paper-making and make the people pay for miles of road and miles 71 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES of rail (some of the latter costing 30 million for short stretches!). Then take away the dedicated “State Forest” and farmer’s forests – result is death. of this world – from life to death via dollars. U.T.G. opposes this and the cult of monoculture forests waste production. Death to the land, to wildlife, to rivers, to estuaries, to the sea. From the eroded wastelands of the forest floor silt and nutrients. From the paper mills sludge and mercury, from the mines arsenates, cadmium, zinc, and mercury. The sea is discoloured and dies – remember Burnie before฀APPM?,฀Bellerive฀Bluff ฀before฀the฀Zinc฀Works?,฀ the channel scallop fishing?, the recently defunct Ralph’s Bay oyster farm? and the threat to fisheries from shark to tuna. The inquiry into the National Estate recommends a stop to wood-chipping and pine planting – Mr Fagan wants to delay! So do all the proponents of growth politics. The new ethic must rise from the deep feelings of farmers and townspeople – what has been done is wrong, and can only end in tragedy for Tasmania. The U.T.G. fights on this ethic – an end to growth politics, a renewal of values in life systems. Fisheries in this state have been over-regulated, underresearched and sold out to overseas interests. Local assistance has been minimal, and the labour-intensive local investment threatened by capital-intensive overseas investment. U.T.G. will support local fishermen and associated industries, oppose pelagic fish rip-offs, and protect the amateur tuna fishing. G R E Y B U R E AU C R A C Y thrives on, and breeds, misery; the U.T.G. sees positive life values, and pledges to employ artists and musicians to do their work amongst the people – to return life to the buildings and streets. Vote for music and colour, and a clear environment. Vote U.T.G. S O L D I E R S E T T L E R S , those that are left, have had a rotten deal from State and Federal authorities. They are growing older, and poorer, on too-small farms loaded with bureaucratic debt. Many have suffered permanent health damage, U.T.G. will fight to wipe off their paper debts – and give them an alternative to pensions and poverty. Woodchips Wood-chipping exemplifies all that is bad about “growth” – a natural resource valuable in itself, having a stable effect on run-off (flooding), of great aesthetic value and providing durable material is converted, via polluting factories, ruined roads, monopoly business interests, and expensive public transport systems, to a waste sludge which chokes the major city ports 72 UTG EXTRA Number 4, SEPTEMBER 1976 POLITICS OF THE LEFT AND RIGHT VS POLITICS OF THE FUTURE The Left and Right The industrial revolution was a turning point in a man’s history. It brought about a surge of wealth and a chance for mankind to free itself from scourges of pestilence, famine and slavery. The industrial revolution also brought about marked divisions between the haves and the have-nots, the controllers of resources and the controlled and the emergence of various brands of socialism and capitalism. Over the years this left/right confrontation has been debased to a struggle solely over who should be at the helm. The direction in which we are heading has long since been forgotten. Circumstances surrounding the industrial revolution are no longer with us. Times have changed. We can now see that, in seeking to fulfil his dreams of material wealth, man is throwing away the values, the ideas and the culture that make him human. We have learned that there are limits to growth. Politics of the Left and Right is now obsolete. Both left and right refuse in any honest fashion to think about the future. More important, both left and right have become hopelessly hooked on the myths of industrialism. Both believe that endless economic growth is inevitable and desirable. This belief will deny our survival. Science is not magic. The earth is finite. Both believe that increased wealth (coupled with redistributive taxation or enforced equality) will solve problems such as poverty, unemployment, crime and inflation … Their diagnosis is faulty. They are trying to solve a problem by escalating its cause. Both believe that problems resulting from industrialism (pollution, urban growth, crime, environmental decay) can be solved by inputs of legislation … A totally managed future will give us a Brave New World devoid of freedom and happiness. BRIEF EARLY POLICIES Both left and right fail to see that part of the sickness in our society is politics itself. THE FUTURE In retrospect, the 1970’s will be seen as a turning point in man’s history. Five years has seen a new political philosophy arising in various฀ parts฀ of฀ the฀ world฀ –฀ in฀ Britain,฀ New฀ Zealand,฀ France, British Columbia and here in Tasmania. The new politics is founded on a concern for the future of mankind. Politics of the Future sees that, while industrialism gives man the chance to supply his needs, it also gives him the ability to spoil his culture and his surroundings, and to risk his future. Politics of the Future aims to restore ethics to the way in which we manage our affairs. Whereas Politics of the Left and Right supports economics of maximum consumption, Politics of the Future supports the economics of permanence. Politics of the Future does not waste time looking backward to the nostalgia of a golden age. That way disaster lies. History is strewn with civilizations which lacked the courage to look ahead. A government concerned for the future must guarantee three things:1. Survival which amounts to •฀ preservation฀ of฀ our฀ natural฀ environment฀ on฀ which we depend: •฀ management฀of฀resources฀to฀supply฀our฀needs: •฀ political฀stability. 2. Distributive Justice which seeks to remove material differences within our own society: •฀ between฀฀the฀Third฀World฀and฀the฀West: •฀ between฀the฀present฀and฀the฀future. 3. Individual Freedom which is stifled by •฀ excessive฀bureaucracy: •฀ corporate฀controls: •฀ sectional฀influences. Absence of any one of these ingredients will commit us to a future hardly worth living. The U.T.G.’s New Ethic has the ingredients for a future fit to live in. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE UNITED TASMANIA GROUP The United Tasmania Group became a political party because the two major Tasmanian Parties were putting aside democratic principles in Tasmania. The first sign Section 7 occurred when citizens were not allowed their right to enter the courts to challenge the validity of the flooding of Lake Pedder – and the Attorney-General resigned because he recognised our legal right to test out claims in the courts. Secondly, the Pedder dispute proved that political parties were prepared to deny the right of representation to some some citizens – neither the Government nor the opposition would allow the Pedder Question to be debated in Parliament. So some citizens had effectively no rights in Parliament. Thirdly, certain instruments of Government had been subverted. Some Government Departments or semigovernment authorities such as the Museum, the Scenery Preservation Board and the Animals and Birds Protection Board had all reported to the joint advisory committee headed by the Chief Commissioner of the H.E.C. instead of making their reports to the public. Thus, the people were deprived of services normally available from these instruments of Government as independent authorities. Finally, the election of 1972 (that is the State Election) was fought on behalf of the major parties by the H.E.C. itself. This semi-government authority used its resources to place advertisements which threatened increased domestic tariffs if Lake Pedder were saved. The United Tasmania Group would never have formed if all these blows against democratic principles had not been struck in Tasmania. The United Tasmania Group has its origins in fighting for democratic principles. YOU CAN HAVE THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS Do you understand the Hare-Clarke voting system? You can have the best of both worlds when voting at State elections. You can use your vote to best advantage by voting for U.T.G. candidates, then, secondly, voting for the major party of your choice. If U.T.G. candidates do not gain sufficient votes to be elected, your second vote is passed on and will count as a full number one vote, not as a percentage. But, if you vote 1 – major party, then 2 – U.T.G., your vote may never be counted in favour of U.T.G. If your first vote is given to a candidate whose quota is built up from preferences, your vote may not be passed on at all. In any case, if your first vote is given to a candidate who has surplus votes (above a quota), then your vote is passed on as a percentage, not as a full vote. 73 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES In past elections, many people who support U.T.G. have, through insufficient knowledge of preferential voting, failed to express their own wishes when voting. RURAL INDUSTRIES AND “THE SMALL MAN” What will the big parties ever do to keep our rural land in production? Farmers have not received a proper return for their produce and are being forced to leave the land and join the unemployed in the towns. And Governments assist this process. Inefficient farms must go, they say. So we see apple trees bulldozed out of the soil and the farmer given a handful of dollars to go out of production. One of the greatest tragedies for Tasmania has been the decline of our apple industry – who speaks of the Apple Isle now? The small farmer has been the victim of callous disregard by us all. The United Tasmania Group believes that we should make every effort to keep people on the land – not destroy the basis of our existence. We need a new community effort which encourages rural production. We must develop new ways of food processing in Tasmania so that new markets can be supplied. But we need a new local outlook which sets out to supply more of our own food needs. Bass Strait is a natural tariff barrier which could be used to favour local food production for local markets. The real tragedy for the man on the land has been the promotion of capital intensive, business oriented farming. The close association of the National/Country Party with the businessmen of the Liberal Party has deprived country people of spokesmen geared to their interests. Efficiency has destroyed the viability of the family farm. Business efficiency and the methods of mechanisation and high volume production have relentlessly pursued the small farmer, and like the corner store and the small private firms, the small man has been destroyed. This trend must be reversed. The United Tasmania Group knows the importance of the family farmer to Tasmania and, as the state’s own party, can work best to support their interests. BASS STRAIT The “Australian Trader” being taken off the mainland run vindicates the United Tasmania Group’s economic programme for Tasmania which is based upon selfsufficiency. This is a comprehensive far-sighted policy of better management of all resources to preserve the jobs and the future of all Tasmanians. 74 THE PRESERVATION OF WILDERNESS The United Tasmania Group supports the retention and preservation of the few remaining wilderness areas throughout Tasmania. The need to preserve wilderness is urgent because throughout the world such areas of vital scientific ecological and aesthetic value are in danger of alienation and destruction. The United Tasmania Group believes that Tasmania must play a leading role in the preservation and protection of our world heritage. In particular, the South West must be recognised as a major wilderness asset of this State. The United Tasmania Group particularly supports the setting up of administrative machinery that will allow all sections of the community to ague their particular interests in the use of land and its resources. Commercial and development interests should not have more right to argue for wilderness exploitation than conservationists have to advocate its preservation. In decision-making, the wilderness concept should have a bias in its favour, as any decision to interfere with an undisturbed natural environment, is, indeed, irreversible. The United Tasmania Group is dedicated to providing the farmer possible means for all to present their views. Wilderness values are under-reported in Tasmania and the United Tasmania Group supports their promotion. The Achievements of U.T.G. Ever since 1972 the U.T.G. has: •฀ consistently฀ campaigned฀ to฀ achieve฀ participatory฀ democracy in Tasmania. Greater openness of government is a priority of the U.T.G.: •฀ involved฀itself฀in฀community฀action฀groups: •฀ actively฀ campaigned฀ to฀ save฀ jobs฀ and฀ services฀ threatened by government mismanagement – fishing industry,฀ apple฀ growing,฀ private฀ sawmilling,฀ E.Z.฀ workers, rail services: •฀ made฀ submissions฀ to฀ national฀ enquiries฀ –฀ on฀ population, human relations, nuclear energy: •฀ consistently฀ brought฀ to฀ the฀ people฀ of฀ Tasmania฀ issues which play-safe politicians won’t: •฀ influenced฀State฀Government฀policies฀on฀employment฀ and industry, environment and legislative process. •฀ In฀ 1972฀ the฀ U.T.G.฀ started฀ pressing฀ for฀ a฀ Hansard฀ Recording Service to be installed in State Parliament. State Government has finally relented. Tasmania is to get a Hansard Service.5 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES The U.T.G. is doing these things without the benefits of representation in Parliament. It is possible to do only so much without representation. At present, most government decisions are made behind closed doors. Decisions at cabinet level and even in Parliament are presented as fait accompli. Only with the greatest difficulty can a dissenting public reverse these decisions. Participatory Democracy U.T.G. members in Parliament would: •฀ see฀ to฀ amend฀ present฀ legislation฀ so฀ that฀ planning฀ decisions at all levels of government were made only after a process of consultation with those affected was actively sought: •฀ press฀for฀public฀access฀to฀all฀government฀records฀as฀a฀ right. A department head could deny access to certain types of information but such decisions would be open to appeal to the Ombudsman: •฀ increase฀the฀use฀of฀referenda,฀questionnaires,฀public฀ enquiries and pilot schemes. Over the years, successive State Governments, both Liberal and Labor, have held a peculiar disdain for the people who elected them. Major decisions affecting our lives are made with virtually no public debate. The T.C.A.E. fiasco, the flooding of Lake Pedder, the now defunct Tobacco Tax Scheme and the Bodily Search Act are only extreme examples of a secretive, “we know best” government. A NEW ECONOMIC DEAL FOR TASMANIA The United Tasmania Group believes that Tasmania’s economic future lies in our own hands – we cannot expect outsiders to provide us with new industries. Therefore, like it or not, we will have to start our own. This will require a new mix of Government support and private enterprise. The Untied Tasmania Group rejects the outmoded policy of hydro-industrialisation. We must face facts. Industry is teetering in Tasmania. Large capital intensive industry will not come here and we must work hard to save the jobs of men and women currently employed in such industries. But most of all we must develop a new policy of cooperation between the private sector and the government to promote Tasmanian initiative. Tasmanians have been very inventive in the past. Our own talents must be rewarded. We could encourage 5 Hansard was introduced in June 1979. Section 7 design in furniture, clothes, crockery, electronics, low cost/high value items of all sorts. To do this here, we must set up government workshops for developing new ideas into marketable patents. Government help is needed to get new designs into the private sector. Government help is needed to find markets for Tasmanian products. Design-based industries using Tasmanian ideas, supported by the right sort of educational institutions and the appropriate promotion and marketing structures, are possible for Tasmania. This plan recognises that the small man needs help to establish a new business. Only the government has the resources to give this help in Tasmania. The United Tasmania Group believes our economy will depend on the initiative of the small man. We must do everything possible to give Tasmanians new opportunities on the land and in the cities. Big business is not for Tasmania we must plan to be independent. Yet Liberal and Labor politicians keep tripping overseas in futile attempts to persuade industries successfully developed in other countries to come to out-of-the-way Tasmania. It has never occurred to them that we could do our own thing supported by government through our own development workshops and marketing promotion devices. The Untied Tasmania Group believes in a full life for all Tasmanians. We do not wish to hinder technological development but such development for its own sake is of great danger to the earth’s limited natural resources. We must learn to develop technologies of a beneficial nature and not to the continual detriment of our environment. The United Tasmania Group aims for an economy that relies on resources that can be perpetually sustained. We must learn to prevent pollution and waste and reduce our energy demands in order to husband and cherish the resources on which we depend. The United Tasmania Group approach is positive. It shows how we can exploit less, consume less, pollute less, care more, share more, conserve more. The United Tasmania Group’s goal is to lay the foundations for a Tasmanian lifestyle we can all enjoy without fear of the future. There is a big job ahead, but it is worth working for. ENERGY The growing criticism of the H.E.C.’s role within our community draws attention to the fact that only the United Tasmania Group has policies which will ensure that the H.E.C. will not become a white elephant. 75 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES The U.T.G. believes that the H.E.C. has filled a valuable role in the past and still has a lot to offer the State. •฀ foster฀a฀more฀responsible฀attitude฀towards฀those฀in฀ the community who are not so fortunate: To rationalise Tasmania’s energy consumption, the U.T.G. supports proposals for the expansion of the Hydro-Electric Commission to become a Department of Fuels and Energy under a Minister for Energy. •฀ work฀ closely฀ with฀ existing฀ welfare฀ bodies฀ so฀ that฀ wasteful duplication of services can be eliminated: The initial tasks of this Department of Fuels and Energy would be to:•฀ set฀ up฀ systems฀ for฀ the฀ compilation฀ of ฀ energy฀ statistics; •฀ investigate฀various฀energy฀analysis฀techniques; •฀ research฀alternative,฀low฀energy฀technology; •฀ promote฀ energy฀ conservation฀ by฀ advertising฀ and฀ other means. The U.T.G. claims that domestic costs can be greatly reduced by the use of heat pumps, improved insulation and supplementary solar panels. SOCIAL WELFARE The U.T.G. values people, not just for their material worth, but for their value to the community as participants. The U.T.G. therefore will not treat Social Welfare simply in terms of dollars spent. •฀ provide฀recreational฀camps฀and฀activities฀for฀children฀ during school holidays using existing facilities within State control – schools, State Reserves and sporting facilities. Leadership would be provided by experts within the community, trainee teachers and students employed for the purpose. •฀ Encourage฀ a฀ better฀ balance฀ between฀ male฀ and฀ female teachers, particularly in lower school grades. Children of one-parent families must be given the opportunity to develop meaningful relationships with adults of both sexes. Creche and school, where these children spend many hours each day, should provide this opportunity. The U.T.G. is able to formulate concrete plans because of the active involvement of members in programmes designed to help people to help themselves. The U.T.G. does not score political points from the misfortune of others. The U.T.G. is committed to the welfare of all Tasmanians. On Individual Rights Our opponents would have you believe that money spent on Welfare Services is sufficient to meet the needs of the less privileged. Without denying that financial assistance is vital, the U.T.G. believes that current programmes do not adequately cope with the needs of these people. The U.T.G. believes that, as a matter of principle, we must allow individual freedom unless it is clearly outweighed by the interests of the community as a whole. One-Parent Families U.T.G. seeks to preserve civil liberties and to make sure that bureaucratic procedures do not intrude into individual privacy and morality. Take, for example, one-parent families. In some suburban areas of Hobart, one-parent families may comprise one quarter of total family units. This represents a pool of financial and emotional hardship which few people are aware of. If elected to government, U.T.G. candidates would: •฀ encourage฀ the฀ formation฀ of ฀ self-help฀ groups฀ where parents can share their problems and receive support from others. “Unity”, a prototype organisation set up by members of the U.T.G. may be a significant advance in meeting the needs of people at a human level: •฀ actively฀ encourage฀ employers฀ to฀ recognise฀ that฀ domestic situations require sympathy in relation to hours of work, holidays and flexibility in working conditions: •฀ encourage฀ people฀ in฀ need฀ to฀ share฀ facilities฀ and฀ tasks as a means of minimising expenditure while increasing opportunity for meaningful human interaction: 76 Much of our social legislation is based on a Victorian morality which is not only irrelevant, but often patently unjust. Existing laws in relation to homosexuality, drug abuse and family planning are hypocritical and often work against the attainment of reasonable social goals. The U.T.G. seeks to end discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, religion, class and handicaps. On Family Planning U.T.G.’s policies on family planning are based on three premises: •฀ Every฀child฀born฀should฀be฀wanted: •฀ Family฀ Planning฀ is฀ a฀ basic฀ human฀ right฀ which฀ was฀ recognised by the United Nations in 1968: •฀ All฀ persons฀ should฀ have฀ the฀ right฀ to฀ choose฀ which฀ method they prefer to control their fertility. Education in responsible parenthood, and in the social, BRIEF EARLY POLICIES Section 7 ethical and physical aspects of sexuality is essential for all Tasmanians. Present provisions for such education are simply not adequate. Unfortunately, technology is too often applied with little consideration for its impact on nature, culture, the human spirit or on our way of life. U.T.G. also believes that contraceptives should be readily available at the lowest possible prices through a diversity of outlets. The dehumanising nature of modern society largely results from: •฀ the฀application฀of฀faulty฀technology: The U.T.G. and Friends of the Earth International •฀ the฀unwise฀application฀of฀good฀technology: The decision of the International President of Friends of The Earth, Mr. David Brower, to support the United Tasmania Group was obviously not taken lightly. F.O.E. is not only represented at the United National Environment Programme, but has active groups around the world. F.O.E. has been a leading force in restoring and conserving world life-support systems. •฀ the฀lack฀of฀alternative฀modern฀technology. In a news release on 19.6.75 the U.T.G. made public the support by Friends of the Earth. •฀ examine฀ the฀ short฀ and฀ long฀ term฀ social฀ aspects฀ of ฀ technologies already applied in Tasmania: Speaking from San Francisco, Mr. Brower said, I am pleased to support the United Tasmania Group in their efforts to halt the nuclear threat to mankind. The United Tasmania Group … symbolises what needs to be created in all organisations and political parties with prime concern for the future of mankind along principles that are environmentally sound… (see the full statement earlier in the Editorial) U.T.G.’s VIEW ON THE TRUXTON VISIT The UTG sees that accommodating U.S. nuclear warships in Australian ports:•฀ is฀tacit฀approval฀of฀the฀nuclear฀arms฀race; •฀ jeopardises฀Australia’s฀neutrality; •฀ exposes฀ Australians฀ to฀ accidental฀ spillages฀ of฀ radio-active material. However remote the possibility, such an accident would have disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, the opposition to the Truxton visit by leftwing unions was based more on political (anti-Fraser) grounds rather than on genuine environmental concern. U.T.G. and TECHNOLOGY The U.T.G. is not anti-industry. Indeed it recognises the co-operative effort needed for the efficient running of industrial society. At present, industrial society is by no means efficient. It is both wasteful and destructive. The speed at which our society is changing results from naturally evolving ideas and also from technological innovation. •฀ the฀overuse฀of฀good฀technology: Neither Labor nor Liberal are taking initiatives to overcome these shortcomings, e.g. it is still possible to purchase D.D.T. for agricultural use despite the evidence against it. The U.T.G. proposes government initiatives to: •฀ provide฀incentives฀for฀innovation: •฀ provide฀ incentives฀ for฀ the฀ establishment฀ of฀ socially฀ useful technology: •฀ provide฀ dis-incentives฀ for฀ the฀ establishment฀ of ฀ destructive technology. URANIUM The United Tasmania Group rejects outright any policy that supports the mining and export of uranium. Its use should be confined to research and medication. The U.T.G. says there is no such thing as peaceful nuclear power. Uranium technology is violent. It is doubtful whether or not problems such as waste disposal, accidental leakages, threats of sabotage and irresponsible use can ever be solved. Until such time, U.T.G.’s policy is to leave uranium in the ground. UTG EXTRA Number 5, November 1976 EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS by Kevin Hazelwood State Councillor Australian Railways Union I believe that the current employment situation in Tasmania demands some rethinking on the part of Government and employers. At present, certain conditions serve as disincentives for employers to employ labour. Firstly let’s take a look at overtime. 77 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES I believe that no worker should be required to work more than 40 hours per week on a regular basis. Both Government departments and, in some cases, the private sector could employ more people instead of arranging for planned overtime. However, the employment of each worker represents costs to the employer in terms of recreation leave, sick pay, workers compensation insurance etc. THE UTG and LOCAL GOVERNMENT by Rod Broadby, Pres. and Founder of Sandy Bay/Dynnyrne Com. Assoc. If we were to look at our planet Earth as a bank account and look at the resources we draw from it as cash, then we can gain an appreciation of the way we are treating good old Mother Earth. So it is more worth their while to pay overtime rates. There are too many withdrawals and too few deposits to our bank of resources and we can’t print more. Legislation should be introduced to overcome the effects of these costs by providing for special incentives to employ numbers. Taxation should be based on people employed rather than merely on the total wage bill. Most people from all social levels display an understanding of these problems and an ability to relate them to their own lives. A majority of people indicate a willingness to take appropriate action. Leadership is not lacking. In September of this year, the UTG recommended to the State Government to abolish payroll taxation since this also served to inhibit employment. Fortunately, State Government has since seen to suspend payroll taxation for two years in some cases. The great stumbling block is the ability of the selfish few to manipulate and confuse enough people to maintain their control through the present system of government. Further to this, I believe that more provision can be made for “leave without pay” on request and allowances should be made for superannuation and aged pensions to accommodate early retirement. Industrial Relations Employers should be involved in decisions relating to the running and organising of their work. This can best be achieved by work restructuring, allowing self-managing work teams of from, say, 7 to 14 members to assume collective responsibility for large segments of production processes. Benefits from such a scheme would be a higher quality of work life, greater employee satisfaction, less labour absenteeism and improved product quality. I fully support the introduction of flexi time in suitable occupations as this greatly relieves traffic congestion and serves to contribute to more harmonious relations between employer and employee. Amalgamation of some of the proliferation of small unions that have emerged in recent years would lead to better representation for unionists and less industrial unrest. Immediate steps must be taken in Tasmania towards the re-affiliation of unions not now affiliated with the Tasmanian Trades and Labour Council and, when this is achieved, the present practise of allowing politics to dictate voting patterns on industrial and union matters must cease, so that this body can achieve a better deal for the unionists it represents. 78 Many decisions by the legislative and administrative authorities in our society impose on the public what is considered to be “best for them” rather than what is “wanted by them”. This process is fostered most strongly by the “haves” in our society. This position of power held by these people and their supporters enables them to continue plundering the Earth’s resources for their own immediate financial benefit. There is little real concern for the plight of either today’s “have-nots” or tomorrow’s “have nothing lefts”. So the crux of the whole problem lies, perhaps, above all in political reform. Traditional decision-making must be amended to enable a majority of people to take part in the decisions which affect their lives. This decentralizing process must reach as far as the Community (Progress) Associations. Most of the decisions by governments are decisions that could be better effected by the people directly involved and most affected. This necessarily involves the removal of controls currently imposed by State Government through legislative powers held by them. At present local government is controlled by higher levels of government through legislative and fiscal limitations imposed on them. While they function under these restrictions they face mounting criticism for their actions. On occasions, criticism includes accusations of bribery and corruption, a situation that should not and would not occur if many of their present decisions were made at the most appropriate level, the community association. Many of the welfare decisions currently made at State BRIEF EARLY POLICIES and Federal level frequently fall short of achieving the goals for which they were conceived. This occurs because of the remoteness of decision makers from the recipients. Local government bodies are much better situated to liaise with the recipient group in a manner similar to that practised by the Brotherhood of St. Lawrence. Policy directives in health, housing and education should come from the bottom up. Community Associations are instruments for achieving such a decentralization of government decision-making. Section 7 Chemical agriculture assumes that the soil is merely a chemical mixture and ignores the fact that its fertility depends on millions of bacteria. Consequently even with the addition of enormous amounts of chemical nutrients, soil fertility is, in most parts of Australia, declining. The over-use of pesticide aids in this destruction of biologically fertile soil. As a by product we also have pollution of waterways from run-offs. AGRICULTURE - by David Stephen, Convenor, UTG agriculture policy committee. Social No study of agricultural efficiency has shown that farmers are on the land just as a business. It is now recognised that farmers are on the land for the love of that land and that life. When we think of a business enterprise, we normally think of its success or failure in terms of profit or loss. So the decline in agricultural employment is a very grave social problem indeed. That is, our outlook is confined to money, or financial accounting. In addition, the drift to the cities allows for a decline of services to rural communities and so the story goes on. I hope to point out now that this way of looking at things is terribly old-fashioned. Industrialised agriculture has repercussions in society in other ways. We see around us that it is possible to operate a business quite successfully financially, while, at the same time, causing terrible pollution, consuming enormous amounts of resources and creating all sorts of social problems. Declining nutritional value of food and residual chemicals do have a major bearing on health. For example, World Health Organisation statistics show that about 90% of cancers in the U.S. are environmentally induced. So we need ways of measuring the success or failure of industry in terms other than financial accounting. We need methods of energy accounting, social accounting, resource accounting, scientific accounting as well as financial accounting. Now let me apply this to agriculture. Financial Farms, perhaps more than any other area, are the victims of technological unemployment. Mechanised agriculture has all but destroyed the viability of the family farm. In Tasmania, rural employment has declined by 25% in the past 10 years and this trend shows no signs of abating. One-third of all holdings in Tasmania are classified as sub-commercial. Scientific Yet it is on the farmer that all the food, much of the soil, and the fibre industry depends. Like the urban dweller, the farmer is the victim of the chemical culture, tied to expensive fertilizers and pesticide use to keep up monoculture and contract cropping. The farmer himself who uses these chemicals subjects himself to the hazards of toxic chemicals. Resources The application of nutrients to the soil on a continuous basis is necessary because human wastes and, in many cases, animal wastes, are not returned to the soil. We can no more afford to flush phosphates, nitrates and trace elements down the drain than we can afford to flush dollars down the drain. Better utilization of resources can be achieved by Decentralization – this allows for organic wastes to be more readily returned to the soil. The use of less-soluble fertilisers – soluble fertilizers leach out of the soil very readily. The introduction schemes. of municipal composting Energy I separate energy from other resources because minerals and organic wastes can be recycled, whereas energy, once used, is gone for good. Highly mechanised agriculture sometimes will use 10 calories of energy in the form of fertilizers and 79 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES irrigation pumping in order to produce one extra calorie of foodstuff. Transport of livestock, machinery, fuels and produce represents an additional energy bill. Total accounting Now let’s put all our accounting together. We can see that the trend towards huge mechanised farms is ecologically undesirable, socially undesirable and is wasteful of energy and mineral resources. Farmers have not received a proper return for their produce and are being forced to leave the land. And governments assist this process because they look at things only in terms of financial accounting. Inefficient farms must go, they say. So we see apple trees bulldozed out of the soil and the farmer given a handful of dollars to go out of production. The UTG believes that we should be making every effort to keep people on the land – not destroy the basis of our existence. We need a new community spirit which encourages rural production. There is scope for local food processing, the setting up of farmers markets, local food production for the Tasmanian market and government assistance to research alternative farming methods which are economically viable and less destructive. U.T.G. NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT The United Tasmania Group is the hard working political voice of the environment movement. U.T.G. does not receive large donations from big business and therefore relies on local people and small business to keep going. Sympathy alone does not win issues. U.T.G. needs your support for the coming State Elections. Industry and Employment A Broad Outline – By UTG Industry and Employment Committee. THE UTG AND INDUSTRY Concern for our environment is not a luxury only available to those who find time to leave their city or town and find enjoyment in leisure time activities. Our involvement must be total. 80 The United Tasmania Group is concerned about the jobs of employees and the responsibility of employers. It is these activities that take up a major part of our existence. Ten of the eighteen points in the UTG’s “New Ethic” relate directly to our concern with the economic well being of our community and the rights of the individual to be actively involved. Tasmania has a life-style that is currently under threat from the ambitions of those only interested in political advantage for themselves or making profits that are taken out of the State with little return to us. We are constantly told that expertise and finance is not available in the State. POLICIES FOR TASMANIA We must have policies that are designed for the conditions that prevail here and not seek answers to problems that may have worked elsewhere – but when transplanted are destined to be a failure. The UTG has these policies and has actively campaigned since 1972 to convey this to the electors of Tasmania. We believe every individual to be able to determine their own life-style and type of work, provided that it does not infringe the rights of others or despoil the environment, should be protected. We propose to encourage industry which productively maximises the scarce resources of our state through the production of long-lasting well designed manufactured goods. We believe that the continuance of waste-making processes and goods must be discouraged and eventually eliminated. EXCUSES Tasmania cannot live in isolation from the rest of the world and, of course, money and people with skills will find a place in this State, but for too long this has been an excuse for not getting on with the job to find alternative answers to the problems which face us. In a world of increasing technology, the UTG asserts the right of the individual to have a job that provides for real needs and encourage ambition that benefits the community. Because the individual is of paramount importance a person’s wellbeing must take precedence over all else. For this reason, while the UTG believes that we should work towards adopting a life-style which will maximise the efficient use of our scarce resources and eliminate BRIEF EARLY POLICIES ecologically unsound or environmentally hazardous processes, this should not be at the expense of individual need. INDUSTRY NOT UNDER THREAT Therefore the UTG will not carry out policies that will shut down or curtail inefficient polluting industry without ensuring that alternative, satisfactory employment is available to the labour force. Where possible, industries will therefore be encouraged to modify the processes to conform with the objectives of a harmonious existence between man and the environment. Alternative opportunities for employment to those already existing will become available through UTG encouragement of industries based on the production of well designed long-lasting products. Section 7 This would be accomplished by regarding industry and employment as a total community responsibility rather than the present notion of work for financial gain to allow us to buy time for leisure. NO PENALTIES Present governments have a habit of putting penalties on self-sufficient technologies. Take, for example, the use of a solar booster for heating in the private house. This should not hold a penalty as is now that case. The UTG would not allow this situation to continue. Electricity consumers should have the right to obtain the cheaper rates regardless of what energy booster they might use. The result of that would be a reduction in the cost of energy used by the consumer and consequently less earnings needed to pay for the service. DESIGN AS A TOOL FOR CHANGE The promotion of design as an important ingredient for the local production of goods would be encouraged by subsidies to industry for the employment of designers. The UTG rejects outright the argument that alternative technologies are a threat to employment. In many cases they can actually serve to increase job opportunities. This subsidy would allow interested industries to design or re-design products aimed at becoming more competitive in world markets. SMALLNESS WITHIN BIGNESS Extending this idea further, an alternative approach would allow the possibility for less traditional based work time and more work motivated directly by need. Only by the production of superior products, designed to do work properly, will waste of our present industry be eliminated. How often are we confronted with shoddy goods? The number of products on the market that cannot be repaired is increasing. This reinforces a throw-away mentality. The UTG would take positive steps to encourage the repair industry and to encourage manufacturers to produce goods that are repairable. “THROW AWAYS” OUT With the current lean towards goods that are cheaper to throw away than to repair, we are seeing the destruction of employment opportunities in this State. The repair industry is being forced out of business, while the industries involved producing such products take no responsibility and, in many cases, are able to operate interstate or overseas. Labour intensive industries producing low volume, value-added quality goods provides part of the answer to the State’s current dilemma. SELF SUFFICIENCY As an alternative or supplement to our current life-styles, encouragement of self sufficiency would minimise our dependence on community goods and services. The example of solar heating certainly has limiting factors at present. Our dependence on bigness has deprived most of us of the specialized skills and knowledge required to readily implement these sorts of innovations. However, some skills such as home growing of food are already available to us and would have the same result of greater individual autonomy. We should be actively promoting these alternatives. To be practical no-one knows how to eliminate unemployment. But the UTG says we can very readily reduce the severity of unemployment. Our aim is to provide a situation where small units can supplement larger units. UNEMPLOYMENT In acknowledgement of the presence of unemployed people and those unable to work, the UTG will legislate to protect the vulnerable and advocate benefits which will sustain and protect those seeking work. The UTG seeks to encourage self reliance. This is not a way for government to avoid appropriate assistance but to strengthen general community self awareness and the independence which allows for individuals to realize their full potential. 81 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES UNIONISM The UTG upholds the right of unions to promote and protect the salaries and conditions of their members. However we regard this as a limited concern motivated by self-interest. The UTG promotes the idea that a broader social and environmental concern should be allowed bearing in mind the welfare of the whole community. Unions should use their power responsibly as a check on irresponsible government. justice for the North there was no need to diminish educational opportunities for the whole State. At the time this was not a popular viewpoint. Both major parties had endorsed the report within a few days of its release. Now, after months of haggling and indecision, State Government seems to have resorted to a compromise solution, not as a result of thoughtful decisionmaking, but because the public would not stand for the Karmel Plan. The facts are there as plain as day. The Boiled Frog Syndrome Experiments on frogs have shown that a frog, when put in a bowl of hot water, will react fiercely. It will struggle to escape. On the other hand, a frog in a bowl of cold water that is gently heated will boil to death without stirring. At the moment we are slowly being brought to boiling point. The first sign of action is to vote for change. Patsy Jones Background: Aged 35 Patsy is married to Dr. Richard Jones and has two children. Her farming childhood has given her a special interest in the problems facing rural workers in our society. She has worked as a teacher in several states of Australia. Community Involvement: A member of the UTG since its inception, Patsy was the UTG candidate in the Legislative Council election in May 1976 for the seat of Hobart. Patsy is a member of the Women’s Electoral Lobby and assisted in the establishment of Women’s Shelter Inc. in Hobart. She is a member of the Sandy Bay/Dynnyrne Community Association executive, and a delegate to the Council of Hobart Progress Associations. She is active in parents’ organisations of the schools her children attend. The UTG & Post Secondary Education In April of this year UTG released statements to the news media condemning the Karmel Report on Post Secondary Education as being “strong in politics but weak on education”. UTG’s Education Committee could not come to terms with the recommendations contained in the report and publicly stated that … in order to achieve educational 82 Statistics show that Tasmania has a very low participation in tertiary education (5.4%) as compared with the national average (9.0%). Southern Tasmania is 6.3% whilst Northern Tasmania is 4.1% - both well below the national average. TERTIARY EDUCATION IN THE SOUTH AS WELL AS THE NORTH NEEDS A BOOST TO BRING US UP TO THE NATIONAL LEVEL. Yet to rectify the imbalance between the North and South, the Karmel Report recommended that Tasmania as a whole should deprive itself of educational opportunities. From the outset, the UTG has pointed out that Tasmania should be working to attract Federal funds to provide educational justice for the North and for the South. Tasmania’s allocation of Federal funds for advanced education is comparatively far below that for other states. But let’s for the moment forget about the decision and turn to decision-making. UTG has always rejected the notion that major decisions can be implemented, willy nilly, without first turning to the people affected to see what they think. UTG stands for participatory democracy in decision-making. So UTG’s policy on post secondary education remains firm. Our statements in April are just as relevant now as they were then. Technical & Further Education (TAFE) by Chris Harries, Convenor UTG Education Policy Committee It is common knowledge that Technical Education facilities in Tasmania are of a very low standard and have been in a poor state of neglect for quite some time. The whole field of technical education has become stale and exists in conditions and attitudes of the 50’s. The UTG believes that there is great scope for upgrading technical and further education. BRIEF EARLY POLICIES The UTG’s education policy committee has been looking at T.A.F.E. in South Australia as a model and supports the introduction of similar ideas to Tasmania. But, firstly, two problems must be overcome. Problem No. 1 After years of stagnation, attitudes to technical education by teaching staff, administrators and by the community have become entrenched. There is little desire to innovate and moves to initiate any sort of reform are met with resistance. Problem No. 2 Technical Education is, in the main, financed by the State Education Department, while other forms of post-compulsory education are financed Federally. This makes co-ordinated reconstruction very difficult. Both of these are logistic problems and can be resolved by adjustments to Federal/State responsibilities and to administrative machinery within the Department of Education. Improvements to T.A.F.E. are not necessarily limited by finance. At present there is tremendous underutilisation of resources – equipment, buildings, teaching personnel – throughout the spectrum of education. The UTG shares the view of the Working Party on Post Secondary Education (2nd submission) that there is close affinity between Advanced Education and T.A.F.E. Both are vocationally oriented and both should be responsive to community needs. The Working Party suggests an organisational structure which allows for sharing of resources and staff between the various facets of Technical Education, Further Education, Matriculation and Advanced Education. Section 7 but these should not stop us from going ahead with needed reform. CSIRO supports UTG on WOODCHIPS - by Jock Barclay, UTG National Parks & Wildlife Committee The C.S.I.R.O. has supported the United Tasmania Group’s policies on rationalisation of the woodchip industry. In a statement released on 18th October to a Senate Committee on Science and the Environment, the C.S.I.R.O. urgently called for a forestry research programme to be initiated by the Federal Government. At the same time, the submission sets out to display Australia’s paucity of scientific expertise in forest management. In making its submission, the C.S.I.R.O. has endorsed recommendations made by the UTG for forestry controls. Woodchips came to Australia at a time when almost nothing was known about the effects of massive clearfelling on biological systems. Unfortunately, still very little is known. Scientists are now wanting to catch up as fast as possible to avoid irrepairable and unnecessary damage to the environment. At present, foresters are being asked to maintain, and sometimes improve, forest on an almost non-existent knowledge of characteristic timber and soil types essential for the regeneration of native forest after clearfelling. Dr. Richard Jones, botanist and president of UTG, has examined the C.S.I.R.O. report and has fully supported its claims. The UTG strongly agrees with this sort of scheme because: The UTG has been calling for the employment of a Government Botanist for some time. •฀ it฀effectively฀decentralises฀post฀secondary฀education฀ throughout the state, As a means of setting up the administrative machinery necessary for forestry control, the UTG has made urgent recommendations for State Government to create a Forest Resource Council. •฀ all฀contributing฀bodies฀benefit฀without฀the฀need฀for฀ capital outlay, •฀ it฀gives฀vocational฀education฀far฀more฀flexibility฀to฀ change with prevailing conditions. The obvious argument against multiple use of resources is that it would be unmanageable. This argument falls down when we look elsewhere and see the same sort of schemes working very effectively. There will, of course, be some difficulties to overcome The Council should be made up from forestry, research and conservation personnel. Its objectives should be to provide directives on research, harvesting techniques, coup size and environmental controls and, in association with the Department of The Environment, should provide for Environment Impact Statement assessments as a prerequisite to woodchipping in all areas. 83 Section 7 BRIEF EARLY POLICIES Packaging the Hartz Mountains - by Geoff Holloway, Convenor UTG policy committee on Energy & Resources According to the Australian Conservation Foundation we spend about $700 per capita each year in Australia on packaging, most of which comes from paper. On top of this, we pay more than $100 million per year in rates and taxes to clear up the litter we get from waste packaging. Australian Paper Manufacturers at Geeveston produce wood pulp from their packaging plants on the mainland, and as their manager Mr. Wood, has said, all their products end up on the garbage tips of Australia eventually. Each of us is only too aware of the unnecessary paper packaging associated with the purchase items such as toothpaste, shirts, milk cartons, soap, razor blades, to mention but a few. The main concern of manufacturers and the advertisers is to sell the product by its immediate visual appeal, not by the quality of the product. To increase sales, old products often appear in new styles of packaging, in complete deference to increasing sales by increasing the quality and design of the product itself. After all, it’s the contents of the package that we are interested in – the packaging is thrown out as soon as we get home. Now the artificially created demand for paper packaging is threatening to take another chunk out of the Hartz Mts. National Park (405 hectares were revoked from the Hartz Mts. National Park in 1952, and a further 283 hectares were taken in 1958 for forestry purposes). If you were under the impression that National Parks were “safe” from exploitation, then take a look at Tasmania’s record – over 14,000 hectares have been taken from 5 of our major National Parks since 1939. The idea that is being promoted by the State Government – that the revocation of the part of the Hartz N.P. is a necessary swap to compensate the forestry interests for the loss of timber in the Precipitous Bluff area – is a hoax. Back in 1970, the Forestry Commission told the Scenery Preservation Board that “the natural attractions 84 of the area (Precipitous Bluff ) for recreational and science purposes, outweigh its usefulness for timber production, despite the area containing an estimated 7½ million super feet of saw logs and 25 million super feet of pulp wood.” The “true swap” was really between the Hartz Mts. National Park and the flooding of the timber where Lake Gordon now stands. Because of the H.E.C.’s panic to drown Lake Pedder, there was insufficient time for the timber interests to salvage more than 25 percent of the timber there. In fact, the Tas. Timber and Log Hauliers Association (who asked for a 10 year moratorium at the time) estimated that 535 million super feet of sawmill timber worth $50 million (then) would be lost under the waters. One of the companies involved in the salvage operations, I.X.L. Timber Pty. Ltd. was offered concessions in 1973 in the Picton Valley (i.e. the Hartz Mts. National Park area) as compensation for the timber lost by not delaying the flooding. I.X.L. Timber is currently building roads in the Picton Valley (which will ultimately cost them nothing) to allow them to take out sawmill logs and A.P.M. to take the rest of packaging pulp. So the loss of another chunk of the Hartz Mts. National Park, is directly related to the H.E.C. and the State Government’s refusal to delay the flooding of Lake Pedder. It cost the State $50 million to satisfy the political whims of its bureaucrats and politicians. Now we have to pay again – with more reserves from the Hartz Mountains. We must recognise that conservation is not just a preservation kick. Every conservation issue uncovers political dishonesty and bad management. The costs to cover up are often enormous. It is not conservationists that cost the State money, but the very people in power and management who attack them. It’s time we listened to the critics and voted against those who keep taking us for a ride. DETAILED POLICIES Section 8 Section 8 Economic policies STEADY STATE ECONOMICS & DESIGN-BASED INDUSTRIES a) GROWTH SYNDROME (Geoff Holloway, State Secretary, UTG Newsletter, No. 9, Sept. 1974) I congratulate Mr Reece in recognising that traditional methods are not going to solve the problem of inflation. As long as governments dedicate themselves to waste and growth economics we will always have inflation, and what is more, it will continue to get worse. Traditional budgets only attack symptoms of the social crisis, and at best can only be of relatively short term benefit. With a little imagination Mr Reece could do much more towards helping to solve the economic crisis; but before he could do this he would have to change some of his fundamental beliefs to realize that:1. It is not necessary to follow the growth economics syndrome as growth does not necessarily increase human welfare, and may actually decrease it. 2. Economic growth actually prevents the equitable distribution of wealth – the benefits of growth going increasingly to the rich and the costs increasingly to the poor. 3. No natural resources are completely renewable. The cheapest resources tend to be sacrificed first, so that as more of any good is produced, progressively more and more expensive alternatives must be sacrificed in a traditional economic system. Consequently, goods and services become more and more expensive. 4. Growth cannot continue indefinitely, and a major crisis will hit the world between the next 20 to 30 years unless there is a sudden reversal in economic thinking. 5. Traditional technology is geared to more and more efficient usage of our resources, mass production, and the reduction of personal (creative) job satisfaction. 6. Growth restricts democracy because it requires institutionalized organizations to ensure continuance and control by the privileged few. In Tasmania we have the potential to lead the world in a social experiment in non-growth economics. We should take advantage of what we have:1. Negligible population growth. 2. An island whose shipping problems could be used as a kind of tariff barrier for the benefit of local producers, supplying local and tourist markets. 3. A multiplicity of natural and human resources – but let us use them wisely. For example, there is more economic sense in using our (?) forests for housing rather than woodchipping. The former is a capital investment whereas the latter presents grave social costs. In practical terms, Mr Reece should: 1. Recognise that public transport should be a public service, and forget the concept of balancing the Transport Commission’s budget. Private transport is becoming increasingly costly, and it is time the State Government set new directions in the field of public transport. Part of the costs accrued by the Transport Commission in 1972-3 have been due to the lack of positive State Government interest in offering the public the alternatives to private transport. 2. HEC funds should be directed at investigation and public education in the field of energy conservation (e.g. heat pumps). The fact that Tasmania’s per capita electricity consumption is higher than Norway, double America’s and more than triple the United Kingdom, is tantamount to gross irresponsibility on the State Government’s part. I suggest that we phase in a reversal of the present lower per unit charges to bulk consumers to a concept of “the more you use the more you pay”. What happens when we run out of dam sites in 10 to 15 years? b) INDUSTRY & EMPLOYMENT POLICY GUIDELINES This concerns chiefly secondary and tertiary industry, agricultural policy is also covered as a separate policy. Relevant statements from ‘A New Ethic’ should be considered at this point. First Principles: 1. Seek minimal dependence on non-renewable energy inputs 2. Seek maximum recycling of use of resources 3. Use most ecologically sound procedures Each decision will require its own examination of these principles, an optimal combination of these being sought in line with the overall principle of seeking combination of these being sought in line with the overall principle of seeking long term coexistence with Earth’s natural processes for Humanity. 85 Section 8 DETAILED POLICIES Policy Guidelines Encourage industries producing goods required by Tasmanians (by whatever means) •฀ Making฀use฀of฀resources฀in฀a฀manner฀most฀consistent฀ with the above principles •฀ Maintaining฀an฀optimal฀size฀(E.F.฀Schumacher฀etc.) •฀ Using฀sound฀design฀principles •฀ Not฀polluting฀indiscriminately •฀ Using฀local฀designs •฀ Producing฀ simply฀ repairable/robust/adaptable฀ items •฀ Using฀quality฀as฀a฀competitive฀element •฀ In฀food฀processing฀which฀best฀preserves฀the฀nutrient฀ value of the foods •฀ Design฀their฀premises฀to฀be฀inoffensive •฀ Not฀about฀to฀alter฀the฀Tasmanian฀unhastled฀lifestyle •฀ Not฀ detrimental฀ to฀ other฀ important฀ Tasmanian฀ industries •฀ Encouraging฀worker฀&฀community฀participation฀in฀ management •฀ Servicing฀ products฀ in฀ a฀ sound฀ way,฀ i.e.,฀ mending฀ rather than replacing, making lasting repairs •฀ Exporting฀ easily฀ transportable฀ goods,฀ i.e.,฀ light/ compact/collapsible/pure designs Further guidelines or objectives: •฀ Industries฀ should฀ be฀ encouraged฀ which฀ offer฀ work฀ meeting the capacities of available workforce •฀ There฀is฀a฀place฀for฀a฀recognised฀craft฀based฀industry •฀ Advertising฀ which฀ leads฀ to฀ efficiency฀ in฀ purchase฀ selection rather than urging increased consumption should be encouraged •฀ Tourism฀should฀engage฀visitors฀in฀learning฀ore฀about฀ the state u this could be coupled with Adult Education u a network of private house accommodation should be established •฀ Recycling฀which฀could฀be฀established฀in฀the฀state฀as฀ an enterprise, includes paper, thermoforming plastics and compostable wastes Objectives or changes for the Department of Industrial Development: •฀ Tasmania฀should฀be฀advertised฀to฀outside฀industries฀ as being how it is •฀ DID฀ could฀ liaise฀ product/resources฀ /skills/ apparatus/transport ties •฀ Prefer฀small฀loans฀to฀local฀enterprises •฀ Employ฀environmentalists฀as฀well฀as฀economists฀(or฀ liaise with Dept. Env.) •฀ Attract฀labour฀intensive฀industries •฀ Rationalise฀trade฀missions •฀ Produce฀honest฀films฀to฀attract฀industries฀interested฀ in Tasmania’s lifestyles rather than those coming only to rip off our resources 86 Possible measures: •฀ Canadian฀ style฀ RED฀ scheme฀ –฀ jobs฀ proposed฀ by฀ individuals – must be self maintaining from subsequent profit •฀ Tax฀฀฀฀฀฀฀ – pay for consumption, i.e., resource royalties – polluter pays principle – applied to products so that their price reflects their social/ environmental as well as fiscal cost •฀ Incentives฀ – loans – competitions/awards – remove payroll tax in order to encourage labour intensive employment – tax concessions for reducing pollution •฀ Penalise฀–฀wastage฀ – advertising which is false or encourages wasteful consumption •฀ Education฀programs฀to฀ – encourage increased awareness of design needs in production – establish an alternate technology school •฀ Public฀service฀could฀ – deploy relevant sections of existing departments to investigate alternate technology etc. – establish an experimental section for potential Tasmanian industry to test designs – offer a forum for workers to bring forward ideas – establish a register of work requiring to be done as alternative to detrimental government work – avoid over-ordering and the importation of goods which could be produced in Tasmania – establish a design pool accessible to local industry – establish precedence in following the above objective •฀ D.I.D.฀could฀further฀ – coordinate a state transport committee to rationalise transportation of goods – collect re-establishment info. –฀ offer฀marketing฀&฀management฀expertise CURRENT INDUSTRY & EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE RELEASED STATEMENTS 1. UTG believes that small diversified industries should be encouraged to set up in Tasmania. 2. UTG would take positive steps to encourage individuals with original and innovative ideas, where they are environmentally sound and for the overall good of the community, to set up their own enterprise or, alternatively for their idea to be utilised by existing industry (here). DETAILED POLICIES 3. It would be UTG policy in government that the Department of Industrial Development should, by incentive or assistance, encourage industries whose products are long lasting and repairable. 4. In our present social structure the service and repair industries have been diminished by the excessive use of disposable and nonrepairable products. UTG would positively encourage the upgrading of existing service industries, and the development of new avenues of repair; this being in line with a policy of encouraging industry to produce long lasting items. 5. Government projects should be seen as pacesetters for other undertakings, by not only considering financial factors, but more so the efficient and correct use of resources in design. This may entail more expensive design, but would mean less expensive operations in the long term, and in some cases could also lower the initial construction/production cost. 6. The aim of UTG’s policy on employment is to have all persons who choose, to be usefully, productively and satisfactorily employed. c) UTG SUPPORTS LABOUR INTENSIVE & DESIGN BASED LOCAL INDUSTRIES Speaking at the third United Tasmania Group State Conference which was held in Hobart on Saturday 10th May, 1975 professional designer, Mr Chris Cowles, told delegates that Tasmania’s future did not lie in attracting the large capital intensive type of industries that are at present experiencing economic difficulties. In the past the United Tasmania Group has predicted these present difficulties regarding unemployment, retrenchments and the loss of job opportunities in this area. Mr Cowles suggested that there should be a co-ordination of Government Departments and organisations in local design based industries, employing local labour and talent and utilizing local resources. “The case of an electronics industry in Denmark proves beyond doubt that it can be done”, Mr Cowles told delegates. “A Decision to set up an electronics industry producing high quality, useful, long-life goods in a pig-farming area which was suffering from employment problems in that country resulted in the retraining of locals and the development of the area’s own transport system to cater for this industry”. “Specialists were brought in only to retrain the local people and now this industry has become one of the Section 8 biggest producers of its particular type of high quality electronics products in the world”, he said. “At present in Hobart initiatives have been taken by forward thinking people in the manufacture of electronic equipment. Government encouragement and interest in this type of business has been a long time coming.” “This type of activity fits in with our basic philosophies of a concern for the natural landscape, combined with labour intensive, environmentally sound local industries in this State”, he explained. Mr Cowles told delegates that though the U.T.G. grew out of a concern for our natural heritage, the U.T.G. does play an important role in representing such industries and the people involved. “An expanded Hydro Electric Commission could pass on the products of a low energy technology as there is already a lot happening in other parts of the world in this field. In fact the H.E.C. should be encouraged to look into this”. “In improved local design techniques and the setting up of local industries using local resources lay many of the answers to the continual complaints of low quality in this day and age. People adopt the skills required for the design and production of high quality products and such industries need not have a large impact on the landscape nor upon the present structure of society”, he said. There is a business in Ulverstone that presently manufactures high quality furniture components based on local materials. These components are exported to Melbourne by air then assembled and sold in Australia and overseas. This is at least some proof that business initiatives in this direction will bear fruit and Mr Cowles urged the U.T.G. to adopt a policy of encouragement to business in this direction. He indicated that to make this a more generally workable policy in Tasmania it may involve the establishment of a new Design college in Launceston and a reorganisation and redirection of the Department of Industrial Development. The Conference then resolved that 1. The United Tasmania Group develop and promote its policy of encouraging design based industries for the production of long-lasting, high quality goods in Tasmania as a means of promoting employment while rejecting further expansion of non-labour intensive industry. 2. The United Tasmania Group extends assistance 87 Section 8 DETAILED POLICIES beyond the Tourist Industry to encourage local groups, firms and organisations to develop new products with high design content. The following underlined policies are from 1972 documents. Economic Policy The central issue of this election is the failure of successive governments to provide Tasmanians with alternatives to hydro-economics. Tasmania is no closer to economic self-sufficiency today than it ever was. During a long period of hydro-industrialisation, our population has declined and our share of the Australian work force has not increased. It is all too clear that the policy of hydro-economics, from which Tasmanians expected so much, has failed to increase the work force, industry has not been attracted in the way some people had hoped, and we are now producing power for nonexistent consumers. It is obvious that a continuation of this policy will be ultimately disastrous for Tasmania. Hydro-economics was worn out at the time the Liberal Party came to office, yet the Liberal Government failed utterly to initiate the new thinking necessary to start Tasmania on the road to new prospects and alternative investments. It is all too apparent that a return to Labor will achieve nothing more than turning back the clock. A Labor government in Tasmania now will be an even older, more rigid government than a Labor government of three years ago. Tasmania cannot afford to elect an old guard utterly lacking in imagination and insight when a vigorous, progressive government with new policies is so desperately needed now. Tasmanians, therefore, have no choice if they want the new thinking necessary for the rejuvenation of the economy in the next parliament. You must support the United Tasmania Group to save Tasmania and your own investment in the state. A progressive group on the cross benches can force new thinking on the part of the old brigade, whether they be Labor or Liberal. How else can you ensure a proper enquiry into the state of the Tasmanian economy? The bleak fact is that Tasmania already produces too much power and there is no prospect of increased industrialisation. Any businessman knows that over-production, i.e. making more goods (or power) than he can sell, eventually leads to bankruptcy. The new parliament must face the fact, however unpleasant it may be, that there must be a public enquiry, at the level of a Royal Commission into the Tasmanian economy. The foremost item for examination would be the role of the H.E.C. as a dominant force in future state finances. 88 The United Tasmania Group, therefore, would move to have a Royal Commission on the state of the economy as an urgent plank of its economic platform. This would form a basis for purposeful action in the immediate future. If we continue as we are now, or with oldfashioned Labor policies, we will never know from day to day what our future is likely to be. The United Tasmania Group believes that a Royal Commission would recommend the immediate search for alternative investments to the traditional and now uncertain, investment in hydro-electricity. In this belief, the Group confidently pledges itself to the following economic policies: Forestry as Alternative Investment The United Tasmania Group would support the channelling of loan funds into the planned development of forestry enterprises. A properly organised woodchip industry with development capital available would not be a threat to the environment. Incentives for re-afforestation and the adoption of sound forestry principles on private land would prevent the danger of forest destruction and attendant deterioration of the landscape. Increased job opportunities would follow. Unlike the capital-intensive industries attracted to Tasmania by hydro-economics, forestry is labour-intensive. The United Tasmania Group believes that the primary objective of industrial development is to create job opportunities for those entering the work force. Our policies are more likely to create these opportunities than the policies of any other party. The United Tasmanian Group believes that loan funds should be made available to: •฀ Sponsor฀the฀formation฀of฀local฀cooperatives •฀ aid฀in฀the฀planting฀of฀harvested฀forests •฀ rehabilitate฀ uneconomic฀ farms฀ as฀ a฀ form฀ of ฀ rural฀ reconstruction. In addition, the United Tasmania Group would press for suitable borrowing arrangements with the Commonwealth Government to enable the state to withhold interest and repayments on loans to private owners for up to 15 years. We would also exempt private owners from probate duties on the sale of forests for wood chips, provided re-afforestation programmes are undertaken. The United Tasmania Group believes that more forestry extension services must be provided. The Group would therefore seek to expand the extension services of the Forestry Commission, and would support increased development of the Commission’s research activities and improvement of the conditions of the Commission’s work force. DETAILED POLICIES Tourism as an Alternative Investment The United Tasmania Group believes that tourism in this state should be promoted by the use of loan funds. The potential in this industry has not been seriously assessed by previous Tasmanian governments. Over many decades tourism has languished for want of vigorous government promotion – no doubt due to the fact that tourists aren’t any help to our vote-seeking politicians. It is apparent that blind faith in hydro-economics has prevented any worthwhile development of alternative investments for loan funds such as the tourist industry. Not all parts of the state should be exploited for tourist purposes. The United Tasmania Group believes that, properly managed, our natural scenic and sporting assets can be used to the mutual benefit of investors and conservationists. We would support the development of special natural areas for tourist purposes. Fishing, skiing, mountaineering, bush walking and hunting, together with the provision of family facilities, are special interests open to promotion and development. The United Tasmania Group would support the injection of capital into such tourist enterprises as an alternative investment to hydro-industrialisation which seems to have almost reached the zenith of it’s productive benefit to the state. Section 8 would support the use of loan funds to develop the export of luxury sea foods, such as oysters, tuna and squid. Unlimited opportunities exist for the processing of these foods and the United Tasmania Group would support efforts to set up processing enterprises. Industrial Development In the past, Tasmanian governments seem to have had a one-track mind in their application of hydro-economics with the result that they have failed to set up adequate machinery to create employment by developing other industries and encouraging existing industries to expand compatible with local requirements. The United Tasmania Group believes we must take the broadest possible view of industry as activities involving the profitable use of capital and as activities which provide employment. The United Tasmania Group would therefore support the development of industry through a directed programme of activity. In this way Tasmania could well become the home of small industries involving berry fruits (including grapes for wine making), nuts, fruit juices and vegetables in conjunction with food processing and canning enterprises. Scandanavian-style modern-design plastic goods, precision industries and specialised services are other areas worthy of professional promotion by government-sponsored industry and trade activity. The Fishing Industry The United Tasmania Group would encourage a proper and planned development of our fishing industry. Recent Liberal government apathy has hampered and frustrated the development of our fishing interests while Japanese competitors have flourished under our very noses. The United Tasmania Group would see that Commonwealth development funds were sought as vigorously by our government as by other states. Liberal apathy has resulted in available funds being channelled mainly to Queensland and West Australia. For too long, Tasmanian primary industries, such as fishing, have lacked government support. The United Tasmania Group would ensure that Industrial Development and Trade was raised from a Directorate to a full department. For too long dependence on hydroindustrialisation has meant apathetic promotion of development and trade, with the result that too little professional promotion has been undertaken. Increased staff and facilities for a Department of Industrial Development and Trade will make positive efforts to promote new alternatives for a new economy. Tasmanians are a seafaring people. We have the knowhow to handle ships and to build them. Yet, we have no offshore fishing industry. The Japanese are already here taking all the tuna they like from southern seas without fear of Tasmanian competition. How long will it be before other nations follow suit. Government shortsightedness has deprived Tasmania of an important and profitable export industry and its attendant processing procedures and ship-building requirements for additional internal employment. This committee has been in existence in a formal manner since mid 1975. The membership has always been small. The United Tasmania Group believes that fishing offers opportunities for alternative investments to any government with enough vigour and enterprise prepared to encourage the expansion of industry. We INDUSTRY AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE REPORT TO 1977 STATE CONFERENCE The need for further interest in forming policy is evident across the board within the UTG and this committee is no exception. Certainly a political party does not exist without a definite and public policy but it is increasingly difficult to see the relevance of detailed policy which deals with the future of the country. The gullibility of a large proportion of the electorate to be persuaded to vote according to who offers the most for them or what short term gains might be offering doesn’t offer much to a party that is concerned with long term futures. The pursuit of such policy is a basic aim of the UTG. 89 Section 8 DETAILED POLICIES Policy is difficult to get down in detail but we must pursue this so that when we are asked by an interested member of the public “What’s your policy on …” We can reply with confidence. We have worked under the veil of a limited view point from the public and the media that we are a “one issue party”. The party doesn’t have unlimited funds to get all our points across to the public and because of this we are very dependant on what is reported by the media. None the less many of our policies have made an impact on the state. The industrial and employment future for Tasmania must be one of the most important concerns for us all. The growing unemployment must be faced up to and realistic policy developed to cope with this. To date full employment in the traditional sense has been regarded as the most desirable situation to be in but with changing work patterns and the development of labour saving devices. This has put pressure on our community in a manner that it is finding difficult to cope with. This trend is going to mean more pressure on our total environment. The desire of people to “escape” the city life means further pressure on unspoilt landscape. The development of larger cities with the movement of people from the country to the city. The movement of those who want a simpler life style to small holdings in the country. All these trends and more are causing us to rethink our aims for the future. To date this committee has looked at some aspects of manufacturing including proposals for a change of emphasis on the industrial front in this state. We have looked at some aspects of government including reports and financial arrangements as it concerns the future development of the state. The committee has not made it one of its aims at this stage to issue press releases although this has happened on occasion. In the past we tried to filter our ideas through the organisation via the newsletter but this hasn’t been as encouraging as it might be and without the interest of members how can we hope to influence any potential voter. There are many more aspects of industrial and employment policy that need to be looked at, for example our attitude to small private enterprise business. What incentives in real terms if any should government give to industry, how should government monies be spent and on what departments to encourage this industry or discourage that industry, what degree of affluence should we all expect or be entitled to, how much of the bureaucracy of government should be involved in the ‘development’ or otherwise of the state. There is one thing for sure, we must look at an alternative approach to industry and employment in this state. Leisure is going to be very much more important but we can’t 90 rely on the tourist industry with the prospect of increased fares and decreasing fuel. We must aim at being more self sufficient so that our dependence on imports and exports is minimised. This is not going to be an immediately recognisable desirable future for the state simply because it is still relatively cheap to import and export but if we are not prepared for these changes then our prospects are not bright. We can easily generalize on what UTG policy is but ultimately detailed proposals will be required so our current project is to look at present government expenditure and put forward an alternative approach. d) ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY The United Tasmania Group believes that proper care of the environment can only eventuate by the creation of a department with realistic financial and administrative support. The United Tasmania Group would move to create such a department and to provide a soil conservation service and a Government Botanist section within the department. POLLUTION The United Tasmania Group is aware that pollution is a real problem in Tasmania. The uncontrolled pollution of our waterways on our sea shores has been a way of life for far too long. The stage has been reached when industrial pollution is affecting the fishing industry. This must be short-sighted in the extreme when it is known that fishing offers opportunities for development that are hard to match at this time of depressed economics in Tasmania. The United Tasmania Group believes that both Liberal and Labour are unaware that the exploitative era has passed. The means of coping with pollution problems are at hand. The United Tasmania Group would see that the known means of control were implemented by early legislation. Steps would be taken to give the appropriate facilities for research monitoring and policing to the present under-staffed and underfinanced Dept. of Environmental Control. Water pollution would be staged out of existence over a tenyear period and other aspects of pollution, involving the air, the soil and noise abatement would receive similar attention. Tasmania has much to offer in maintaining a clean environment. The United Tasmania Group is pledged to keep it clean. e) RESOURCE USE United Tasmania Group policy with regard to conservation and concern for the environment extends DETAILED POLICIES Section 8 much further. Broadly speaking, we are concerned for the proper planning of the use of State resources. In particular, we are concerned with the following matters of vital concern to all Tasmanian. industries seem to forget that it is the goods themselves that are important. Using attractive packaging as a basis for selling is tantamount to emotional blackmail and public irresponsibility. 1) WOODCHIPS The unplanned development of the woodchip industry is recognised by the United Tasmania Group as one of the gravest dangers ever to face the Tasmanian environment. Indeed, there are grave dangers that uncontrolled slaughter of forests on private land could cost the State untold expense in remedial actions to restore eroded lands, to offset the loss of water catchments and to prevent flooding. It is not only the effect on the working man’s wage packet that is of concern, but also the unnecessary costs to present and future generations in the depletion of natural resources, and the destruction of our environment. Every time you buy an over-packaged product a little bit more is paid into the coffers of an industry that is artificially demanding more of our new resources. United Tasmania Group deplores the offhand, short-term profit motive approach of the woodchip development. The destruction of public roads and the wastage on the Bell Bay railway are examples of cost to the public that cannot be justified in the public interest. United Tasmania Group recognises the potential for the woodchip industry to advance forestry to a position of major importance in the Tasmanian economy. We would therefore move to bring all aspects of the industry under government control. We would seek to restrict further expansion until the economics of the industry are better understood. Further development would be assessed by the Land Conservation Council. Incentives would be offered to private owners to ensure that sound forestry practices were followed. In this way, the United Tasmania Group would safeguard the environment and provide sound possibilities for investment in a properly organised industry. f) PACKAGING Leave that useless box in the shop. MILLIONS of dollars are being wasted in Australia on unnecessary packaging. The best way to combat this expensive waste of resources is not to buy excessively packaged goods. Resist the inducements offered by the packaging and advertising industries. Sometimes we may be forced to buy items such as toothpaste, which come in a useless cardboard container. We should protest by leaving the pointless packaging in the shop. The excuse is made that goods are packaged for the greater convenience of the consumer. Most packaging in reality is used to encourage the consumer to buy a certain product in favour of another, not because one article is better than another, but because it is more “attractive”. Can we afford this dubious pleasure in a time of increasing scarcity and inflation? The packaging and advertising For example: more vandalism in the form of woodchipping, more scarring of our beautiful island by mining, more metal containers for the municipal rubbish dumps, more indestructible plastics to despoil our countryside (and seas), and more un-recycled paper packaging. Glass containers appear to be O.K. because they are reusable, recyclable, and unlike plastics do not contaminate our food. The promotion of plastics is only depleting the fossil fuels that are running out. What does it mean to live without excess packaging? It means buying goods wherever they can be bought in the containers provided by the consumer (some retailers) and in bulk where it suits the consumer (for example, flour and sugar from the wholesalers). What happened to buying biscuits by weight, from tins held by the corner shop? Buying fresh fruit and vegetables that have not been prepackaged as in most supermarkets. Next time you buy a can of beer, remember that about 43 per cent of your money goes towards manufacturing the container. According to the Australian Conservation Foundation, we spend about $700 per head of population in buying packaging every year. And we wonder what we can do about inflation! Say “no” to over-packaged goods and bring some semblance of responsibility into the industry. Become aware of the new ethics of the rapidly emerging total environment. Consider: •฀ Everything฀you฀do฀has฀an฀effect฀somewhere. •฀ What฀is฀the฀ultimate฀fate฀of฀items฀you฀use?฀Re-use฀ products wherever possible. •฀ Is฀the฀product฀necessary฀and฀beneficial฀to฀your฀wellbeing? 91 Section 8 DETAILED POLICIES g) OTHER ISSUES 1. Pollution Pollution of the State’s rivers and seafronts is now a serious hazard to human health; to many species of organic life. On seafronts the fishing industry is economically threatened. The UTG lists it as a priority to see that the Department of Environmental Control is authorised, staffed and financed to reduce the dangers, and if possible eliminate them. 2. Woodchips Industry The UTG will institute an immediate economic, scientific and industrial enquiry into short-term effects of aspects of this industry regarded as a prime danger to the Tasmanian environment. All factions involved in this industry will have recourse to participation through the Land Conservation Council. 3. Environmental Education The UTG will introduce a program of educational films for promotion of environmental studies in Tasmania. The department of Film Production will be instructed – in co-operation with other authorities – to make special motion pictures to aid such studies. 4. Forestry Industry & Enterprises Forests are not just wood. They are the guardians of the fertility of our earth. With proper protection, harvesting ad regeneration they are the most valuable of our land assets. UTG recognises that a scientifically conducted woodchip industry backed with development capital need not be a threat to the environment. However, there is cause for concern at the rate and manner in which forests are being destroyed on private land. UTG advocates the use of sound forestry principles on private land to prevent the ills that arise as a result of insufficient knowledge of methods of control. 5. Forest Conservation is an Insurance Against Want UTG declares that natural and cultivated forests under systematic control are an insurance against want. They provide for a large field of employment and are thus labour intensive. UTG believes in the following objectives:•฀ A฀ percentage฀ of฀ loan฀ funds฀ should฀ be฀ used฀ to฀ sponsor……… •฀ Similarly฀such฀aid฀should฀be฀given฀in฀the฀replanting฀of ฀ harvested forests. •฀ Similarly฀ such฀ aid฀ should฀ be฀ given฀ to฀ rehabilitate฀ uneconomic farms as a form of rural reconstruction. •฀ Exemption฀ of฀ probate฀ duties฀ to฀ private฀ owners฀ selling forests to the woodchip industry who re-forest their land. 92 •฀ Increased฀ research฀ and฀ extension฀ facilities฀ for฀ the฀ Forestry Commission. 6. Marine Fisheries Industries State marine fisheries are seriously compromised by foreign competition amounting to a monopoly of a multi-million dollar enterprise. UTG is firmly opposed to the inertia and unresponsive attitudes which have permitted this sweeping take-over. UTG is determined to seek a reasonable share of marine fisheries and will do everything possible to encourage development, and restore investment confidence in such fisheries. The possibility of building suitable competitive fishing vessels in this State will be thoroughly investigated. The Commonwealth Government will be requested to increase its marine research program in Tasmanian waters. 7. Agricultural Industries UTG recognizes that many aspects of the rural economy are seriously neglected and affected by lack of developmental funds, and by insecurity of marketing and freighting factors. UTG will initiate a research program into alternatives for failing industries, and intensify efforts to secure freight justice for all industries. 8. Public Works UTG recognizes the importance of Public Works in maintaining employment, and its essential role in the building of public structures and access ways throughout the Island. UTG believes that Public Works have been unduly restricted by hydroeconomics, and that a much higher proportion of funds should be devoted to State works in order to bring Tasmania into parity with mainland States. The UTG believes that under the present system of hydro-economics there is a duplication of services which should be carried by the Department of Public Works. h) ZERO POPULATION GROWTH (Prof. B. Johnson, Dept. of Zoology, University of Tasmania) DOES “ZERO POPULATION GROWTH” MEAN THAT YOU WANT EVERYONE TO STOP HAVING CHILDREN? No. We aim for a zero growth of population, not for a zero population. In Australia this means that if we act now and no couple has more than two children, then our population will grow to between 20 and 30 million in the next 70 years, but will stabilize at this level. HOW MANY CHILDREN SHOULD EACH COUPLE HAVE IN ORDER TO KEEP THE POPULATION FROM GROWING? DETAILED POLICIES If each couple has just two children, the population will stop growing. By having two children, a couple reproduces its own number. That is, they are providing “replacements” for themselves. Three children provides replacement plus one. Like the others, that child will grow up and have children who will have children, etc. So that one extra child results eventually in an addition of a lot more than one to the population. A LOT OF PEOPLE NEVER HAVE CHILDREN, SO WHY CAN’T THE OTHERS HAVE ALL THEY WANT? DOESN’T IT ALL AVERAGE OUT? Unfortunately no. About 10 to 15 percent of women in the community never have children, so that if these were to be balanced, only 10 to 15 percent could have more than two children. Because of the problem of selection, the aim should be that no couple should have more than two children. MANY PEOPLE LOVE CHILDREN AND WANT LARGE FAMILIES. WHAT CAN THEY DO? After they have had one or two, they can adopt more. At the moment 7 per cent of births in Australia are to single women. Parents wanting more than two children can show their love by providing a home for these children. If they really love their children, they will not wish them to face the problems of an overcrowded world. More people will need more food. More people mean more cars, more highways, schools, houses, factories, jails, shopping centres and more garbage. Section 8 THE UNITED TASMANIA GROUP (UTG) LOGOTYPE AND CAMPAIGN GRAPHICS The technology available to promote political ideas in 1972 was primitive and very little conscious use of design was evident. The UTG introduced the use of a logotype and florescent colours to campaign stickers and posters. The advent of a new political force within the ‘closed shop’ of Tasmanian Labor and Liberal politics demanded eye-catching design. The logotype had to be designed very quickly as the 22 April 1972 statewide election was looming, exactly one month after the Group’s formation. An alliance of energetic like-minded individuals were politically united by an environmental cause and as a result a graphically active group of triangles was chosen as the symbol and the future orientated modern sans serif typeface Microgrammer* was selected for the UTG acronym because of its strong structural form. * Designed by Aldo Novares and Alessandro Butti in 1952 and made available as a Letraset font in the early 1970s. The introduction of this technology, in conjunction with the IBM Selectric typewriter made it possible to produce more professional looking ‘in-house’ campaign publications than hitherto were possible. All of these take up space and natural resources. Sooner or later, we’ll run out of them; in some places, people already have. By stopping population growth now, we can help make sure that it won’t happen here. 93 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS Section 9 Conservation and other policies Preamble Some of the policy details not covered earlier are provided here. They come from largely from UTG Newsletters. These policy details are presented here in approximate order of importance. It has not been an easy task determining priorities as they change over time, e.g., although women’s rights have been important for UTG since 1972 (UTG Extra Nov. 1972) it has only been in recent years that women’s rights have risen in importance – largely due to the attack by the trans lobby on the gains made over decades by the women’s movement, and the attempts by the trans lobby to, in effect, eradicate the concepts of ‘women’ and ‘girls’. In order to be accepted as women trans’women’, i.e., men, try to eliminate women as a factual, biological reality. Also, going back to the early years, even though there was no policy as such, the importance of democracy was a constant theme in, e.g., policy speeches. Again, going back to early campaigns one could have expected to see Lake Pedder as a dominant issue, but that was not the case. In fact, the most notable aspect of UTG is the breadth of policy areas. There is more information on some policies rather than others, and this may be due to missing records, e.g., policy committee reports. It is important to note that there will be clear overlaps between different policies, e.g., national parks and tourism policies; categorisation can be artificially arbitrary at times. They are reproduced here in historically accurate form, including alliteration, free from editing from the original documents. Where the names of the original authors or policy committee members have been recorded they have been acknowledged. This section has key policy themes, including: Conservation, Tourism, Civil Liberties, Social Policies, Health, Education, Energy, Foreign Affairs, Transport, UTG in Parliament, Local Government, plus UTG’s Inquiry into Bushfires in Tasmania. Each of these themes has a number of sub-themes. 1. CONSERVATION a) Introduction We must try to retain as much as possible of what still remains of the unique, rare and beautiful. It is terribly important that we take interest in the future of our remaining wilderness, and in the future of our national parks. 94 Is there any reason why, given this interest, and given enlightened leadership, the idea of beauty could not become an accepted goal of national policy? If we can revise some of our attitudes towards the land under our feet if we can accept a role of steward, and depart from the role of the conqueror; if we can accept the view that man and nature are inseparable parts of the unified whole – then Tasmania can be a shining beacon in a dull, uniform and largely artificial world. -(Olegas Truchanas, 1923–1972) The conservation values of the United Tasmania Group are the basis for our policies on economic management. Natural resources must be used with great care for us to have the means for a high quality life style for our children. Wasteful, aggressive mining of our resources without care for the environment will destroy the special advantages of Tasmania’s natural beauty and the basis of our economy. Wilderness areas in particular are beautiful, unique and irreplaceable – you cannot “replant” a wilderness. In Lake Pedder we lost the most beautiful and unique lake in Australia. Are we to lose the Gordon, Coles Bay and half the state’s forests as well? The United Tasmania Group asks you to consider the attitudes of the major parties that demonstrate their failure to understand these basic truths. The continued aggression of the Government against all wilderness areas is evidence of its insincerity in setting up inquiries into the establishment and management of the SouthWest National Park. Opposition silence on all such matters shows no better understanding on their part. The United Tasmania Group believes that community values in these areas should be given greater voice in government. This will need the reorganisation of the Department of the Environment so that its pollution control functions are subordinated to its policymaking activities. This would include the creation of a Land Conservation Council, combined with an Environment Protection Council. The United Tasmania Group has been formed because of a total lack of concern by both Tasmania’s main political parties and refusal by them to act in any way to legislate according to the wishes of the electors regarding conservation. b) National Parks and wilderness The decision to destroy Lake Pedder was a mistake. Both major parties have virtually admitted this. Unlike CONCLUDING COMMENTS them, the United Tasmania Group does not believe in continuing with a mistake for the sake of political facesaving. We believe that Lake Pedder is a national asset and that all steps should be taken to save it. We would therefore move to halt the flooding of Lake Pedder immediately. We would take every step to initiate negotiations with the Commonwealth Government for a non-repayable grant to implement an alternative scheme. The United Tasmania Group will stop the flooding of Lake Pedder and have an independent enquiry. The United Tasmania Group will inject into government in Tasmania a thoroughly enlightened and modern approach to the use of land. It has been evident for many years that the Labour Party lacks the interest and ability to make other than ad hoc decisions in the use of land. The Liberal Party has recently demonstrated its adhesive attachment to policies of exploitation in the interests of big business at the expense of long term benefits to society. The major political parties have therefore failed to legislate for a basis of land management and resource use in Tasmania. The United Tasmania Group will make every effort to bring about a proper basis of land evaluation. We are convinced that a Land Conservation Council should be set up immediately. The Council would have the same basic purpose as the Land Conservation Council in Victoria, and its aim would be to assess land use alternatives before any decisions were made to approve a major new public works scheme. The Council would also assess the claims of conservationists on the effects of proposed works on the environment, and detailed studies would have to be carried out before any decision could be made. The United Tasmania Group believes this action of government would lay the basis for a proper concern for the environment. But it would also ensure that much more than lip service was given to the conservation and preservation of the Tasmanian heritage. The group believes that no government in Tasmania has properly attended to the natural assets of the State. It therefore deplores the Liberal Government’s actions of setting up a National Parks and Wildlife Service without the funds to carry out its responsibilities. United Tasmania Group would seek to ensure that those funds were not denied in the future. The United Tasmania Group believes that a well maintained system of national parks is essential to the recreational well-being of the people. We believe in the need for reserved areas to preserve our distinctive and precious fauna and flora. We believe that national parks serve as areas for scientific study and that natural areas are draw-cards for tourists. Section 9 The United Tasmanian Group will therefore take every available opportunity to expand and extend our national parks. We will take steps to upgrade all our reserves of large extent to National Park status in keeping with the practice in other states. We will encourage the National Parks and Wildlife Service with support for the management of national parks, particularly with regard to the provisions of educational material and an expanded ranger service. We will support the upgrading of ranger qualifications and the introduction of equitable and rewarding remuneration for the Service personnel. The United Tasmania Party believes that the preservation of foreshores is a priority problem in the planning and maintaining of reserves. We support the creation of a national park to preserve examples of our coastal plant and animal communities. We particularly believe in the value of the South-West as a wilderness area and shall support its extension to remain the most important wilderness in Australia. In particular, the United Tasmania Group believes in the continued integrity of national parks and will oppose the alienation of reserves as practised by both Labour and Liberal governments. Tasmania has the largest proportion of reserves in Australia but, unfortunately, has at the same time, the doubtful distinction of revoking or alienating reserves faster than any other State. This will not be allowed to continue under United Tasmania Group government. A vote for the United Tasmania Group is a vote for the National Parks. Only the United Tasmania Group believes in doubling the financial support for the National Parks and Wildlife Service. Liberal Government pay lipservice to national parks, not cold, hard cash. c) TOURISM, including ecotourism from UTG Journal Nos. 3 & 4, 2018. Community Participation in Tourism In Tasmania the state government decides, then derides and over-rides any opposition to tourism developments. There is almost no community participation in decisionmaking and any evaluations have only one criterion – money. Where there is community participation it is a cynical exercise with any opposition, even majority and well-argued opposition, ignored as these so-called developments are all about money for mates. There are too many examples occurring over recent years to quote here and, in the absence of whistle-blower legislation, revealing these instances could be hazardous. The most examples include the proposed cable car on kunanyi, Lake Malbena, Walls of Jerusalem and the South Coast track privatisation. 95 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS In general terms there are two types of community participation in tourism: Type 1 - participation in development of tourism planning and strategies and Type 2 - participation or community benefits from tourism ventures. there to be no negative impacts of tourism – this was a big drop from 34% in the survey conducted in 2016, so people are becoming increasingly aware of the negative impacts of tourism. The negative impacts included road infrastructure and congestion (19%), environmental (16%), increased prices including housing (15%) and over-crowding (8%) [TICT, 2018]. Genuine community participation only occurs with type 1; type 2 is used as a mythical promise and is the one favoured by Tasmanian Governments and corporate tourism. In some cases the community ‘benefits’ are extremely negative - e.g., reduced rental accommodation and increasing rents, overcrowding in national parks (e.g., Cradle Mt. and Freycinet national parks) or destructive (e.g., cable car works on kunanyi), not to mention that the by far the greatest economic benefit goes to corporate and political interests. In another survey, conducted for The Mercury (6 January 2019, page 6), 76% of Tasmanians were concerned about over-tourism, stating that the state should not “open itself up for mass commercial tourism”, instead they wanted to protect Tasmania’s key assets such as “fresh air, wilderness and natural beauty”. Type 1 participation In Tasmania community participation in developing tourism plans and strategies is almost zero, e.g., there has been no consultation whatsoever for the proposed seven commercial huts along the South Coast track, nor for the proposed Lake Geeves track, not to mention the totally arbitrary change from wilderness to ‘recreation’ in the case of Lake Malbena. By the way, do people realise that any private tourism enterprises operating within Tasmania’s National Parks have to have Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania (TICT) approval? – that is why฀we฀refer฀to฀Parks฀and฀Wildlife฀as฀‘Parks,฀Wildlife฀&฀ Tourism’ now. There is another party in this debate that hardly participates – the academic sector. If there was ever a need for non-aligned expertise to engage in debates about tourism developments then it is now. If there is ever going to be genuine debates then we need independent academic researchers to offer their views, not their compliance or acquiescence of not challenging government tourism policy. There has not been a single academic from the University of Tasmania question this orthodoxy. Furthermore, the governing body of tourism in Tasmania, the TICT represents only the larger corporate and government interests in tourism. Australia-wide research suggests that only 60% of ecotourism operators are part of state/territory tourism bodies, such as the TICT (Ecotourism Australia, 2017). The declining credibility of Ecotourism Australia is another issue – which will be analysed in the next issue of the UTG Journal and is already being examined internationally. Type 2 participation The TICT and the State Government do not consult the general community in any tourism developments, especially with respect to Tasmania’s Protected Areas. They manage to get away with this because it is assumed that ‘tourism is good for Tasmania’ and the public will somehow gain the benefits. It is the equivalent of ‘trickle-down economics’ and equally fallacious. However, the general public is not happy as a majority is concerned about over-tourism. In a survey conducted by EMRS in 2018 only 21% of respondents considered 96 The general public is acutely aware of the quintessential elements that make Tasmania special. Tasmanian Governments and the TICT also appreciate these qualities – but for them wilderness is spelt ‘wilderne$$’. In the 1970s the Hydro Electric Commission was referred to as the real government in Tasmania with a single-minded policy of ‘hydro-industrialisation’ as the only economic policy for Tasmania, which lead to UTG campaign focus on ‘good government’, ‘honesty in politics’ and ‘public participation’ (Walker, 1986; Easthope฀ &฀ Holloway,฀ 1989).฀ Later฀ that฀ became฀ the฀ Forestry Commission, so the focus shifted more to corruption issues. Today power and control of the state has returned, along with privatisation of public assets it is, as an issue as, for all intents and purposes, the TICT has now replaced the Hydro. The TICT has a single-minded policy of tourism as literally a ‘cargo-cult’ economic policy for Tasmania. Each time new tourism figures come out there is much salivating and slushing of more anticipated government funding to ‘boost tourism’ – as if it needed any boosting! Incidentally, these tourism figures are very dubious, they are based on sample surveys and the survey error margin is never publicised – but more about that at another time. However, the main issue with tourism development is lack of public participation in decisionmaking processes, just as has occurred under hydroindustrialisation and destructive practices in the past. CONCLUDING COMMENTS The privatisation of public places such as National Parks is not just about ‘money for mates’ without open tenders, its real intent is polarisation of the general community (‘development’ versus ‘anti-development’) in order to fuel political support in a community that has been polarised at least as far back as the Lake Pedder campaign and, too a lesser extent, even as far back as the time of the creation of Tasmania’s first National Parks in the 1910s (Kiernan, 2018). Polarisation of the Tasmanian community is between the two options of having wilderness for its own sake (ecocentrism) versus exploitation (anthropocentric utilitarianism). This same type of polarisation is happening with the cable car and there is a very slimy road going back ten years showing how this has slowly developed, a period when there was a Labor-Greens government and the Greens were at their height (22% of the vote in 2010). One should never forget that the Greens agreed with the Three Capes Track, which subsequently became the model for privatisation of other National Parks and wilderness areas in Tasmania. One should also not forget that The Wilderness Society invited Luke Martin (TICT) to speak at their celebration of the 30th anniversary of saving the Franklin River. The first landscape artist to be born in Tasmania was William Piguenit who expressed ecocentrism not just in his paintings but also in his presentation to the Australasian Association for the Advancement of Science฀ in฀ 1892฀ (Easthope฀ &฀ Holloway,฀ 1989).฀ Many฀ other artists, photographers, graphic designers and poets since then have presented ecocentrism through their works, some directly connected with UTG, e.g., Geoff Parr (photography and design), Chris Cowles (designed UTG’s logo, A New Ethic, the No Dams sticker, plus much more), Clive Sansom (poet) and many others. It is creativity such as this that is needed to counter the other set of values of that is represented by the anthropocentrism and utilitarianism. The alternative vision, the ‘other’, has not been considered in cargo-cult mentality that drives government and TICT tourism planning and strategies. Postscript Following a packed public meeting on 22nd April at Coles Bay the local community rejected the State Government’s ‘master plan’ for Freycinet National Park and called for a cap on tourist numbers. The reaction from Luke Martin of the TICT was one of shock and that “A visitor cap is an unnecessary and simplistic idea that would create more problems than solutions.” (The Examiner, 23 April, 2019). In an Editorial, 25th April, The Mercury newspaper went even further and said that a cap would be impossible to enforce. The State Government responded that it remains committed to the master plan – in other words, Tasmanian communities can Section 9 get stuffed! This seems to be the attitude that the State Government takes to any and all objections to its exploitation of Tasmania’s natural beauty and assets, regardless of the strength of community opposition! Tourism & debates we are not supposed to have Recently the Lord Mayor of Hobart, Ron Christie, had the temerity to raise the question of over-tourism. All but one (Dr. Eva Ruzicka) of the aldermen condemned him along with Luke Martin, representing the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania (TICT), in an article in The Mercury on 2 July 2018, and no less than two Mercury Editorials! UTG applauds the Lord Mayor for raising the over-tourism issue. It is too late to scream ‘Stop!’ when the hordes are already here, as 14 cities in Europe have already decided i. The problem is already here - as pointed out by Wendy Pearson in a letter-to-the-editor (Mercury) on 6th June, the process of ‘loving places to death’ has already begun in Freycinet National Park. Meanwhile, the State Government is intent on setting up a private ‘village’ on the shores of the iconic Dove Lake, plus a cable car to ferry people there! As shown in the first article of this Journal, Issue No. 4, the number of tourists visiting national parks and wilderness areas across the southern hemisphere has exploded over recent years. Articles also cover: (1) Changes since the 1970s among the three areas comprising the Gondwana Trilogy of wilderness areas, Patagonia,฀New฀Zealand฀and฀Tasmania;฀and฀the฀misuse฀ of the term ‘wilderness’; (2) Iceland – then (1978) and now (2016); and (3) A comparative analysis of three island tourism destinations: Iceland, Cabo Verde and Tasmania. Since its inception in 1972, UTG has argued that tourism could be good for Tasmania, but not at the expense of the integrity and sanctity of our National Parks and wilderness areas. UTG considers that tourism can be best served by a focus on what Dick Jones called ‘knowledge tourism’ii, that is, informing tourists about the unique characteristics of Tasmanian landscapes etc rather than just ‘scenery mining’, and rejecting the purely utilitarian approach that is adopted by traditional, especially corporate, tourism.iii To this end provision of areas on the fringe outside these areas can be the least damaging. Proposals such as privatisation along the South Coast track, the proposed Lake Geeves track, Walls of Jerusalem huts and Lake Malbena are not outside fringe areas iv. There is also good research for believing such fringe area visitation satisfies tourists – for example, Chinese 97 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS tourists (up 60%) come to Tasmania for a limited period of time, usually 2–3 days, due to leave restrictions; they tend to travel in groups and prefer to visit as many sites as possible within that limited period v. Also there is a ‘cultural disconnect’ vi between them and nature (partly due to their urban lives) and they are not likely to be trekking into the Southwest (or other areas for that matter). However, they do like to visit natural areas such as parks, even if only briefly, for the lack of crowds and for the scenery. All tourists are different. Germans, for example, (up 45%), are a different story as they have eight weeks annual leave. Similarly, cruise ships typically spend only 24 hours in the ports around Tasmania, and the tourists wander around CBDs and then go back to their cruise liners. The ‘pollution’ issue with cruise liners is over-blown, and temporary as using bunker oil is likely to be banned across the world within the next few years. In other words, there is very limited environmental impact from concentrating numbers of tourists on the ‘fringes’, plus these tourists bring economic benefits to small enterprises, especially artists of all types or artesanos. Tasmania now gets more than double its population in tourists! But the total numbers are not the problem. The real problem with tourism is that it has become the new holy grail in the cargo-cult mentality of Tasmania’s ruling elites and Government Business Enterprises, driven by the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania (TICT) and the exploit-at-any-cost State Liberal Government, using tourism numbers as another excuse for building exclusive ´shacks´, privatising walking, creating new tracks and destroying any fragile wilderness in Tasmania. Most of this is being promoted using the new buzzword word ‘ecotourism’ – which is a total distortion of any internationally understood meaning of the word, as discussed in the previous issue of the UTG Journal. d) From Gondwana to Gonetomorrow (Kevin Kiernan, UTG Journal No. 4, July 2018) Way back in 1977 I wrote an article in which I drew attention to Tasmania’s south-west being not only an outstanding place in its own right, but also as part of a set of environmentally-related wild places of global value vii.฀฀Together฀with฀south-western฀New฀Zealand฀and฀ Patagonia in South America, it shared both geological and biological legacies of having drifted apart from the same single land mass of Gondwana 200 million years ago. Each also shared the wet and windy maritime environment of the southern mid-latitudes. I was by no means the first to recognise this relationship of course, having been preceded by such luminaries as Charles Darwin and, in the 1960s the Royal Society of London. 98 But in the early 1970s, during the campaigns against flooding of our own Lake Pedder and the quarrying of Precipitous Bluff, either Tom Uren or Moss Cass, both federal ministers in the Whitlam Labor government, first drew my attention to the recent birth of the World Heritage Convention, which came into effect in 1975. Their government had recently made Australia a signatory to that Convention in the hope that the resulting enhancement of the Commonwealth’s foreign affairs powers under the Australian constitution would allow it to play a more active and effective role in moderating the impacts of overly rapacious state governments. For those of us who were personally familiar with all three of these southern temperate wildlands, that Convention seemed a perfect fit for these remarkable parts of the Earth, places of such importance as to be more justifiably cherished and stewarded by all of humanity rather than being merely the fiefdom of any one government. Ah, but it all seemed so easy back then …. From colonial times until 1977 This southern trinity of wildlands also had aspects of their human history in common. Tasmania and Patagonia both saw the advent of convict settlements and the spread of farming displace the indigenous inhabitants of all three southern land masses. The impacts were particularly pronounced upon the Tasmanian Aborigines and the Ona and Yaghan peoples of Fuego-Patagonia, all of whom were driven close to extinction. Only rugged mountain terrain insulated any of the natural environment against transformation at the hand of the acquisitive colonists. Whale slaughter became ubiquitous offshore, while onshore overgrazing saw soils stripped from the mountain slopes of all three land masses, in Tasmania most conspicuously on the Central Plateau. By 1977, fires since European colonisation had also taken their toll in all three areas, including the Torres del Paine area in Patagonia, widely across the mountains of New฀Zealand,฀and฀in฀various฀Tasmanian฀localities฀such฀ as Frenchmans Cap, Tarn Shelf and the Central Plateau. And back in 1977 forests were falling faster than ever, with plans฀ for฀ large-scale฀ pulping฀ of ฀ New฀ Zealand’s฀ beech฀ forests and the conversion of native forests to softwood plantations, while expansion of parklands in Tasmania was being blocked by intransigent forestry interests. In฀ New฀ Zealand฀ a฀ vigorous฀ debate฀ over฀ a฀ proposal฀ to฀ raise the level of Lake Manapouri for hydro-electric development overlapped with the campaign against flooding of Tasmania’s Lake Pedder, while in Patagonia one Argentine National Park had already been violated by dam construction and Chile’s Rio Baker seemed destined to perhaps succumb to a similar fate. Important locations within these wondrous natural places had also CONCLUDING COMMENTS been damaged by mining and there were other potential mining projects in the pipeline, such as proposed limestone quarrying at Precipitous Bluff in Tasmania, oil and coal in Patagonia and metallic minerals beneath Mt George฀in฀New฀Zealand’s฀Fiordland฀National฀Park.฀฀The฀ latter involved Australian companies and gave rise to the suggestion that Australian conservationists should play a more active role in outing and campaigning against such companies from Australia in the interest of wilderness internationally. Recreational use of the wildlands of all three areas was also increasing, improving awareness of their value but also starting to inflict sufficient scars as to sound a warning. Despite the fact that all three areas shared many similar resource development issues back in 1977, Australia’s performance in safeguarding the Tasmanian wilderness still didn’t compare very favourably with progress on nature conservation being made in New Zealand,฀Chile฀and฀Argentina฀ viii. Chile had established Reserves Forestales over 33,589 square km of its sector of Patagonia, which, although multiple-use areas, were also intended to advance nature conservation. Argentina had allowed one of its parks to be violated, but at least it had established some protected areas. By 1970 the IUCN recognised only 825 square km of National Parks in western Patagonia, but by 1977 that figure had risen to nearly 40,468 square km. By then, neighbouring Argentina had set aside 10,117 square km of National Parks.฀฀New฀Zealand’s฀Fiordland฀National฀Park฀covered฀ nearly 12,140 square km, with additional protected areas including the adjoining Mt Aspiring National Park, and others such as Mt Cook and Westland National Parks. In Tasmania the reserve system lagged far behind, with reserved land covering only a tiny fraction of such figures because the parks system remained hamstrung by a “leftovers” mentality – only those places that seemed superfluous to the desires of forestry, mining or hydro-electric interests were ever considered for protection, irrespective of the natural or cultural values at stake. And even despite this paucity of protected areas in Tasmania, developmental activities had already been allowed to cause major damage even inside some of the few parks that did exist, including erasure of Lake Pedder. In that 1977 article I remarked that “The time is long overdue to halt the attrition, and for Australians to take their place as world citizens”. National Parks existed in all three of these southern wildlands but there was one source of environmental damage that remained uncontained – tourism. By 1977฀the฀enormous฀influence฀of฀New฀Zealand’s฀Tourist฀ Hotels Corporation had seen it able to develop major resorts inside the Fiordland and Mt Cook National Parks and elsewhere. Various walking tracks were becoming Section 9 commercialised with local people increasingly squeezed out by rationing to allow increased tourism use, and demands that track users could no longer sleep in their tents but that they must instead patronise expensive huts. Meanwhile mountaineers who had laboured for days to gain the solitude of high mountain peaks were increasingly finding themselves buzzed by close-flying tourist aircraft. In 1977 their reverie was increasingly poisoned by the resulting cacophony, the antithesis of the reason why so many had previously ventured into the wilds. In Patagonia I had recently been proudly shown progress with the development of roads into the Torres del Paine area, and associated tourism infrastructure. This was an area hitherto so inspirationally wild and challenging that the legendary British mountaineer Don Whillans once remarked to me in a letter that “Patagonia is really my favourite place”. In Tasmania, some increase in walking track erosion was emerging, but tourism impacts generally remained limited. Most tourists were content to drive to the edges of our wild areas at places like Cradle Mountain and Lake St Clair. Deeper penetration was mostly via cruises up the lower Gordon River in riverbank-friendly vessels whose transient footprint upon the water posed no problem. Over-flight by tourist aircraft was very limited. Changing times Now, a little over four decades later, the conservation status of land in the trinity of southern wildernesses has improved. Far from the embarrassing state of affairs in Tasmania in 1977, the National Parks and other protected areas included within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (15,842 square km) now do us proud. But nor have the kiwis been laggards over the intervening years, with additional protected areas established and the South West New Zealand฀ World฀ Heritage฀ Area฀ alone฀ extending฀ over฀ 26,000 square km. Argentina’s Patagonian National Parks cover 13,448 square km, with 9, 868 square km of that area having World Heritage status. In Chile, the protected area system covered 77,397 square km of Fuego Patagonia by 2017. In addition, over recent years the philanthropic Tompkins Foundation has progressively purchased 10,000 square km of land in Chilean Patagonia for conservation purposes, and recently donated it to the Chilean government. That government added a further 90,000 square km, including two existing reserves totalling 1,694 square km to the conservation estate. In January 2018 the Chilean president, Michelle Bachelet, announced proclamation of the resulting new protected area of 100,000 square km, to be known as the Patagonia National Park. This will bring the total extent of protected areas in the 99 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS Chilean sector of Fuego-Patagonia to around 176,000 square km. Challenges emerging There is no reason to assume that commercial interests will not continue to covet any mineral, timber or hydro-electric resources within protected areas should circumstances make their exploitation economically attractive. Fortunately, none of the nations responsible for protection of the parklands in Patagonia and New Zealand฀have฀the฀same฀established฀tradition฀as฀Tasmania฀ does of revoking National Parklands at the first smell of money, such as has seen forests torn from our own Mt Field and Hartz Mountains National Parks. But money talks, so constant vigilance is required. And the monies that are currently talking most loudly are the international currencies of tourism. Between 1995 and 2016 international tourism arrivals to Argentina rose from 2,289,000 to 5,559,000; Chile experienced an increase from 1,540,000 to 5,641,000; Australia฀from฀3,726,000฀to฀8,263,000฀and฀New฀Zealand฀ arrivals had reached 3,370,000 by 2016 ix. Obviously only a fraction of those tourists visited National Parks, but even a small proportion of that overall increase in tourism numbers nevertheless implies a very substantial increase in the actual numbers of those who do visit parks. And that is without factoring in the impact of intra-national tourism, such as the massive increase in the numbers of people from elsewhere in Australia who now visit Tasmania. The motivations and reactions of local visitors are seldom the same as those of tourists from more distant places.฀ ฀ A฀ recent฀ survey฀ in฀ New฀ Zealand฀ has฀ revealed฀ that 80% of the local population had visited a reserve in the previous 12 months, their most popular activities being short walks of less than three hours (58%), sightseeing (51%) and enjoying time with family and friends (34%). The main reasons given for visiting parks were spending time in Nature or enjoying scenery (82% of respondents), spending time with family and friends (69%), getting away from it all (53%), improving health (35%) and facing a physical challenge (33%). In contrast, industrial tourism tends to focus less on experiences than on destinations; capturing a sense of peace and insight or photographing Nature is increasingly displaced by the quest to capture a selfie as proof of another famous place ticked off a list, before moving on to the next destination. While Patagonia may once have been Don Whillans’ favourite place I doubt that it would still be so were he still alive today. By 2016 Torres del Paine National Park in Chile was receiving 252,000 visitors each year. The Chilean government plans to link 17 National Parks 100 into a 2,400 km Ruta de los Parques tourist route. In Argentina visitors to previously wild Los Glaciares National Park had risen to 83,579 by 1995 and were projected to reach 167,364 by 2003, with the numbers visiting three of the most popular parks over that period estimated to rise between 5.9% and 11.4% x. According to a survey by the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment, only about 30% of tourists entering New Zealand฀visited฀National฀Parks,฀but฀given฀the฀growth฀in฀ that country’s tourism overall, that 30% still involved absolute numbers with the capacity to drive major changes for park managers. Between 1997 and 2012 there were massive increases in the numbers visiting some National Parks, including Abel Tasman National Park (from 28,800 to 95,300), Fiordland National Park (from 196,100 to 338,700), Westland National Park (from 205,000 to 288,800), Tongariro National Park (from 32,100 to 114,000) and Paparoa National Park (from 11,700 to 114,200). Having been a regular visitor to New Zealand฀ between฀ the฀ mid-1970s฀ through฀ to฀ the฀ 1990s,฀ during which time that country was effectively my much-loved second home, and making more sporadic visits฀since,฀it฀seems฀to฀me฀that฀the฀feel฀of฀New฀Zealand฀ has certainly changed from the friendly, welcoming place I once knew to a more crowded, bustling, greedy and impatient one. I am sadly inclined to agree with the owner of one accommodation establishment who remarked฀to฀me฀a฀few฀years฀ago฀that฀“New฀Zealand฀has฀ sold its soul”. Tasmania now receives twice as many visitors annually as there are Tasmanian residents. It is now more profitable to cater to the whims of high-spending tourists than it is to cater for the demands, wishes and sensitivities of local Tasmanians. Analysis of data from reference sites used by the Parks and Wildlife Service to evaluate changes in visitor numbers indicates Freycinet National Park was receiving 292,000 visitors by 2016-17, and Cradle Mountain was receiving 252,000. Between 2013-14 and 2016-17 the number of visitors had grown by 7% and 9% respectively, while there was an 8% increase in those taking cruises on the lower Gordon River over the same period. The biggest increases were at readily accessible areas on the fringes of parks and reserves, such as Tasman Arch (17%) and the readily accessible Tamar Island wetlands (19%). Thus is the nature and magnitude of the pressures now confronting the wildlands of the southern temperate zone. When World Heritage status saved the Franklin River it was a win for the Franklin, but perhaps wilderness overall was the main loser. The concept of wilderness entered lingua franca and was then progressively degraded as the word “wilderness” was commodified to promote any tourism enterprise conducted within sight CONCLUDING COMMENTS of a tree, and misused by conservation advocates in a bid to enhance the prospects of saving threatened places that were not wilderness, albeit still being important places deserving of protection for other entirely legitimate reasons. Occurring hand in hand with the redefinition of “ecotourism” to describe any hotel that gave its guests biodegradable soap, for many people the word wilderness now describes what used to be called simply “Nature”. But if the fundamental character of the priceless trinity of southern temperate wildlands is to survive, then the concept of wilderness needs to be disinterred and properly differentiated. Without that happening, and true wilderness being again defended effectively, the greedy and the idiotic will succeed in establishing their private commercial resorts in what was once wild, together with their commercial tracks and who knows what else, because the public will not understand the extent to which these things destroy remoteness and much else of what wilderness is all about. Tasmania’s is the smallest and gentlest of these three southern temperate wilderness areas. As a result ours is also by far the most vulnerable to erasure — and our responsibility the most urgent. e) ‘Ecotourism’ – the new green wash term Geoff Holloway, UTG Journal No. 3, May 2018 (partially reproduced) ‘Ecotourism’ is a term that is misused across the world – as all international bodies agree; but it is particularly abused/misused by the Tasmanian Government and the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania (TICT). This is not to say that there are not some authentic ecotourism enterprises in Tasmania, but they are at extreme risk of losing their status. More importantly, ‘ecotourism’ is far from new; it used to be something generations of Tasmanians bushwalkers, climbers, skiers, etc did as an outdoor activity/past-time or philosophy, but without any corporate or government involvement; and while not strictly ‘tourists’ as such, their activities were similar. The way the term is used today covers a wide spectrum of tourist activities, which usually involves ‘nature’, even if just in the form of what should be called more accurately ‘scenery mining’. Notwithstanding the above, there have been serious attempts to define, and establish standards for, ecotourism. For example, The International ecotourism Society (TIES), which claims to have over 750 organisational and 14,000 individual members plus 85,000 followers on facebook, has at least five key principles at the base of its definition of ecotourism, namely that it: Section 9 •฀฀ is฀non-consumptive฀and฀non-extractive฀ •฀฀ creates฀an฀ecological฀conscience฀ •฀฀ holds฀ecocentric฀values฀and฀ethics฀in฀relation฀to฀ nature •฀฀ is฀based฀on฀community฀involvement฀and฀ consultation •฀฀ recognizes฀the฀rights฀and฀spiritual฀beliefs฀of ฀the฀ Indigenous people.xi The succinct TIES definition of ecotourism is: “Responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment, sustains the wellbeing of the local people and involves interpretation and education”.xii However, this definition does not meet all the principles previously outlined. Ecotourism is one of many attempts to promote responsible tourism and ‘sustainable tourism’ - and some commentators argue that the later term is an oxymoron . This is because, as Freya Higgins-Desbiolles points out, “Tourism has a problem. It is addicted to growth, which is incompatible with sustainability goals. Despite three decades discussing pathways to sustainable tourism, tourism authorities continue to promote tourism growth despite the ecological and social limits of living on a finite planet … The growth fetish is resulting in tourism killing tourism. Almost gone are the days when tourism authorities might support tourism directed to education, social well-being, inclusion and other non-economic goals”. xiv Ecotourism, as such, makes up about 10% of all tourism according to the United National World Tourism Organisation (UNWTO) – whether it is more or less than that in Tasmania is hard to determine. However, the Tasmanian Government and the TICT like to (mis) apply this term across all sorts of tourism enterprises regardless of validity or relevance. One of the reasons for this deceptive behaviour is that governments realise that tourists are looking increasingly for ethical, responsible, nature-based tourism experiences – some research suggests that three-quarters of tourists want to contribute to ethical and responsible tourism AND they are prepared to pay more for that privilege.xv This is sometimes referred to as ‘New Tourism’, and these tourists have a higher level of environmental and cultural awareness.xvi ‘New tourism’ can be described as a summation of a few key ethical principles: 1. 2. 3. 4. environmental consciousness responsibility in travel cultural awareness supporting the visited communities. Last year (2017) was International Year of Sustainable Tourism for Development – you may not have heard much about this International Year, as there was not a 101 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS single activity within Tasmania. The United Tasmania Group (UTG) did offer to conduct a seminar but we did not receive a response until it was too late to organise. However, we might try again later this year, given that tourism is, arguably, the greatest threat now facing Tasmania’s National Parks, wilderness and conservation areas. Before going into some details about what constitutes authentic ecotourism (as the Global Ecotourism Network is now referring to it), in order to combat the world-wide problem of exploiting the term ‘ecotourism’ - and authenticity is one of the key drivers of tourists these days, what is very clear in Tasmania is that no transparent standards, international or otherwise, are applied to the concept or use of the term ‘ecotourism’. Both Government and the Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania (TICT) and its corporate cronies blithely use the term across the board to any venture that they would like to greenwash. This is not to say that there are no authentic ecotourism ventures in Tasmania, but even those pale in significance with what happens in some areas overseas (eg, the Grand Canyon xvii). In Cabo Verde, with a population the same as Tasmania, where 53% of the GDP comes from tourism, providing 60% of direct and indirect employment, the term ‘ecotourism’ has been applied to less than a handful of enterprises - whereas in Tasmania the term is being applied to almost anything that operates in the outdoors (including proposed cable cars). xviii Tasmania is like China, where any tourism development or activity located in a natural setting is฀described฀as฀ecotourism;฀and฀there฀is฀no฀distinction฀ between nature-based tourism and ecotourism, although the latter can encompass both cultural and environmental experiences. xix Ecotourism is being used as a greenwash term in order to facilitate the privatisation of Tasmania’s National Parks (eg, Three Capes Track, Cradle Mountain, Lake Malbena, Lake Geeves, the South Coast and Frenchman’s Cap). The Three Capes Track was the first cab off the rank; now it is being used as a model in both Tasmania and mainland States to put in private and governmentfunded infrastructure inside World Heritage Areas and National Parks to privatise the exploitation of these areas. The rush has begun … and all of this is being conducted behind closed doors with no public consultation or involvement - which contravenes at least Article฀3,฀sections฀4฀&฀5฀of ฀the฀Global฀Code฀of ฀Ethics฀ for฀Tourism,฀adopted฀by฀UN฀in฀2001฀(United฀Nations฀&฀ UN World Tourism Organisation).xx Tasmania is also in breach of other Ethics in this Code. Why฀should฀all฀of฀this฀matter?฀As฀Bricker฀&฀Hunt฀point฀ 102 out, sustainable ‘green’ tourism makes good business sense as “tourists are increasingly showing a preference for products and suppliers that demonstrate good social and environmental performance”;xxi for these authors “Ecotourism is about uniting conservation, communities and sustainable travel” - none of these criteria are being considered, let alone implemented, in Tasmania. As pointed out by Monbiot, the term ‘sustainability’ is used by governments and industry to mean sustained growth, whereas its original meaning was directed at environmental sustainability, conservation and biosphere integrity: “if sustainability means anything, it is surely the opposite of sustained growth. Sustained growth on a finite planet is the essence of unsustainability”.xxiii As Freya Higgins-Desbiolles says, the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘development’ are very anthropocentric and ignore the consequences for, and rights of, other species and ecological systems. Also, the Tasmanian Government and the tourism industry do nothing to adhere to best practice as outlined in the IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas guidelines for tourism and sustainability in Protected Areas, which include: •฀ adhering฀to฀the฀triple฀bottom฀line:฀ u contribute to the conservation of nature (environmental value); u generate economic benefits to protected area authorities and owners to help support management costs, and also sustainable livelihood opportunities in local communities (economic value); and u contribute towards the enrichment of society and culture (social value); •฀ developing฀conservation฀ethics฀in฀visitors฀and฀tourists;฀ and •฀ accounting฀ for,฀ and฀ mitigating฀ against,฀ negative฀ impacts, not just benefits, as “Every management action in a protected area, even ones stemming from best practices, comes with a cost.” xxiv Unlike the Tasmanian Government and the TICT, many tourism enterprises, such as the world’s largest tourism group, the TUI Group with revenue of $15 billion (which is more than half that of the whole of Tasmania’s GSP),xxv take a much more serious view of sustainable and responsible tourism.xxvi TUI is one of the few tourism organisations in the world that actively measures the impact of their activities in terms of sustainability criteria. According to a survey conducted by booking. com 87% of world travellers state that they want to travel sustainably. What do they mean by ‘sustainable’? “for almost half of travelers (46%), ‘sustainable travel’ means staying in eco-friendly or green accommodations, CONCLUDING COMMENTS topping the list of what people think of when hearing the term. The top reasons travelers give for choosing these eco-friendly places to rest their heads are to help reduce environmental impact (40%), to have a locally relevant experience (34%) and wanting to feel good about an accommodation choice (33%)”.xxvii Meanwhile, in Tasmania there is no sustainable tourism strategy. Further, at community levels there are programs to generate sustainability with tourism. The Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) introduced a Destination Stewardship program, which is “an approach to tourism development in which local communities, government agencies, NGOs and the tourism industry are dedicated to taking a multi-stakeholder approach to maintaining the cultural, environmental, economic, and aesthetic integrity of their country, region, state, or town through sustainable policy and management frameworks.”xxviii These concepts of community involvement, and environmental and aesthetic integrity฀ are totally foreign in Tasmania – tourism is dominated here by: (a) the Premier combining Tourism and฀Parks฀&฀Wildlife฀portfolios฀(with฀the฀emphasis฀on฀ privatisation/exploitation and exclusion); (b) Tourism Tasmania having commercial conflicts of interest; and (c) the true body overseeing tourism in Tasmania being the unrepresentative Tourism Industry Council of Tasmania (TICT).xxix The GSTC program goes further; the integrated conservation and development (ICD) strategy favours nature over economic capital, emphasizing conservation over development.xxx Clearly the Tasmanian Government (and the Opposition parties) hold contrary views to this; as tourism authorities are also focussed on development. Partnerships between conservation and development interests are often spoken about internationally, but within Tasmania the polarisation of public opinion has all but killed such ventures and, as pointed out by Bricker, such partnerships, “while valued, are highly complex, frequently contested and do not always deliver” – I would suggest that they will never deliver in Tasmania while governments maintain a cargo-cult mentality, exploit at any (short or long-term) cost, and are sucked into a system of patronage and economic/social corruption. As the old Tasmanian adage goes, ‘if it flows dam it, if it stands still cut it down, if it is underground dig it up’, to which can be added ‘if the scenery looks good mine it for all it is worth’. However, authentic ecotourism (where it is privatised) almost by definition is small-scale, locally owned, community-based and very careful in monitoring the environmental behaviour of its clients. By far the majority of authentic ecotourism is not conducted Section 9 through any large business enterprise but simply undertaken privately by individuals. Until very recently, this has certainly been the case for almost all ‘ecotourism’ in Tasmania, that is, private, noncommercial, small-scale adventures in the wilderness and National Parks involving all ages with no corporate involvement at all. Now, however, the sheer volume of ‘traffic’ and the death of the quintessential isolation/ peace that used to be found in these wild areas are discouraging such excursions. Back in 1976 the South West Tasmania Action Committee (which was the name of the organisation before it was changed to the Tasmanian Wilderness Society) satirically, but with foresight, produced the ‘South West Tasmania Annihilation Kit’, which detailed how the wilderness experience would be diminished by, among others, tourism. Tourists are changing their consumer behaviour – they are shifting fast into nature-based travel and activities involving “viewing and photographing nature”xxxi - what the tourism industry is actually doing here is described aptly by Kevin Kiernan as ‘scenery mining’. However, curiously, young people aged 6 to 17 are participating less in outdoor recreation, at least in the USA.xxxii A part explanation for this may be the advent of the ‘risk society’, whereby risk has become a key calculation in human, particularly young, activities.xxxiii Helicopter rescues from the Tasmanian wilderness were unknown until a few decades ago; now there it is believed that there are, on average, two or three helicopter rescues per week – so the risk factor has been reduced considerably and one of the essential elements of wilderness has been lost (especially where outdoor recreationists are carrying Personal Locator Beacons). Meanwhile, travellers are demanding more individual and authentic travel experiences, which ecotourism can provide. Travel is about ‘getting under the skin of a place’. Authenticity is the key, and technology such as cable cars is the antithesis of this. Today authentic, individual, non-privatised ‘ecotourism’ that used to be experienced by Tasmanians as weekend bushwalkers, climbers, etc has been replaced by queuing at boom gates at the entrance to National Parks, while tourists in minibuses and coaches are allowed through (Cradle Mountain) – “unless (there is) rotten weather, not school holidays and before 8 a.m and no-one else interested you are lucky to get access to Waldheim”. Another Tasmanian response: “I think it’s going to be a nightmare for us locals to get in there from now on. Surely we have some rights!!” - these are just two of many examples of how resident Tasmanians are responding to being excluded from their own National Parks, and the 103 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS situation is only going to get much worse. There are currently more than two tourists for each Tasmanian (ratio 2:1) and, simply by virtue of the increase of tourism worldwide, the number of tourists coming to Tasmania, without any tourism promotion, is likely to reach 2 million by 2025 (ratio 4:1) and 3 million by 2031 (ratio 6:1, assuming limited domestic population growth). nature-based tourism proposals: all proposals should be required to meet the triple bottom line plus demonstrate how any impacts (environmental, social, economic and political) will be addressed. 10. Aim for ecologically sound and sustainable tourism, as advocated by UNWTO and other international tourism bodies. What needs to be done 1. Independent certification of ecotourism and naturebased tourism enterprises, with clear differentiation between the two concepts (if that is possible): this is designed to separate authentic ecotourism from corporate and government greenwashing.xxxiv 2. Monitoring of all ecotourism and nature-based tourism in terms of adherence to afore-mentioned standards. 3. A new tourism body specific to small ecotourism/ nature-based tourism enterprises that includes community participation: this is designed to generate genuine representation of the whole tourism sector, not just that of corporate bodies, which is the dominant case at the moment. 4. State Government and relevant related bodies sign up for adherence to UNWTO and IUCN responsible, ethical and sustainable tourism standards, including the GSTC Destination Stewardship standards: at the moment there are no clear standards being applied in ecotourism or nature-based tourism in Tasmania; the State Government clearly makes up the rules according to when and how it suits them. 5. Cessation of tourism promotions designed to bring more tourists to Tasmania, with the exception of promotions designed to equalise the impacts and benefits of tourism across all regions of the state: this is designed to counter the fact that the south of the state attracts two-thirds of all tourists. 6. Abolition of the Tasmanian Government’s tourism marketing organisation Tourism Tasmania: it is not independent and has too many potential commercial conflicts of interest. 7. Separation of the Ministries of Parks and Wildlife from Tourism: there are enormous conflicts of interest between these two portfolios, which have too many competing objectives and can lead to nontransparent and corrupt processes and practices. 8. Amend the Tasmania National Parks Act to recognise wilderness as having value and to provide for its protection against all development. Tasmanian needs a Wilderness Act, like that of the states of NSW, Victoria and South Australia. 9. Open, public and widespread community participation in the assessment of all ecotourism and 3. CIVIL LIBERTIES 104 a) Introduction The UTG wishes to “preserve specific areas of private and group life where private thought, speech and action is of individual or group importance and does not interfere unreasonably with others.” Bureaucratic procedures should not intrude into individual privacy and morality. Repressive legislation, apart from denying individual freedom, invariably leads to corruption. The bodily search act is totally alien to UTG philosophy and should be repealed. In 1975 the UTG condemned both the proposed legislation and the fact that the portfolios of Minister for Police and Attorney-General had been given to one Minister – the obvious danger being a conflict of interest between Prosecution and Justice as evident in this Act. The intention of the Poisons Act is commendable in that it aims to prevent the abuse of “hard” drugs, but the wording of the act gives such wide powers to the police without any liability attached. The act can obviously be open to abuse and thus impinge upon the personal rights of citizens. The United Tasmania Group’s “New Ethic” condemns the misuse of power for individual or group prominence based on aggression against man or nature and thus we believe that this act should be revised. b) UTG and women’s rights (1972) “All women suffer from the laws which deny them the right to control their biological destinies by adequate sex education, inexpensive contraception and elective abortion. The problem of population, environment or resources is neglected, creating a threat to our children’s present health and future survival.” Jeannine Bevan, a spokeswoman for Women’s Electoral Lobby, recently explained how women’s needs tied in with UTG policies of Earth Care. These particular problems, which affect women so intimately and individually, can be tackled now from the view of individual rights, social justice, or population management. CONCLUDING COMMENTS UTG policies stress the need for new social measures to prevent the breakdown of society through overemphasis on the growth economy. Fundamental to this policy is the need for jobs or work satisfaction. This policy applies to all people, and therefore does not tolerate discrimination against women. “Currently women are discriminated against at work, at school and in the home,” Jeannine Bevan explains. “Married women suffer many anomalies in tax benefits, medical and welfare payments. Single women are discriminated against through credit systems, home loan policies and insurance schemes.” The UTG believes that existing political parties pay nothing but lip service to the rightful demands of women to rectify these anomalies. There is no place in a modern society for those who regard women as secondclass men. It is only by the adoption of the new ethic of Earth Care, which is all-embracing in its regard for the preservation of our environment and our culture through measured social change, that the necessary short-term or long-term benefits will be achieved. Section 9 The Nordic model for addressing prostitution and sex trafficking (2019) Many people from across Australia including mental health professionals, doctors, lawyers, social workers, economists, survivors and many in the human rights community have provided indirect input to this policy. Over 600 women’s human rights groups across the globe support introduction of stop demand laws. To date these laws have been introduced in Sweden (1999), Iceland (2008) and Norway (2009) – all in the top 5 of the global Gender Equity Index; South Korea (2004), Canada (2014), France (2016) and the Republic of Ireland (2017). The UK cross party parliamentary committee recently reported in favour of introduction of Nordic model laws. The Greens in the USA have recently reaffirmed their support for this model. Any adoption of the model should include comprehensive programs for women exiting the sex industry. The Nordic policy To address the exploitation of, and violence against, trafficked and prostituted persons by: Consequently, UTG is a signatory and active supporter of the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights https:// www.womensdeclaration.com/en/ 1. Acknowledging that there is a direct link between sex trafficking and prostitution, both are driven by demand, and the best legislative and policy approach to tackling this problem is by implementing the ‘Nordic Model’. c) Transgendering children and adolescents 2. Endorsing a ‘Nordic Model’ legislative and policy approach to sex industry regulation, and in doing so: In March 2019 UTG gave evidence with Women Speak Tasmania against the Bill to change birth certificates for gender rather than sex (the Bill was later passed). Subsequently, UTG made submissions to the Federal Government calling for a national inquiry into gender dysphoria and transgendering children and adolescents. These submissions were based on concerns for children’s rights, their lack of maturity for making such irreversible decisions, the denial of parental/carer rights and the abrogation of the ethics of medical and related professions in terms of their credo, “first, do no harm”. Since that time public inquiries and litigation have begun overseas (but not in Australia yet). d) Prostitution – the Nordic Model UTG supports the Nordic model for addressing sex trafficking and prostitution. UTG is the only political party in Australia that supports the Nordic model. This is in line with UTG’s support for Women Speak Tasmania and the fight for freedom of speech and women’s rights. The decision to embrace the Nordic model came after a UTG general meeting and then a survey of the UTG membership. The result was a consensus, that is, 100% support for all฀seven฀components฀of฀this฀policy – not a single dissenter. a. Recognise the harms and human rights violations inflicted on prostituted persons by the sex trade; b. Advocate for the decriminalisation of the actions of prostituted persons and the expunging of past criminal records, and make provision for deterrent penalties to be applied to those who buy sexual services, and those who profit as third parties; c. Prioritise the wellbeing and material needs of prostituted persons through supporting policy initiatives that provide well-funded and reliable social support programs and; d. Promote campaigns in the wider community that seek to reduce the demand for prostitution and educate the judiciary, police and local government officers on the features and rationale of the ‘Nordic Model’. 3. To deliver on Australia’s commitment to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in persons, especially Women and Children (known as the ‘Palermo Protocol’) to “adopt or strengthen legislative or other measures, such as educational, social or cultural measures, including through bilateral and multilateral co-operation, to discourage the demand that fosters all forms of exploitation of persons, especially women and children, that lead to trafficking”. 105 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS 4. To deliver on Australia’s obligations under Article 6 of UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women which ‘States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women’. 5. To acknowledge the need for exit programs (a core component of the ‘Nordic Model’) for prostituted persons by: a. Expanding the Support for Trafficked People Program to include support for people that need support to exit/have exited the sex industry. b. Supporting the expansion of Victims of Crime compensation to include access for people needing support to exit/have exited the sex industry. 6. To acknowledge that pornography has become a public health crisis that feeds the demand for prostitution and sex trafficking. 7. To support the establishment of a Modern Slavery Act (and an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner) as recommended in the final report of the Inquiry into establishing a Modern Slavery Act in Australia, and to ensure that it is expanded to include provisions to specifically tackle the demand for sex trafficking and prostitution. In my opinion, U.T.G. policies regarding ‘social welfare’ should: (1) reduce the dependence of the recipient of any service on the state or the organization providing the service structure is such that the recipient can work for and achieve his independence in the context of receiving a service. (2) U.T.G. policy should work towards decentralization of the bureaucratic apparatus of service delivery. Service should be provided by one centre in any region, for all social welfare projects. (3) U.T.G. policy should support the concept of services being provided from community centres where health and information services are also available. (4) Attempts must be made to involve the local community in welfare service provision. Training for, and use of volunteers should be made. Other aspects of community involvement should be investigated. By involving the community as much as possible, community responsibility for its members would be enhanced, the basis for community control laid, and an anti-bureaucratic move made which would tend to prevent the welfare system being dominated by “experts”. (6) The state should provide support for selfhelp groups. 6 It is important to remember that a state of social and health wellbeing is not just the absence of disease and need, but a state where the individual has a feeling of positive wellbeing. 4. SOCIAL POLICIES b) Preventing child abuse and neglect a) Introduction (Geoff Holloway, UTG Journal No. 2, February 2018) (Russell Grayson, convenor Social Policy group, UTG Newsletter, July-August 1977 edition) A party or pressure group such as the U.T.G. serves a number of social functions with regard to its ideas – it presents a structure in which individuals can discuss and develop their ideas, it presents ideas to the public which provide a different approach to matters than that of other political parties, it can influence politicians and people in positions of power who would hopefully use these ideas and put them into effect. So, if the U.T.G. is to be an effective organization, members must develop policies, these policies must be specific and capable of implementation. Twenty-three years ago I had a stand-up verbal fight with the Minister for the Family and Children’s Services in Western Australia, Mr Roger Nicholls, 1995. What the fight was about was his refusal to accept the figures I had collated on the incidence of child abuse in Western Australia. He stormed out of the parliamentary office; I was determined to show that the data was correct and proceeded to augment the data with reports from domestic violence refuges. At that time I was part of a multi-university Western Australian Consortium for Social Policy Research. We had been commissioned by the Minister to write a report on ‘the state of the family in Western Australia’. We almost did not get paid. The full report was never published. Our society is one that values goods, wealth, and services are not distributed in a realistic manner, the result is that society malfunctions – social problems are the result of this malfunction. Since the time of that anecdote little has changed anywhere in Australia – in fact, the incidence of child abuse and neglect has continued to rise. And governments have continued to try to address the problem by pouring Some members of U.T.G. have been thinking of forming a policy-making group in the areas of social welfare, social planning etc. If anybody has any ideas on these matters, they should write them down and get them to the address below as soon as possible. 106 6 Editor’s note: the thrust of this approach is consistent with a Justice Reinvestment strategy, the concept was not invented until about 30 years after this UTG policy was written. CONCLUDING COMMENTS increasing amounts of money into the wrong end of the violence cycle – the incidence (the number of new cases over a given time period) end, like having ambulances at the bottom of the cliff to collect people falling off, rather than doing something to stop people from falling off the cliff in the first place – the prevention strategy. I was teaching a university course on the sociology of the family at that time, and for every lecture on child abuse I would have counsellors ready to address the line of students coming to me confounded by their own experiences. Jump forward eight years, working in child protection in the Tasmanian bureaucracy compiling figures on child abuse. My manager refused to accept that the number of unallocated cases xxxv of child abuse had reached 800. I was told to change the figures. I was bullied, and eventually had no choice but to resign. After my resignation the number of unallocated cases continued to rise and reached about 1,600. The message is clear – no one really wants to know the incidence and prevalence of child maltreatment. In fact, there has never been a prevalence study conducted across Australia. Prevalence means how widespread it is – there is a myth that child abuse only occurs in working class or single parent families, which is far from the truth – I won’t go into the reasons for this misconception here (that would take another article). According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, a family member or close family friend perpetrates 90% of child abuse. From the accumulated experience and research over ten years or so, and many conversations with frontline child protection staff, I began to formulate a different strategy for addressing child maltreatment. I moved to Canberra, was working with the Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY) and presented a onepage proposal to the instigator and Chair of ARACY – Professor Fiona Stanley AC, FAA. She responded enthusiastically which set in motion a long series of investigations and reports, which I won’t go into detail here. Sufficient to say, at last a prevention strategy was being developed, and some $2 million has been spent evaluating (formative and summative) and testing this strategy by my rough calculation, including seminal work xxxvi by the Allen Consulting Group and evaluations by the University of NSW. I was Research Manager for ARACY overseeing all this work. Two of the key people involved in this research are now living in Tasmania, Pam Muth and Michael White. That all began 12 years ago (2006) and then recently, in March 2016, the State Liberal Government announced the implementation strategy for the redesign of the Section 9 child protection system across Tasmaniaxxxvii- that was two years ago (but the actual redesign was announced in August 2015, eight months earlier). Since then there have been no reports forthcoming as to how this transformation has been progressing. Neither the Labor Party nor the Tasmanian Greens have been asking any questions – largely because their policies are still focused on ‘ambulances at the bottom of cliffs’. This prevention strategy is called the Common Assessment, Referral and Support (CAARS), now simply referred to as the Common Approach. The Common Approach is a prevention-focused and flexible way of working to help everyone have quality conversations with young people and their families about all aspects of their wellbeing. These aspects fall into six wellbeing areas that align with: Loved and Safe, Healthy, Participating, Positive Sense of Culture and Identity, Material Basics, and Learning.xxxviii The Common Approach is a practical tool that can be used across a variety of professions (e.g, teachers, social workers, medical staff, police, bureaucrats, etc.) using a common language for initial assessments of children at risk, who are then referred on for support and other specialised services according to need. It is designed to prevent the occurrence of child abuse or neglect. In answer to a parliamentary question asking, “…how the Child Protection redesign statement has been received in the community?” the Minister for Human Services, the Hon. Jacquie Petrusma MP responded, “…the redesign of Tasmania’s child protection system, led by Professor Maria Harries, finally provides Tasmania with a framework to fundamentally improve the lives of vulnerable children, young people and their families. This report and the Government’s response addresses the issues that have plagued the child protection services in this state for far too long – decades. We are determined to rebuild this system and support and protect Tasmania’s vulnerable children and young people.” (16 March 2016) xxxix There is a common misconception - that implementing a prevention strategy will take much-needed money away from investigation and support services. As some highly regarded experts have acknowledged, implementing the Common Approach may involve, in effect, ‘double budgeting’ for an initial period.xl Once the prevention strategies take effect it will no longer be necessary to keep increasing the amounts going into the ‘pointy end of the system’ (tertiary services). This strategy is what is known as the public health model, a concept originally developed by Prof. Dorothy Scott.xli 107 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS It is difficult to assess how the redesign process and the uptake of the Common Approach are progressing, as there have been no public reports. However, in the Implementation Plan it is stated that, “The Common Approach is currently being implemented across education, health, allied health and social service organisations throughout Australia. Take-up in Tasmania has, however, been limited.”xlii Meanwhile, the redesign process aside, caseloads remain very high and ´staff morale has never been lower ´. As for the Common Approach, it is clear that there is much confusion and frustration about what it actually entails. are most needed and to track patterns in child abuse and related factors. Tasmania used to have one of the most important such databases in Australia – it was abolished under the State Liberal Government in 2015 (but I think that was a decision made by senior management in the bureaucracy; it was not a political decision). It was called the Data Warehouse, had been initiated under the previous government in May 2012. It was possibly the most sophisticated longitudinal, multi-services database of its type in Australia. Such a database would have been very useful for monitoring the effectiveness of the prevention strategy. How do governments get away with not addressing child abuse (child protection services alone cost Australia $1 billion every year 7 according to the Productivity Commission, 2017)? – easy, just hold another inquiry. Over the past twenty years there have been two inquiries on average every year into child protection somewhere in Australia. In Australia there have been more than 42 state and territory inquiries into child protection services since 1997 and each have identified ongoing and chronic systemic problems (see report referenced above, page 13). There are also warning signs (red lights) that can be used to identify children at risk – school suspensions (see school suspensions report xliv). In fact, in the USA school suspensions are referred to as ´the school-toprison pipeline´. However, in Tasmania the Education Department has refused to publish such data since a very revealing report in 2003. Once again, people really do not want to know … Why are the hundreds of recommendations from these enquiries never implemented? Complex (‘wicked’) problems involve complex solutions, but there five main reasons for the lack of implementation of recommendations: Youth Justice: a Justice Reinvestment approach (Geoff Holloway, UTG Journal No. 2, February 2018) 1. Lack of political will, besides the voting public is not very interested -‘it happens in other people’s families, not mine’ (by far the majority of abuse is emotional abuse). 2. Short-term focus by political parties (a common problem). 3. Resistance (‘organisational inertia’) within child protection bureaucracies, especially by upper management (‘I am about to retire, don’t rock the boat…’). Included in this is the difficulty of changing organisational/professional cultures – as pointed out in the 2009 ARACY report, Inverting the Pyramid. 4. Wrong focus – the focus rarely, if ever, shifts from reactive to prevention strategies. 5. Some reports are badly written (but possibly the most comprehensive report I have read is that of Robyn Layton QC in 2003 in South Australia). xliii There are other important tools that go with child abuse prevention strategies and one of them is construction of integrated databases for identifying where services 7 This is does not include other costs, which have been estimated to be an additional $3.3 billion a year (Productivity Commission, 2016) 108 c) Youth justice Justice reinvestment is basically a public health model being applied to, in this case, youth justice systems. It is about trying to prevent young people from getting into the justice system, not simply reforming the system once they are in there. Justice reinvestment asks the question: is imprisonment good value for money? The simple answer is that it is not. We are spending ever increasing amounts on imprisonment while at the same time, prisoners are not being rehabilitated, recidivism rates are high and return to prison rates are creating overcrowded prisons. It has been advocated in terms of the youth detention system in Tasmania before, in the Children’s Commissioner’s report on the Ashley Youth Detention system 2013 (the ‘Ashley Report’), following very contentious discussions about the terms of reference and access to relevant data. It took four months alone just to sort out the terms of reference. The final report was released mid 2013 under the Acting Children´s Commissioner, Elizabeth Daly’s name. The Ashley report concluded: A major Recommendation arising out of this Inquiry is that government considers the adoption of a Justice Reinvestment Framework for the youth justice system in Tasmania. Although definitions of ‘justice reinvestment’ differ in their complexity, a useful one is the following: Justice Reinvestment is now at the heart of debates about criminal justice policy. It CONCLUDING COMMENTS describes the process through which resources currently spent on incarcerating offenders in prison can be redirected into community-based alternatives that tackle the causes of crime at source. It is a form of preventative financing, through which policy makers shift funds away from dealing with problems downstream (policing, prisons) and towards tackling them upstream (family breakdown, poverty, mental illness, drug and alcohol dependence). A justice reinvestment framework is consistent with a public health model or approach and with the rights-based approach espoused in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant international instruments. xlv While the Ashley report was restricted to the youth detention system, the intention was to apply the principles to an integrated youth justice system. I have reason to believe that the State Government Department responsible for youth justice (D.H.H.S.) completed a report on the whole youth justice system in 2015 that incorporated a Justice Reinvestment approach, but the report was never published and Right to Information requests through the Tasmanian Greens’ office have turned up nothing. This report was part of the Youth Justice Continuum of Care Project, which was to include mapping of the service system – in other words, addressing the continuum of youth justice offending and re-offending. None of the political parties in Tasmania understand justice reinvestment, even though justice reinvestment was the National Greens policy in 2010 xlvi. However, not all is dependent on a justice reinvestment approach. Tasmania had some excellent systems already in place; I will briefly comment on just a few here. Police There have been big changes in policing over recent years, perhaps typified by what Dr. Isabelle Bartkowiak-Théron (University of Tasmania) calls ´policing vulnerability´xlvii or shifting from simply social control agents to social welfare agents as well. It provides police with a dual responsibility or awareness and has positive effects. For example, all police (now) know that the vast majority of youth offenders will only ever commit one crime and that, provided that it is not too serious, an informal or formal caution is much more effective in the long term than opening the door to the criminal justice system with its inevitable consequences. Police are also much more cognizant of cultural and mental health issues today. Youth Justice courts The first youth court (pilot) was established in Tasmania in January 2011 under Chief Magistrate Michael Hill (retired in 2015) who pioneered what is called ‘therapeutic jurisprudence’ with Deputy Magistrate Section 9 Michael Daly. Victor Stojcevski evaluated the ‘pilot’ in 2013xlviii. He concluded that it had been very effective, but closer alignment of child protection and youth justice data would be very beneficial (there have been major issues here for some time, not to mention Education Department information sharing). Support services This is a ´mixed bag´, but particular services stand out as making major contributions in supporting convicted youth offenders in Tasmania. These services include Save the Children and Whitelion. Save the Children received a national Australian Institute of Criminology award in 2015 for its success in helping young people as they transition from detention and breaking the cycle of offending in Tasmania. One of the lessons from Save the Children is the importance of beginning฀the process of evaluation of any program from the beginning of the program, not afterwards (which is what typically happens in the bureaucracy). Whitelion has also had great success across Australia. Justice Reinvestment There are certain principles that underlie justice reinvestment. Unfortunately, none of these principles are being applied in decision-making concerning the continuing maintenance of Ashley Youth Detention Centre. As one highly regarded criminologist told me, ‘The only way to fix Ashley is to burn it to the ground!’ The key justice reinvestment principles are as follows: 1. Early identification, intervention and prevention are the most effective way of reducing youth offending. 2. Children and young people will be diverted away from the youth justice system wherever possible with custody being used only as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. 3. The developmental needs and risk factors associated with youth offending will be identified and matched with appropriate programs and services. 4. Children and young people will be heard and their views taken into account in all matters that affect them. 5. Families will be supported and engaged to help them meet the developmental needs of children and young people. 6. Community safety will be enhanced by an effective youth justice system that results in better outcomes for vulnerable or at-risk children and young people. 7. Programs and services will be evidence-based and regularly evaluated to ensure effectiveness and efficacy. Mr Mick Gooda, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, summarises: 109 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS I believe that Justice Reinvestment also provides opportunities for communities to take back some control. If it is to work properly it means looking at options for diversion from prison but more importantly, it means looking at the measures and strategies that will prevent offending behaviour in the first place. The community has to be involved and committed to not only taking some ownership of the problem but also some ownership of the solutions... I think we need to change the narrative from one of punishment to one of community safety. Funding people to go to prison might make people feel safer, but a far better way would be to stop the offending in the first place, and Justice Reinvestment provides that opportunity. xlix As pointed out his Social Justice Report 2009, Justice Reinvestment involves [a] holistic analysis of the criminal justice system is a key feature of the justice reinvestment methodology. Consideration is given to policing, judicial systems, probation and parole, prevention programs, community supervision and diversion options as well as the geographic mapping. Justice mapping provides the means to identify where offenders are coming from (and returning to) by the collection, analysis and mapping of data about crimes, convictions and imprisonment, and identifies locations of high incidence, which may become the focus of increased policing. Justice mapping allows policy makers to design and implement programs to reduce crime, having identified those areas of greatest disadvantage and gaps in available services – factors underlying the causes of crime in these communities.l 5. HEALTH (Brenda Hean, 1972) UTG Health Program UTG accepts the concept of total community health for all Tasmanians, something that is clearly foreign to both major parties. Those least able to pay for their medical services have been penalised by the Bethune Government, which imposed a charge for attending casualty and outpatients at all major public hospitals. UTG will remove this charge as soon as possible since it believes that good medical care should be available to all irrespective of their financial state. Centralised health services UTG will centralise the direction of medical, hospital, mental health and social welfare under one person – the Minister for Health. It will institute an enquiry into means of improving the public image and quality of medical care at the Royal Hobart and Launceston General Hospitals since it believes that with a few changes there could be a greater centralisation of 110 medical care in those places with a resultant decrease in their exorbitant costs. Obstetric hospital for Hobart Planning for a major obstetric hospital in Hobart should commence, but to proceed with building in the near future is not justified economically in view of up-todate obstetric care available elsewhere in the city. UTG would ensure however that major extensions are not undertaken and that future finance for the provision of obstetric needs is reserved for the new hospitals. System of honorary medical officers outdated UTG notes that the system of Honorary Medical Officers was abandoned 25 years ago in England, 25 years ago in the Royal Children’s Hospital, Melbourne, and the past two years in other states of Australia. As a matter of urgency UTG would ensure that all specialists are paid for work they do in major hospitals. It believes that this will, as has been shown elsewhere, immediately lead to an improvement in the quality of health care given to patients in these hospitals. Doctors, like other people, will give their best if they receive some reward for their services. The UTG would investigate the establishment of such Health centres in appropriate areas. Some areas of community welfare and health have been grossly neglected by previous governments. UTG would increase the size of the Rehabilitation Department. Getting the breadwinner back to work after injury or illness is of far greater personal and economic importance than the Bethune Government realised. People with disabilities and Aged UTG would provide financial and practical support for those organisations working for people with disabilities and the aged, not just lip service. It would encourage to a far greater extent the return of those not severely physically or mentally disabled into the community by requiring industries to employ a small portion of people with disabilities in their work force. The causes of ill-health and sickness in industry such as excessive noise, poor ventilation, dust etc will be investigated and appropriate action taken to protect employees. Note: In more recent times UTG has been a strong advocate of Nature as Nurture and nutritional health – see UTG Journal Issue No. 5 for the details on the latter (by Jennifer Phillips). 7. EDUCATION UTG EDUCATION PROGRAM UTG believes that Education must be considered as a priority investment, as a priority responsibility, by CONCLUDING COMMENTS government. Past governments have failed to secure educational fulfilment for Tasmanian children through shameful neglect. The ruthless exploitation of our scarce natural resources has been an unswerving preoccupation. UTG would be responsive to expert advice made available following exhaustive studies. The failure of past governments to implement the most valuable parts of reports by expert educational committees on the needs of rural areas and the school and society will be investigated. UTG believes that there is no excuse for subjecting today’s children to yesterday’s conditions. UTG believes in the proper care of Tasmanian children by ensuring every opportunity for correct physical development through proper medical, dental and psychological care and by innovations in the learning process developed by modern educational research. TEACHER TRAINING UTG representatives, if elected, would support the abolition of the archaic system of bonding still used to recruit teachers in this State. The Liberal Government has been unwilling to take the appropriate steps of abolition of the bond despite small concessions. Tasmania has always had problems relating to rural educational inequalities. These apply to the provision of teachers for outlying places. UTG would support special salary and housing inducements for teachers for outlying areas. Schools in difficult areas require leadership of the highest quality and teachers with resources and training to make a creative contribution. More short and longer courses dealing specifically with educational deprivation should be arranged for teachers in service. Within teacher training centres, general courses should include an introduction to the problems of disadvantaged children. EDUCATIONAL FINANCE The needs of all sections of Tasmanian education require a full assessment, particularly with regard to areas of depression. UTG would support an immediate enquiry into areas of educational depression throughout the State and individual members would be responsible for appropriate action. UTG supports present levels of State aid. But UTG believes that the education lottery perpetrated by the Labor and Liberal parties is detrimental to education. Needs, established by proper enquiry, must be the basis of future policy. The removal of the control of education by the Treasury Section 9 is an urgent necessity. UTG does not believe that the Education Department should be dictated to by any other department. UTG would support a proposal to give the Education Department the authority to make its own staff appointments and would remove control of the number of appointments by the Treasury. SCHOOLS Schools are expensive institutions to build, staff and finance recurrently. More educationally progressive countries are beginning to realise that keeping schools apart from the community is both educationally and financially unwise. The community school is a concept which UTG candidates would move to reality in Tasmania. Such schools have resources which are available to all of the neighbourhood all of the time. They would have comprehensive libraries for all ages, in addition the full range of medical, dental and advisory centres for the community. Full sporting and recreation facilities would also be incorporated in their structures. In this way there would not be the wasteful duplication of essential community resources which at present exists. To have an expensive item such as a school open from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. on weekdays is a pitiful waste of taxpayers’ money. UTG would not allow this to continue. PRIMARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION Tasmania has embarked on a very small number of experimental schools such as the Myendetta school in Devonport. Open classroom schools are proven educational innovations. UTG would ensure a wider use of such educational change rather than confine it to a select few. Curricula for secondary schools must be more flexible and non-directive. Students of secondary school age are in the critical stages of development of their ability to think and conceptualise beyond the flimsy boundaries of concrete subject matter. Research has shown that strictly uniform curricula are damaging. UTG believes that changes such as these are vital to society as well as the individual. TERTIARY EDUCATION Northern Tasmania can no longer be expected to tolerate the concentration of tertiary education in the South. We support the improvement of University external courses in Launceston and would move for an expert committee to rationalise the provision of tertiary education in Tasmania. The advent of the Tasmanian College of Advanced Education has not meant an improvement in the variety and quality of courses available. It ahs simply assisted the State government in obtaining additional Commonwealth funds. 111 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS UTG candidates would pressure the Commonwealth government to provide universal tertiary scholarships on the basis of need rather than scholastic ability. This would mean that economically disadvantaged parents could afford to have their children attend tertiary education. Tasmanians would then be making maximum use of the talents of its youth. Special financial provision should be made to cater for the needs of students undertaking tertiary education from outlying areas of the State. UTG feels this is just because Tasmania is the most decentralized State in the Commonwealth. UTG believes that ways and means should be sought to set up a School of Forestry and Wildlife Management within the University of Tasmania. Tasmania is presently moving into an unprecedented expansion of its forestry enterprises with anticipated increasing demand for technical and professional advice. It is essential that appropriate training be available within Tasmania to meet the needs of the forestry industry, to keep pace with developments, and to manage the environment on a sound ecological basis. CONTINUING EDUCATION UTG acknowledges that education is a life-long process. Tasmanians in the past have been deemed to be educated only between the ages of five and twenty-one. Maximum remunerated re-entry into the education system should be available for all Tasmanians no matter what their age. Tasmania’s major parties have been guilty of assuming that only the young have a contribution to make to society, for educational facilities have only been made available to them. UTG candidates stand to rectify this situation. Adult education must be treated seriously in Tasmania and UTG pledges to do this. EDUCATION THE KEY TO NEW INDUSTRIES, CONFERENCE TOLD Tasmania has failed to develop a Swedish-type light industry because of the half-hearted efforts of politicians going about things the wrong way, the UTG State Conference was told on Saturday. At the Conference in Launceston, Mr Chris Cowles, Lecturer in Design at the College of Advanced Education, told UTG delegates that Tasmania imported all its designs from other countries. “This does not encourage the development of local industries based on local designs,” Mr Cowles said. Mr Cowles explained that Tasmanian-designed products, manufactured for export in Tasmania, must form the basis for new industries. “Companies established in other countries will not come to Tasmania. We have to do it ourselves,” Mr Cowles said. 112 The Conference declared that a tertiary College of Design should be established in Launceston with the money made available for education by the Australian Government. The Tasmanian Government has failed to recognise how it can use its huge education grants to set up the beginnings of our own Tasmanian-designed industries, the Conference was told. Without the facilities to train designers, we will not have the training necessary to produce the goods. The Conference adopted the policy of establishing a College of Design in Launceston as a matter of urgency and called upon all Tasmanians to assist in the effort of getting Tasmania started on the road to self-help through design, education, and co-operation. 8. ENERGY The third State Conference of the United Tasmania Group, held in Hobart on Saturday, supported proposals for the expansion of the Hydro Electric Commission to become a Department of Fuels and Energy under a Minister for Energy. Spokesman for the Energy Committee, and U.T.G. Delegate to the recent Friends of the Earth international conference on Energy, which was held in London, Mr. G. Holloway, Described the initial task of this Department of Fuels and Energy as being:1. To set up systems for the compilation of Energy statistics, as a prerequisite to energy decision and policy-making. 2. Investigation of the various energy analysis techniques, such as energy accounting. 3. Development of alternative low energy technology to reduce energy costs to the domestic consumer. 4. Promotion of energy conservation by advertising and other means. Mr. G. Holloway emphasised that central to the Department of Fuels and Energy’s policy must be the encouragement of energy conservation in all areas of community activities. “In the United Kingdom, under the Department of Energy, a reduction by 5% of total energy consumption was made in 1974. This year this department’s target is reduction of energy consumption by 10%.” “Presently we enjoy relatively low fuel costs, but no one is saying what we will do when Australia has consumed her oil reserves, calculated to last less than another 10 years.” Mr. Holloway said. The United Tasmania Group claims that domestic costs can be greatly reduced by the use of heat pumps, CONCLUDING COMMENTS improved housing insulation, methane gas generation from organic waste, and solar energy panels. These techniques are working effectively in other countries. The Tasmanian Hydro-Electric Commission (HEC) presently discourages the use of solar energy boosted hot water systems by refusing to connect electricity to such systems. To be effective electricity is necessary to maintain domestic hot water systems on days of poor solar energy reception. “We are very concerned about the employment prospects of H.E.C. employees by 1985 when the “dam regime” has exhausted the dam sites in Tasmania,” Mr. Holloway concluded. I S S O L A R E N E RG Y T H E A N S W E R TO O U R F U T U R E E N E RG Y R E QU I R E M E N T S ? 8 (Energy Accounting) This article is a general critical appraisal of the program on solar energy that appeared on ABC Channel 2 on Thursday night, 17 October 1974. It is true that the sun is an eternal source of energy. However, the materials, be they of mineral or plant origin, in providing a means of tapping and using this energy are finite resources. At present, producing solar-induced electrical energy is 1000 times more expensive than present electrical generation. (This cost factor is worth bearing in mind because, already, some oil companies are doubting their ability to continue oil search as the capital cost is becoming too high.) The only practical and effective use of solar energy is in the use of solar panels to help provide heat energy for hot water systems. The cost of installing such panels in a new house is probably discountable after five years. We use electrical energy a great deal today because it is easily convertible to meet our heating, lighting and electro-mechanical requirements. Solar energy research has only developed alternatives to meeting our heating requirements to some degree; and researchers see difficulty, if not impossibility in finding direct alternative solar energy applications to meet our lighting and electro-mechanical requirements. Some researchers see the greatest advantage in solar energy development in aiming at reduction of our 8 As of 1975 UTG was the only political party in Tasmania advocating for solar energy and research (Rod Broadby, 24 May 1975). Section 9 consumption of fossil fuels to a limited extent. There was great awareness of the reality of the energy crisis to come in 15 years when oil reserves will be nonexistent, but there is some hope of short-term relief in the use of natural gas. Present enthusiastic solar research is being undertaken by individual effort only. By the time the government is interested and involved it will be too late to develop solar research to the degree required for the use of solar energy as an intermediate measure, or reprieve. Energy starvation on a massive scale will, I predict, hit us in 10-15 years. It was pointed out that solar energy has always been trapped by plants, and by complex, yet-to-bediscovered techniques we may be able to convert our forests and crops to fuel for our massive transport systems. In other words, forests will become a farm crop, despite the fact that our forests are already committed to pulp and timber production. We will have forest harvesting on a massive scale. The consequences of this grandiose destruction of our ecological systems are too horrifying to be contemplated. We already have Northern Woodchips talking of reducing their harvest cycle from 40 to 15 years. With genetically specialized species in the future, we face not only monocultural forests but also an exceptional insecurity with the threat of insect pests and diseases slaughtering our energy sources. All this, without taking into account the heavy doses of fertilizers and sprays we will need! The program emphasized that there is a lot of paranoia about how, and where, we are going to find more energy. Energy for what? and why? For any real hope of extending our time, we need a total community effort in optimising conservation of all our resources. The conservation ethic has to become a way of life. Unless populations are reduced and de-centralized, and de-industrialization occurs on a massive scale, individuals living conservation will only be a token endeavour to survive. Social reconstruction and ecoeconomics of small-scale communal living are at the core of our hope for survival. Solar panels work best in single housing. Clivus systems (the world’s first ecological lavatory, it converts human wastes to compost) work best in single housing or conjoined flats, and organic gardening is suited to small scale operation. Therefore the home/ family unit may be the basic unit of conservation, social reconstruction, and survival. We must look at these alternatives now, tomorrow will be too late. The answer to the question raised at the head of this article is simply – No! 113 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS URANIUM News release 13/10/74 The United Tasmania Group today called for public protest against the proposed uranium exports. The State Secretary, Mr. Geoff Holloway, claimed today that the Australian public was not being told the whole truth about uranium exports. “Uranium is not just another mineral to be dug out of the ground. It is the basis of the fuel of potentially lethal nuclear reactors. A nuclear reactor is a sophisticated piece of heat-generating equipment that challenges the computer as the most complex piece of machinery built by man”, Mr. Holloway claimed. Pointing out the risks involved in nuclear energy generation, Mr. Holloway said, “The Mt. St. Canice disaster has shown that even a relatively simple and normally reliable boiler can explode. Imagine the horrific consequences of a nuclear reactor explosion.” “Right now we are hearing of the problems in nuclear energy re-generation. The nuclear powered ship Mutsu is drifting aimlessly because it has been refused entry into its home port. It has developed leaks from its reactor. Imagine a future flotilla of nuclear ships, leaking radioactivity, drifting around the high seas, every nation disclaiming responsibility.” As reported in “The Mercury” on 10th October, 21 of the 50 U.S. nuclear reactors have been closed down for safety checks recently. The reason for the closedowns is that cracks have been discovered in the cooling pipes. appeal to the public to protest now, because their elected politicians are certainly not going to do it for them.” [UTG made a 25-page submission to The House of Representatives Inquiry into Uranium and the Environment, (the ‘Ranger Inquiry’) on 22 August 1975.] 9. FOREIGN AFFAIRS SENATOR WILLESEE ATTACKED AT UTG CONFERENCE (1975) The Minister for External Affairs, Senator Willesee, came under attack at the State Conference of the United Tasmania Group at Launceston on Saturday. A conference delegate said Senator Willesee had decided to recognise the Soviet Union’s sovereignty over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania completely “off his own bat” without reference to Cabinet or the Prime Minister. The UTG declared this to be a most unfortunate decision. Without any discussion and without any apparent concern for the survival and self-determination of the Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian nations, Australia has declared itself out of sympathy with those people buy the actions of one man. The UTG State Conference declared that the Australian Government’s legal recognition of the Soviet claims was dismaying to many Australians who believed in the rights of minorities and the need to preserve the coherence and viability of ethnic groups. “What is also of grave concern, there has been no method yet devised for de-activating the radio-active waste. We just have to put up with the risk of contamination for 200,000 years.” The Australian Government’s action is contrary to the spirit of its concern for the preservation of the culture and vitality of the Australian aborigine. What can be recognised as humane and morally right at home should apply to other peoples, the Conference was told. Mr. Holloway says that as far as the public choice is concerned, “we are in an invidious position. On the one hand we have a Labour Government that is about to change its policy to allow for uranium exports. The Prime Minister has succumbed to overseas pressure. This pressure has been largely derived from the dictates of the U.S. dominated World Energy Conference.” Conference delegates said the Australian Government is wrong in claiming that recognition of the Soviet Government’s claim to sovereignty over the Baltic States will benefit people in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Official census figures show that the native populations of those states are decreasing as the foreign population imported from abroad is steadily increasing. “On the other hand, we have the Liberal Party, committed to the policy of encouraging uranium exports. Both these political parties are devoid of moral conscience with regard to unleashing the greatest threat to health the world has ever known.” The UTG called upon the Australian Government to reverse Senator Willesee’s decision, declaring that a refusal to recognise the Soviet claim is the only form of support that can be given to the historically distinct peoples of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in the present world situation. The UTG opposes the development of uranium until nuclear reactors can be guaranteed safe and a method devised to render harmless the waste material. Mr. Holloway concluded that, “Uranium exports is not a question of economics, it is a question of morality. We 114 10. TRANSPORT U.T.G. RE-AFFIRMS SUPPORT FOR THE REINTRODUCTION AND UPGRADING OF THE SUBURBAN RAIL SERVICE (1975) CONCLUDING COMMENTS Transport, particularly railways, should be regarded as a public service like Health or Education delegates to the third United Tasmania Group State Conference were told in Hobart on Saturday. “The railways have been singled out for criticism ‘for not paying’ while everything else in our so-called free enterprise system is subsidised,” Mr Rod Broadby, the U.T.G. candidate for the Legislative Council seat of Newdegate told delegates. “Tariffs, taxes, subsidies of various types and values are increasingly becoming an accepted fact in our society. Recently the car industry was given an economic boost by Government.” “The controversial woodchips industry is subsidised by the Forestry Commission because the cost of services and works supplied by the commission is nowhere near recompensed by the royalties received from these woodchip companies”, Mr Broadby said. “Even the Bell Bay Rail Link which is in effect just another means of supporting this industry is a subsidy which has cost the taxpayer an estimated $30 million” he added. “The car as part of an alternative transport system is a most highly subsidised luxury. Licences and taxes obviously do not cover costs. Compared with railways, roads are subsidised over and over again.” Mr Broadby said that the costs incurred by accidents resulting in loss of life and injuries are far greater for roads than for railways, thus the railways should be seen as a means of reducing costs and saving lives. “An electrical system, integrated with buses has a possible drawback in that buses in their present form rely on ever decreasing supplies of fossil fuels. However proper strategies could be initiated in the early stages of planning for such an integrated system to allow for any problems arising out of this,” he said. One fast and efficient commuter system which the Conference was told of involved the “Bee Line” bus services in Adelaide which supplied a free service to the city centre and has been received with favourable attention. Mr Broadby went on to tell the Conference that at present train crews are standing idle due to present Government policy with the threat of retrenchments hanging over their heads and clouding their futures at a time of unemployment and ever decreasing job opportunities. “These skilled men should be allowed to get on with their valuable service to the public rather than be hindered and discriminated against,” Mr Broadby added. The Conference then resolved to re-affirm its support for the re-introduction and upgrading of the suburban rail passenger service. Section 9 A Committee comprising Messrs K. Hazelwood (convenor), D. O’Brien, P. Nichols, C. Cowles and S. Graham was formed and instructed to cooperate with the Railway unions and to investigate all aspects and systems of transport. SLIP-ROAD ACTION RAILROADS FUTURE ALTERNATIVES (5/5/77 media release) The United Tasmania Group today called on the State Government to use initiative and show concern for the people of the Eastern and Western shores of Hobart by making a proper study of possible transport systems across the Derwent River by both bridge and ferry. Mr Kevin Hazelwood, UTG Vice-President and spokesman on transport said in Hobart today that this is what needs to be done rather than the ad-hoc temporary solutions we so often see, such as the recent decision on the railway roundabout slip road. He went on to say, “the study must include the proposal for a priority transit lane for buses and fully-loaded vehicles, using the extra lane on the Tasman Bridge.” He put the question to Mr Baldock, the Minister for Main Roads, “Is it true that you were kept in the dark about this possible scheme, which had been studied within your Department, at the time cabinet considered the slip-road proposal?” “A priority lane would surely do much to alleviate the problems of congestion both at the roundabout and throughout the city. The Government’s present policy of blatantly encouraging the use of private motor vehicles will add enormously to the congestion in the city and to the cost to the commuter. If continued this policy threatens to cause the slow strangulation of our living city“, Mr Hazelwood concluded. 11. UTG IN PARLIAMENT In this election, the United Tasmania Group is asking for your support to provide an effective opposition in Parliament. We do not seek to be the government, but we do believe that alternative policies and new ideas are vital to make parliament responsible to the people. Most important of all, we need economic objectives that will have some hope of ultimately reversing the present side into economic stagnation and unemployment. It is not enough to provide ideas without the ability to voice them in Parliament. UTG members in Parliament itself is the only way government members will be gingered to their toes. UTG parliamentarians will not seek Cabinet posts. Nor, in the event of elections being close will we act in anything but the most responsible way to promote 115 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS the policies and point the directions for economic management outlined in this policy statement. The United Tasmania Group is not interested in power. That is the business of other parties. But we believe that power must be restrained and directions found for the ultimate benefit of all Tasmanians. That is our foremost concern and we offer you qualified, dedicated and upright candidates to help bring this about. UTG parliamentarians will not seek Cabinet posts. Nor, in the event of election’s being close we will act in anything but the most responsible way to promote the policies and point the directions for economic management outlined in this policy statement. U.T.G. HAS POLICIES IN AREAS THE OTHER PARTIES ARE AFRAID TO MENTION 12. LOCAL GOVERNMENT Any improvement in Tasmania’s standard of government must involve local government as the key to community participation. The United Tasmania Group believes that local Government should not continue to be restricted as at present in its capacities and responsibilities to a limit imposed by its revenue in rates. The United Tasmania Group believes in strengthening local government by providing funds appropriate to the degree of responsibility shown locally. There is a need to upgrade the quality of local government employees to give them the ability to undertake local planning, an expansion in welfare functions and eventually accept greater responsibility in education and a variety of delegated functions. United Tasmania Group Inquiry into public & government responses to the Tasmanian bushfires of 2018–2019 Summary Since 2012 there have been several major bushfires in Tasmania, which have lead to widespread damage including 119,200 hectares in 2012–2013 (including 44,700 hectares in the Giblin River area), 126,800 hectares across Tasmania in 2016 and the current fires that so far have consumed about 200,000 hectares in wilderness, National Park and reserve areas (2019). This inquiry focuses on wilderness and national park reserves and is based on a two-fold examination: (1) public responses to these fires as reported in the Tasmanian Times over the month of January 2019, and (2) an analysis of six reports into these fires over 2013–2017 and limitations in implementing the recommendations associated with these reports. This is not a report into the excellent 116 work done, and continuing to be done, by the 700 or more firefighters involved in trying to control these fires. Quite the contrary, this report is a preliminary examination of how such efforts could be enhanced so that Tasmania can minimise future damage to the biodiversity, geodiversity and cultural heritage of these areas. This report gives expression to the widespread public concern about these fires, some of which is based on poor communication strategies by government, and what is commonly perceived as tardy and inadequate early intervention, notwithstanding access difficulties. Method The analysis is in two parts: (1) Analysis of three key articles and comments on the bushfires that appeared in the Tasmanian Times during the month of January 2019. These articles were seen at least 1,143 times and received 114 comments over that period. (2) Analysis of key material, recommendations and submissions from reports over the 2013-2018 period: 1. Monitoring & Reporting System for Tasmania’s National Parks and Reserves: Case study – fire management in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, Adrian Pyrke,฀ Parks฀ &฀ Wildlife฀ Service฀ Manager฀ Fire฀ Operations, 26 Sept. 2013. 2. 2013 Tasmanian Bushfires Inquiry, Department of Premier฀&฀Cabinet,฀Oct.฀2013฀ 3. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Research and Monitoring Priorities 2013–2018, Resource Management and Conservation Division, Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment, 2013. 4. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Bushfire and Climate Change Research Project, Tony Press, Dec. 2016. 5. Responses to, and lessons learnt from, the January and February 2016 bushfires in remote Tasmanian wilderness, Senate฀Environment฀&฀Communications฀References฀ Committee, 8 Dec. 2016. 6. Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Bushfire and Climate Change Research Project Tasmanian Government’s Response, Tasmanian Climate Change Office, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Dec. 2017. Summary of the comments in the Tasmanian Times Some of the key issues raised in the electronic journal, the Tasmanian Times, over the main bushfire period of the month of January 2019 include: a) Inadequate responses to the initial fires, with the following suggestions for addressing this: •฀ That฀ national฀ defence฀ forces฀ should฀ be฀ CONCLUDING COMMENTS •฀ •฀ •฀ •฀ •฀ trained and used in fire fighting – this occurs in most countries across the world but not in Australia. Alongside this there were two other suggestions: (1) that there should be a permanent federal fire and emergency service to complement other services, and (2) volunteer brigades, such as the Smokewalkers of the 1970s, should be established. Both these suggestions have appeared in previous inquiries. Related฀ to฀ this฀ was฀ the฀ repeated฀ suggestion฀ that the Tasmanian Fire Service is underfunded and under-resourced. Lifting฀of ฀the฀fire฀ban฀was฀premature฀with฀its฀ rationale ‘not to inconvenience people and the agriculture industry’. The฀ State฀ Government฀ has฀ held฀ negative฀ attitudes towards the Tasmanian World Heritage Area and has not given any indication that they regard fighting fires in such areas as a priority. In fact, the State Government has always expressed antagonism to anything remotely ‘Green’. Sky฀cranes฀would฀be฀more฀useful฀than฀aircraft฀ as they are more manoeuvrable and may carry much more water (10,000 litres). By comparison, turbo prop Canadair CL415 can carry 6,000 litres. Skycranes cost $30 million to buy, or $1.5 million to hire over 12 weeks. The Canadair CL415 costs about $37 million to buy. The฀‘wait฀and฀see’฀time฀is฀over฀–฀we฀need฀to฀ move to a more proactive approach, especially given the clear impact of climate change. There is a common perception that action was taken too late, but that is open to debate. The adequacy of the response is another matter. As many commentators stated, maximum effort should be put into extinguishing fires early. b) There was much discussion about the use of ‘controlled burns’ or ‘hazard reduction burns’ as a preventative measure prior to bushfire outbreaks. Comments included: •฀ Hazard฀ reduction฀ burning฀ has฀ less฀ effect฀ in฀ mitigating bushfire spread during extreme conditions. •฀ Does฀hazard฀reduction฀burning฀actually฀work?฀ Where is the evidence? •฀ Rainforests฀ slow฀ fires฀ down,฀ but฀ we฀ have฀ created forest types that burn easily. We have created forest types that have no selfdefence mechanism. •฀ Fire฀promotes฀fire-loving฀plants฀(so฀controlled฀ c) d) e) f) Section 9 burns increase potential for further fires). •฀ The฀ suggestion฀ that฀ eucalypts฀ need฀ fire฀ to฀ regenerate is questionable (it only applies to certain species). •฀ A฀ key฀ concern,฀ which฀ is฀ probably฀ not฀ recognised widely, is that many ‘Gondwana’ or ‘Pleistocene era’ species of plants simply do not regenerate after fires (for example, King Billy and pencil pines, cushion grass, etc.). Public communication issues: There is a common perception that the State Government does not communicate on an ongoing basis about the bushfires. For example, the Premier’s Department put out two brief media releases during the period of the fires, whereas with the flooding in Queensland the Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk was reported by the media almost daily. This heightens the perception that the Tasmanian Government only cares about lives and property. •฀ The฀Liberal฀Government฀(and฀the฀Labor฀party)฀ were regarded as basically invisible and the Tasmanian Greens were seen as “too focussed with gender identity issues”. •฀ A฀ common฀ concern฀ was฀ the฀ inadequacy฀ of ฀ the Tasmanian Fire Service website, which is confusing to say the least – for example, what does ‘watch and act’ mean? The terminology on this site needs clarifying and more detail provided on what actions are actually taking place.฀The฀Parks฀&฀Wildlife฀Service฀website฀is฀ much more informative. It is clear that there is widespread concern about the effects of climate change and the dramatically increased incidence of dry lightning with the subsequent increased risk of major bushfires. Health care costs: the increasing medical costs for people vulnerable to air pollution was raised – and this is especially important when the 2019 fires have continued for such a long period (eight weeks). The question was raised, ‘has there been an increase in hospital admissions?’ Consultation: an important point was raised that when it comes to consultations and advice it is the ‘people on the ground’ (such as firefighters) who are the last to be consulted. Recommendations from key reports The 2013 Tasmanian Bushfires Inquiry made 103 recommendations, most of which concern organisational operational matters so they will not be considered here. One assumes that most of them were implemented, but there are a few very important recommendations that appear not have been fully implemented, including: 117 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS •฀ That฀ Tasmania฀ Fire฀ Service฀ supports฀ the฀ relevant authorities to continue developing methodologies to forecast and simulate fire risk. (#1) •฀ That฀ Tasmania฀ Fire฀ Service฀ considers฀ adopting a primary tactic of an aggressive first attack on fires. (#22) •฀ That฀ bushfire฀ agencies฀ develop฀ procedures฀ for the automatic activation of aircraft to fires at pre-determined trigger points on high fire risk days. (#31) •฀ That฀the฀resources฀available฀to฀the฀Parks฀&฀ Wildlife Service, to manage bushfire risk following the recent increase in land under its tenure, is reviewed. (#84) Some of these same issues have been raised in inquiries following 2013. However, the most important report to consider is the Tasmanian Government’s response (December 2017) to the report by Dr. Tony Press, one year after Dr. Press had submitted his report (December 2016). The State Government undertook to ‘support’ 13 of the 18 recommendations and ‘support in part’ the other 5 recommendations. More importantly, most of the key recommendations seemingly adopted by the Tasmanian Government in 2017 have been implemented only partially, if at all. Only a few of these recommendations will be considered here. Recommendation 1 – Comprehensive fire management planning Clear, well-defined objectives for fire management should be incorporated into a Fire Management Plan for the TWWHA. These objectives should identify how fire management (fire suppression, ‘let go’ and management fires) will be used to protect and conserve the natural and cultural heritage values in the TWWHA. The Fire Management Plan for the TWWHA should clearly set out the circumstances in which priority will be given to protecting the Outstanding Universal Value of the TWWHA over built assets within its boundaries.li There are a few key problems with this recommendation. First, there is no fire management plan. Second, under this recommendation it is stated that this management plan “integrates cultural and ecological burning”. These are mutually exclusive concepts (the former is anthropocentric the second is ecocentric) so what this means is open to speculation. Third, also under this recommendation is the statement that the plan “maps strategic and priority 118 actions for burning”. Does this mean burning parts of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA)? – if yes, where is the community input into such bureaucratic decision-making? And where is the scientific evidence to support such drastic action? If the State Government is intent on burning parts of Southwest Tasmania then there needs to be strong scientific support and community consultation. Included in this recommendation is the comment, “experimental burning of grassland to improve biodiversity”. Also mentioned in the Government report, Research and Monitoring Priorities 2013–2018, is the acknowledgement that, “In the absence of fire, ecological succession from moorland to rainforest, with the penultimate stage the tallest flowering plant forest in the world, is a significant process of outstanding importance”lii, not to mention that “there has been little research on the impacts of fire in buttongrass moorlands, particularly for fauna and geodiversity values” (pages 9–10). Under Recommendation 10, Operational capability (page 28), it is stated that, Records showing the causes of bushfires in or near the TWWHA indicate that the main risk is from lightning fires. Lightning ignitions can occur anywhere, including very remote parts of the TWWHA and a rapid suppression response to these fires is critical (Press 2016). In light of this, the Tasmanian Government acknowledges the importance of having sufficient firefighters and firefighting resources, of the right type in the right places, to respond at the time fires start. The Government does not seem to have engaged fully in ‘a rapid suppression response’ with respect to the first of what became a major calamity with the Gell River fire. The necessity for a ‘rapid suppression response’ is also acknowledged and accepted by the Government in recommendation 12. The Gell River fire began on 27th December 2018liii and was first detected by spotter aircraft the next day on 28 December; but by the following day, the 29th, it was reported as being contained, even though it had at that stage already joined up with other fires to create a 1,500 hectares blaze with a 27 km perimeter. A Parks฀ &฀ Wildlife฀ incident฀ controller฀ reported฀ on฀ 29฀ December that fire activity had been reduced by eight to ten millimetres of rain and that, The fire danger rating today is forecast to be low… Fire crews supported by air operations will be working to extinguish hot spots and secure the boundary of the fire … (and that there were) no immediate threat to any assets or people. liv CONCLUDING COMMENTS Just six days later, on the 4th January 2019, while the bushfires were being reported as being out-of-control authorities had downgraded warningslv. The first action to try to quell the Gell River fire involved just 8 persons being deployed according to an ABC news report.lvi A few days later, on 9 January 2019, the Government called for interstate support and had 10 aircraft and 70 personnel fighting this fire – which had already consumed 20,500 hectares.lvii As at 12 noon 15 February the Gell River fire had burnt 33,000 hectares. Another fire, the Moores Valley fire (west of Strathgordon) had no attention and has burnt 45,000 hectares. This area is not within the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area so it would not qualify for any Federal Government assistance. However, it is part of the Southwest Conservation Area. The two other major fires have been in the Central Highlands (55,000 hectares) and the area west and south of Huonville (64,000 hectares). What has been perceived as an inadequate rapid response to the 2019 fires by many commentators in the Tasmanian Times was also seen as an issue in the Senate Inquiry (pages 42–44) with respect to the 2016 fires. Under Recommendation 11, Use of volunteers, it is stated that: The Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service, in conjunction with other Tasmanian fire agencies, should review the future potential for the use of volunteers in supporting fire management activities, including the potential to use trained remote area volunteer fire crews. The recommendation goes on to say that this would require “developing and maintaining the required fitness levels of personnel, and providing the necessary personnel training and equipment”. This recommendation also appears in the AFAC operational review (2016)lviii and in the Senate Inquiry (pages 35–36). Under Recommendation 13, Aerial fire suppression, where “water bombing from large helicopters” was suggested in Dr. Tony Press’ report, the Government has indicated hesitancy, even though it says it accepts the recommendation, because “significant infrastructure would be required” (page 32). Under Recommendation 14, Research on fire suppression chemicals, the Government acknowledges that the “data on the effectiveness and impacts of the use of these chemicals in the region (TWWHA) has not yet been collated or analysed” – yet the Government is already using such chemicals in the TWWHA! Under Recommendation 16, Improved public information and communications, the Government acknowledges and Section 9 supports “enhancing public information communication” (page 37). This recommendation was also made in the APAC review and the Senate Inquiry – but clearly there has been a failure to follow this through, as indicated by the number of complaints about this issue in the analysis of articles and comments appearing in the Tasmanian Times, as indicated earlier in this report. Was fighting these fires adequately resourced? In the Senate Inquiry concerning the 2016 fires the Tasmanian Government submitted that: … more than 5,600 Tasmanian volunteer and career fire fighters, over 1,000 interstate and international firefighters, and as many as 40 aircraft were deployed (page 35). - Whereas only 755 firefighters were deployed in the current 2019 fires (ABC News, 6 Feb. 2019lix). Why is there such a large difference? Is the State Government treating the 2019 less seriously than the 2016 fires even though the present fires have burnt 200,000 hectares as compared with 126,800 hectares in 2016? As noted earlier, as with the 2016 fires, this time the response to the initial fires may not have been tardy but certainly฀ inadequate฀ in฀ terms฀ of฀ outcomes. In a submission to the Senate Inquiry, Friends of the Earth suggested that it might be necessary to pre-emptively request interstate assistance to protect sensitive vegetation (page 45). This is a very good suggestion. While dry lightning strikes have been blamed for the enormous destruction in the TWWHA it is important to note that the number of lightning strikes does not correlate with the areas subsequently burnt (for example, 45,000 strikes created minimum damage in 2009–10 and conversely in 2012–13). lx Final comments 1. UTG supports the call for an open inquiry (‘summit’) into the 2019 fires in order to plan the best way to respond to wilderness bushfires in the future. 2. UTG suggests that such an inquiry should also examine the incomplete implementation of recommendations from previous inquiries and the reasons for this. 3. UTG calls for the establishment of bushwalkercum-firefighter brigades, along the lines of the Smokewalkers of the 1970s, as suggested in previous inquiries. 4.฀ UTG฀calls฀for฀the฀Parks฀&฀Wildlife฀Service,฀as฀a฀matter฀ of priority, to develop a scientifically-based policy on the use of fire in the TWWHA which recognises the need to protect the range of values in the TWWHA, including highly fire sensitive communities and also to allow for on-going natural evolution in significant 119 Section 9 CONCLUDING COMMENTS areas of the TWWHA. Such a policy might be for no use of fire at all, or no widespread use of fire, to allow for natural ecological evolution as the primary management aim. 5. UTG calls for all ‘hazard reduction burning’ within wilderness, National Park and Conservation Areas to be suspended until the consequences of such activities have been scientifically evaluated. UTG calls for better communication strategies to be put in place immediately in order to address public concerns about management of major bushfires in Tasmania. Photo: Chris Rathbone, Mt. Solitary. 120 SOME LESSONS FROM UTG Section 9 Section 10 Multiple groups throughout the community have four main advantages to members: Some lessons from UTG 1. Greater involvement from people who ordinarily cannot attend meetings. 2. Greater say in the policies and activities of the UTG. 3. More action at a local level, as these groups can become autonomous and dependent upon their own activities in order to flourish. 4. Contact with the public through localised letter-boxing, door-knocking surveys, personal contact. [from ‘The Future – People Politics’, UTG Newsletter No. 7, June 1974.] There are some clues as to why UTG was so visionary and successful – apart from the obvious one of Dick Jones’ leadership and strategic thinking. 1. Activism Taken from a UTG media release, 9 October 1974, Although our income may seem low when compared with other party finances (if they are revealed), the comparison is not truly representative because a great deal of work, such as printing, photography and secretarial work, is undertaken without charge by a great number of individuals for U.T.G. Dedication and self-sacrifice such as this cannot be found in other political parties, because they do not have a true political philosophy. Every UTG member was an activist in their own way, according to their skills and other commitments. As Australian and overseas research shows, today participation in political organisations and campaigns is much more passive. People are willing to sign petitions, but to attend meetings or participate in active campaigning is another matter. 2. Grass-roots participation UTG was always focused on an activist and grassroots model of mobilising local, suburban and rural communities – In order to call on our greatest resource – people – the Hobart region is being split up according to the areas where people are willing to take on the task of setting up suburban groups. When a specific area has an excess of supporters and too great a concentration, then one of the leaders jumps off to another region and repeats the chain of development. What is definitive is the determination to fight (which matures from day to day), the awareness of the need for revolutionary change, and the certainty that the latter is possible. This is a prediction. We make it out of the conviction that history will prove us right. Milo Dunphy also enunciated this type of action when he said at the 1971 Symposium enquiring into the HEC, Environment and the Government in Tasmania “… adopt a guerrilla attitude, the people are a sea in which you swim, and in which you surround the exploiter. His secretary … part of your information network, so is his consulting engineer and his milkman … My motto is “Surround the Bastards”. 3. Democracy UTG always accepted and respected democratic processes and associated institutions while, at the same time, seeking revolutionary change. Irresponsible, radical tactics expressed by some people can be sympathised with because we all experience political frustration at some stage or other. However such tactics, at best, can only be an exercise in the relief of frustration. At such times it is best to look for positive alternative tactics and methods of communication and this is easier said than done. We not only believe in a social revolution in the community, but also that this can be achieved through established democratic channels, no matter how corrupt they may appear to be. We see the present political parties as being the perpetrators of control by vested interests, and not the system itself as being the cause of our unrepresentative democratic system. Otherwise, we would be intent on achieving the same ends on totally different terms – and therefore not beating the forces of consumerism, but simply ignoring them. There is no easy way to succeed. Whatever methods we use, they will all involve hard work and co-operation. In this regard, UTG is becoming very solidly unified – and there is no greater force of change than this. (Editorial ‘State of the Union’, UTG Newsletter No. 9, September 1974) The support for democratic processes was also practised within UTG – Party founder and leader Dick Jones certainly spoke of the need for egalitarian rather than hierarchical forms of organisation, seeing hierarchy as a component of the ecological problem and ‘ ... advocating participatory decision-making and decentralisation within a network of co-operating groups rather than a hierarchical party machine’ (Christine Dann, From Earth’s Last Islands, The global origins of Green politics, Ph. D thesis, Lincoln University, 1999, page 279). 121 Section 9 SOME LESSONS FROM UTG 4. Policy development As shown in Appendix 1, UTG had a number of policy development committees, which were driven by a key aspect of UTG philosophy—make sure there is a solid evidence base for any policies. Policies were not driven by media cycles and fleeting media appearances—in fact, the number of UTG media releases over time is surprisingly low. 5. UTG successes While it is hard to assess the influence that UTG had on local and national politics, let alone internationally, here a just a few examples— ‘The New Ethic’ is a genuine novelty among Australian political platforms to that date, not the least for its focus on ethics as the basis for the platform. ‘The New Ethic’ flagged all of the issues that were to become the four founding principles adopted by Die Grünen in 1979. (Christine Dann, 1999, page 333) 7. UTG as Tasmania’s moral compass From an article published in the Tasmanian Times, 5 April 2016, titled ‘Is the UTG to be Tasmania’s moral compass?’ by Duncan Mills— From a social ecology perspective, there is no surprise at a loss of direction by the Tasmanian Greens. We saw this when the Democrats lost their way and failed to reflect internally. Without serious internal reflection and learning, loss of moral compass is almost inevitable for political parties. The re-emergence of the United Tasmania Group in the voice of Geoff Holloway represents just such dissatisfaction with the ability of the Tasmanian Greens to reflect on their own moral compass and performance. Our lack of political success also detracts from the very real influence we are having on the other political parties. We now hear that Mr. Chisholm is Minister for Energy and Resources. Who ever heard of a title like that before? And the Director of Tourism and Country Planning is saying that we need more processing of our own resources, particularly emphasising the need for good design. Ever heard that policy before? And now the Australian Democrats are saying that big business and the unions both have utterly neglected the small man, the shopkeeper and the farmer trying to go it alone. All this must make us take heart, we are not voices in the wilderness – a bit before our time perhaps, but there is something to show. The chardonnay policy focus and corporate language of brands etc., by Cassy O’Connor and Co suggest a loss of connection with the green charter. Not that commercial literacy in a greenie is not to be valued, but it’s the suggestion that practical considerations are as a matter of course put before moral questions; something that never has been taken lightly in the green movement. Remember the Bass by-election? Well, that’s when we got Mr. Newman to promise his support (and Mr. Hunt and Mr. Fraser’s) for the South West National Park and subsequently Senator Greenwood gave $95,000 for a resources survey . 9 Remember our State Conference in Launceston? That’s when we gave our support to the present boundary defining the South West 10—and subsequently this became enshrined in the report of the Cartland Committee. And the Cartland Committee? That resulted from a proposal I made on T.V. on World Environment Day. I think there are many ways we are influencing events. Too slow, you say? Then the only way is to work harder. [Dick Jones State Conference address, 1977] 6. A New Ethic If anything, A New Ethic, written by Hugh Dell, was the foundation of UTG’s vision, policy development, activism and strategic thinking—this cannot be overemphasized. It was also the foundation of the ‘four pillars’ of other Green parties around the world, such as Die Grünen— Geoff makes the point privately that social history (sociological) literature suggests that all aspirational democratic movements are fated to become trapped by the exigencies of power; ref (Roberto) Michels”iron law of oligarchy”. 8. Identity politics UTG has managed to avoid the swamp of postmodernist relativism, it’s rejection of biological science, its opposition to freedom of speech and, in its most insidious form, transgender politics. However, the Greens have been fully captured by transgender ideology and are supporters of transgendering children, including the use of puberty blockers, hormone treatments and, ultimately, surgical intervention in what, otherwise, would be normal adolescent development.11 As the Editor-in-chief of The Ecological Citizen, Patrick Curry, points out — ‘Identity politics’ sees injustice as rooted primarily in people’s possession of certain identities, especially racial, sex and/or gender, and sexual orientation. The 9 The Interim Report of the South West Tasmania Resources survey was released in March 1978. 11 10 This was the founding of what is now the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, 20% of the state. 122 For more information see articles and submissions here, including UTG’s call for a national inquiry or Royal Commission - https://independent. academia.edu/HollowayGeoff SOME LESSONS FROM UTG Section 9 resulting orthodoxy often goes by the name of ‘political correctness’. It is now virtually unassailable among many university students, political activists, the Twitterati and the relatively young, well-educated and middle-class. This is not to say it hasn’t been criticised. But its adherents can make critics pay dearly, and there is no doubt that many doubters decide to keep quiet.12 In Tasmania critics of transgendering children and adolescents, of men playing in women’s sports and invading women’s spaces, have been no-platformed or threatened with legal action. As Sandy Irvine points out, Ecocentrism’s credo is, then, universalistic. The Identitarianism, by stark contrast, is a politics of difference. It can lead to separatism, suspicion and, quite likely, aggressive hostility. It is, at best, a distraction from and quite likely a barrier to unity in collective struggle for a better world for all. It cuts against the very grain of Ecocentrism, the only politics that offer a chance to escape the terrible dangers now threatening all of us.13 The way forward? Go back to the first and second points made in this section – active grass-roots participation plus application of internal, democratic principles – but this can only be achieved by devolving power to the general membership and creating local groups. While the urgency of this task is obvious addressing this issue is complicated, especially given the changes in social movement participation over recent years, which is due partly to the advent of socialmedia driven participation.14 12 Patrick Curry, The Poverty of Identity Politics, https://blog. ecologicalcitizen.net/2020/10/01/the-poverty-of-identity-politics/ 13 Sandy Irvine, Identitarianism An Unsustainable Case of Sectionalist Politics, 2020. 13 Sandy Irvine, Identitarianism An Unsustainable Case of Sectionalist Politics, 2020. 14 For more information, see Spanish sociologist Manuel Castells who has many articles and YouTube recordings on this topic. 123 Appendix 1 STATE-LEVEL POSITION HOLDERS STATE EXECUTIVE State President – Dick Jones State Secretary – Rod Broadby, Geoff Holloway, Des Shield State Vice-Presidents – Noreen Batchelor, Mike Dell, Bob Graham, Kevin Hazelwood, Geoff Holloway, Des Shield [there were probably more] State Treasurer – Jock Barclay, Geoff Holloway, Bob Graham, Dean Folks State Councillors – Noreen Batchelor, Dave Butler, John Forsyth, Chris Harries, Chris Rathbone, Faye Taylor, Brenton Wheare [there were probably more] Denison Divisional Council – Kevin Hazelwood (Chair) [there is no information on other Divisional Council convenors] There were up to 17 UTG branches across Tasmania (see Appendix 2). POLICY COMMITTEE CONVENORS Aborigines – Bill Mollison Agriculture – David Stephen Economics – Geoff Holloway Education – Rosemary Brown, Chris Harries, Patsy Jones Employment฀&฀Industry฀–฀Chris฀Cowles,฀Peter฀Blackwell Energy – Geoff Holloway Forestry – Geoff Holloway, Jeff Williams Health – Brenda Hean, David Stephen Industry – Tony Ault, Chris Cowles Local Government – Howard Simco National฀parks,฀Conservation฀&฀Wilderness฀–฀Jock฀Barclay,฀Kevin฀Kiernan,฀ Brenton Wheare Prison Reform – Keith Antonysen Social Welfare/Social Policy Group – Bill Mollison, Russell Grayson State Resources – Jeff Williams Transport – Kevin Hazelwood, Chris Cowles 2016 – 2020 UTG was officially re-formed on 2 April 2016, following an earlier meeting a year before, on 22 March 2015; Kevin Kiernan and Geoff Holloway were co-convenors. Past members of Executive Committee: Ben Jones, Anne McConnell, Isla MacGregor, Joanna Pinkiewicz Main UTG Facebook site (since 30 March 2010) https://www.facebook.com/groups/112926085386109/about/ 124 Appendix 2 UTG BRANCHES & CONVENORS UTG Branches Convenors 1. Moonah Des Shield 2. Sandy Bay David O’Brien 3. North Hobart Bob Graham / Lyn Barclay 4. Battery Point Keith Antonysen 5. South Hobart Kevin Hazelwood 6. Taroona David Stephen 7. University Peter Blackwell / Des Shield 8. Tas. College of Advanced Education Chris Wilson 9. Devonport Noreen Batchelor 10. Huon Chris Harries 11. Lindisfarne Beth Herbert 12. Launceston Dr. Kathleen Petrovsky 13. Burnie Arnold Rowlands 14.฀ Newtown฀ Jock฀&฀Lyn฀Barclay 15. Lenah Valley John Forsyth 16. Deloraine Jeff Williams 17. East Coast Jeff Weston 125 Appendix 3 International Conventions and organisations UTG is a signatory or supporter of the following international conventions and organisations: (1) The Rights of Nature – https://www.facebook.com/groups/ therightsofnature/about/ (2) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC) (3) The Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE) https://www.facebook.com/steadystateeconomy/ (4) Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) - https://www.facebook.com/ RockyMtnInst/ (5) David Brower Center - https://browercenter.org/about/who-we-are/ (6) Wilderness Committee, Canada https://www.wildernesscommittee.org/ (7) Signatory to the Statement of Commitment to Ecocentrism https:// www.ecologicalcitizen. net/statement-of-ecocentrism.php?submit= Sign+the+Ecocentrism+Statement (8) The Nordic Model Australia Coalition - http://normac.org.au/ and (9) The Declaration on Women’s Sex-based Rights - https://www. womensdeclaration.com/en/ (10) Endorsement of Rivers for Recovery - https://www.rivers4recovery.org/ 126 Appendix 4 Elections Year Election 1972 House of Assembly UTG Candidates % of total vote Walter Austin Jeff Weston Julia Weston Noreen Batchelor Anthony Weston (Braddon) Norman Laird Ian Milne Kelvin Scott Sir Alfred White Rod Broadby Ron Brown 3.9% Brenda Hean 1972 Legislative Council Noreen Batchelor 8.6% Anthony Weston 1972 House of Representatives 1974 Senate Brian Broadby 4.4% Dick Jones Bill Mollison 0.86% Mike Dell 1975 Legislative Council 1975 Braddon recount Rod Broadby 9.9% Noreen Batchelor 1.3% Anthony Weston 1975 1975 Bass by-election Senate Kathleen Petrovsky Dick Jones 3.0% 0.55% Bob Brown 1976 Legislative Council Patsy Jones 5.2% 1976 House of Assembly Deirdre Smith Robert Brown Noreen Batchelor Rod Broadby Kevin Hazelwood Helen Gee David Stephen Patricia Armstrong Patsy Jones Bill Hickson Ria Ikin Sharyn Harrison-Williams John Levett Mike Davies Judith Walker Rosemary Brown Brian Chapman Tony Burke Tony Joyce 2.2% Roy Jackson 1977 Legislative Council Chris Rathbone 6.1% 127 Endnotes Section 9 i https://www.thelocal.es/201804P27/south-european cities-and-stakeholders-join-forces-against-mass-tourism, 27 April 2018 ii Dick Jones 1975 Senate Campaign Policy speech iii Pam Walker, The United Tasmania Group, Honours thesis, University of Tasmania, 1986 iv A research review of the research (not published here) shows no evidence that providing tracks and huts etc leads to greater consciousness or advocacy on behalf of these areas by tourists using such facilities. v Chinese annual leave = 5 days to 1–10 years of work; 10 days for 10–20 years; and 15 days for over 20 years of work. They tend to travel in groups because it makes it easier for them to get permission to leave China (to an Approved Destination). vi See UTG Journal Issue No. 3, extensive footnote 10. vii K. Kiernan, Wild-lands of the Roaring Forties. Journal of the Tasmanian Wilderness Society, 3: 13–21, 1977 viii K. Kiernan, World heritage – one of a trio. In Gee H, Fenton J (eds) The South West Book. ACF Melbourne, pages 271–273, 1978 ix World Bank 2018 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ST.INT.ARVL?name_desc=false. Accessed 24 June 2018 x Martin CE, Chehébar C. (2001) The National Parks of Argentinian Patagonia — management policies for conservation, public use, rural settlements, and indigenous communities, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 31:4, 845–864. xi฀ Based฀on฀Kelly฀S.฀Bricker฀&฀Mercedes฀S.฀Hunt,฀Ecotourism Outlook 2014, prepared for the TIES 2014 Outlook Marketing Forum, 2014 xii฀ Kelly฀S.฀Bricker฀&฀Mercedes฀S.฀Hunt,฀Ecotourism Outlook 2014, prepared for the TIES 2014 Outlook Marketing Forum, 2014. xiii For example, Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, University of South Australia; Tema Milstein, recent Visiting Researcher, University of Tasmania, from University of New Mexico xiv Freya Higgins-Desbiolles, Sustainable tourism: Sustaining tourism or something more? Tourism Management Perspectives, December 2017. xv Center for Responsible Travel (CREST), The Case for Responsible Travel 2016, page 3, 2017 xvi A. Davidson, ‘Sustainable Investing’ Goes Mainstream, The Wall Street Journal, 13 January 2016 xvii Kevin Kiernan, 2018, personal correspondence xviii฀ World฀Travel฀&฀Tourism฀Council,฀Travel and Tourism Economic Impact 2017 Cabo Verde. xix฀ Sofield,฀T.H.B.,฀&฀Li,฀F.M.S.฀(2007).฀China:฀Ecotourism฀and฀cultural฀tourism:฀Harmony฀or฀dissonance? In J. Higham (Ed.), Critical issues in ecotourism: Confronting the challenges (pp.฀368–385).฀London:฀Elsevier฀Science฀&฀Butterworth฀ Heinemann,฀2007฀-฀as฀quoted฀in฀Honggang฀Xu,฀Qingming฀Cui,฀Trevor฀Sofield฀&฀Fung฀Mei฀Sarah฀Li฀(2014)฀Attaining฀harmony:฀ understanding the relationship between ecotourism and protected areas in China, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 22:8, 1131–1150, 2014 xx฀ Article฀3,฀sections฀4฀&฀5฀of ฀the฀Global Code of Ethics for Tourism,฀adopted฀by฀UN฀in฀2001฀(United฀Nations฀&฀UN฀World฀Tourism฀ Organisation). “4. Tourism infrastructure should be designed and tourism activities programmed in such a way as to protect the natural heritage composed of ecosystems and biodiversity and to preserve endangered species of wildlife; the stakeholders in tourism development, and especially professionals, should agree to the imposition of limitations or constraints on their activities when these are exercised in particularly sensitive areas: desert, polar or high mountain regions, coastal areas, tropical forests or wetlands, propitious to the creation of nature reserves or protected areas; 5. Nature tourism and ecotourism are recognized as being particularly conducive to enriching and enhancing the standing of tourism, provided they respect the natural heritage and local populations and are in keeping with the carrying capacity of the sites.” xxi฀ Bricker฀&฀Hunt,฀referencing฀D.C.฀Esty,฀D.C.฀&฀A.S.฀Winston,฀Green to Gold: How smart companies use environmental strategy to innovate, create value, and build competitive advantage. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2006 xxii฀ Kelly฀S.฀Bricker฀&฀Mercedes฀S.฀Hunt,฀op.฀cit. xxiii G. Monbiot, How sustainability became ‘sustained growth. http://www.monbiot.com/2012/06/22/how-sustainability-becamesustained-growth/ xxiv IUCN/World Commission on Protected Areas, Tourism and Management in Protected Areas: guidelines for sustainability, 2018 xxv The TUI Group’s revenue is over $15 billion, as compared with Tasmania’s Gross State Product was $28.6 billion in 2016-17 xxvi see https://www.tuigroup.com/en-en/sustainability/strategy xxvii Where Sustainable Travel is Headed in 2018, https://globalnews.booking.com/where-sustainable-travel-is-headed-in-2018 xxviii Global Sustainable Tourism Council, https://www.gstcouncil.org/gstc-criteria/gstc-destination-criteria/ xxix According to Ecotourism Australia´s Annual Report 2016–17 only 60% of their members are members of their State or Territory tourism councils. xxx฀ Robyn฀Bushell฀&฀Kelly฀S.฀Bricker,฀Tourism฀in฀protected฀areas:฀Developing meaningful standards, Tourism and Hospitality Research, March 2016. 128 xxxi฀ Kelly฀S.฀Bricker฀&฀Mercedes฀S.฀Hunt,฀Ecotourism฀Outlook฀2014,฀prepared฀for฀the฀TIES฀2014฀Outlook฀Marketing฀Forum,฀page฀7,฀2014 xxxii op cit, page 8 xxxiii Ulrich Beck, The Risk Society, 1992 xxxiv฀ Ecotourism฀Australia฀issues฀9฀different฀types฀of ฀certificates,฀including฀‘Ecotourism’฀of ฀which฀there฀are฀currently฀3฀such฀enterprises฀ in฀Tasmania,฀plus฀9฀with฀‘Advanced฀Ecotourism’฀certification;฀and฀there฀is฀‘nature฀tourism’,฀for฀which฀there฀is฀just฀1฀example฀in฀ Tasmania฀–฀the฀differences฀between฀‘Ecotourism’฀and฀‘Nature฀Tourism’฀are฀obscure.฀To฀maintain฀certification฀involves฀paying฀a฀high฀ annual฀fee.฀There฀is฀also฀the฀Climate฀Action฀Business฀certificate,฀for฀which฀there฀is฀just฀one฀enterprise฀-฀the฀Maria฀Island฀Walk.฀The฀ definition฀used฀by฀Ecotourism฀Australia฀is:฀‘Ecotourism฀is฀ecologically฀sustainable฀tourism฀with฀a฀primary฀focus฀on฀experiencing฀ natural฀areas฀that฀fosters฀environmental฀and฀cultural฀understanding,฀appreciation฀and฀conservation’,฀but฀they฀do฀not฀have฀a฀definition฀ for ‘nature tourism’. xxxv฀ Unallocated฀cases฀are฀those฀notifications฀of ฀child฀abuse฀or฀neglect฀that฀have฀been฀assessed฀as฀requiring฀investigation฀and฀but฀have฀not฀ in fact been investigated. xxxvi Inverting the pyramid. Enhancing systems for protecting children, ARACY/Allen Consulting Group. 2009 xxxvii฀ http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/214356/Redesign_of_Child_Protection_Services.pdf xxxviii https://www.aracy.org.au/the-nest-in-action/the-common-approach xxxix http://www.jacquiepetrusma.com.au/?m=20160318 xl private discussions with authors of relevant reports xli฀ https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/defining-public-health-model-child-welfare-services-context xlii฀ http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/220696/0032_Strong_Families_Safe_Kids_-_Implementation_v9_final. pdf page 12 xliii฀ https://www.childprotection.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net691/f/layton_child_protection_฀review.pdf xliv https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270453157_Student_Suspensions_A_Research_Review?_iepl%5BviewId%5D=BsK7Mt7 WH3npKMSVhTKdz7nL&_iepl%5BprofilePublicationItemVariant%5D=default&_iepl%5Bcontexts%5D%5B0%5D=prfpi&_iepl%5 BtargetEntityId%5D=PB%3A270453157&_iepl%5BinteractionType%5D=publicationTitle xlv https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270453159_ALTERNATIVES_TO_SECURE_YOUTH_DETENTION_IN_TASMANIA_ ALTERNATIVES_TO_SECURE_YOUTH_DETENTION_IN_TASMANIA xlvi - Greens Senator Penny Wright chaired the Senate Inquiry into Justice Reinvestment, which reported in 2013 – an unenviable task given the Liberal nasties on that Committee. https://greensmps.org.au/articles/greens-launch-justice-reinvestment-initiative xlvii Policing vulnerability,฀I.฀Bartkowiak-Théron฀&฀N.฀L.฀Asquith฀(Eds.),฀The฀Federation฀Press,฀2012 xlviii฀ http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/388585/Youth_Justice_Pilot_-_Evaluation_Report.pdf xlix Cited in Uniting Church in Western Australia, Submission 65, p. 8, Value of a justice reinvestment approach to criminal justice in Australia, 20 June 2013 Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee l Senate Inquiry into Justice Reinvestment, 2013 li Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Bushfire and Climate Change Research Project Tasmanian Government’s Response, Tasmanian Climate฀Change฀Office,฀Department฀of ฀Premier฀and฀Cabinet,฀page฀10,฀December฀2017. lii Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Research and Monitoring Priorities 2013–2018, Resource Management and Conservation Division, Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment, page 6, 2013. liii฀ There฀were฀also฀lightning฀strikes฀on฀the฀16th฀December,฀but฀it฀is฀‘believed’฀that฀these฀were฀not฀related฀to฀the฀Gell฀River฀fire฀(Bureau฀ of Meteorology personal communication, 7 February 2019). liv฀ https://www.theadvocate.com.au/story/5829999/update-wilderness-bushfires-merge-into-1500-hectare-blaze/.฀The฀name฀of ฀the฀ incident controller mentioned has been withheld from this report. lv฀ https://tendaily.com.au/news/australia/a190104qwo/homes-at-risk-in-huge-tasmanian-bushfires-20190104 lvi฀ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-06/hold-tas-sun-am-questions-over-remote-fire-fighting-resources-in/10687142 lvii฀ https://www.news.com.au/national/tasmania/interstate-resources-called-in-to-assist-with-gell-river-fire-as-very-high-fire-dangerdeclared/news-story/e921b00ba619829036473ac6f66d3011 lviii AFAC (2016) AFAC Independent Operational Review – A review of the management of the Tasmanian fires of January 2016. Australasian Fire and฀Emergency฀Services฀Authorities฀Council,฀Melbourne,฀Victoria.฀2016.฀http://www.fire.tas.gov.au/userfiles/tym/file/misc/1604_ tasfirereport_final1.pdf ฀ 129 BRENDA HEAN (Written and delivered by Clive Sansom at the Memorial Service, Scots Church, Hobart, 26 September, 1972; published in UTG Newsletter, September 1976) A tree to William Blake, artist and mystic, was more than a lump of wood to be exploited or branches that blocked the sky, it was a work of God which, by the very act of living, proclaimed its Creator: sharing with man in the divine order. So, to Brenda Hean, was her vision of Pedder. This lake was more to her than a sheet of water set in the buttongrass plains with mountain peaks rising behind it – more than a wide reach of ฀gleaming฀quartzite;฀the฀infinitely฀varied฀patterns changing with wind and rain, with sunlight and shadow and the swift passage of the seasons. It was more even than the unhurried, uncounted years of history, the endless evolution of rocks. The lake was these to her, but more than these it was a manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the Word of God revealed through Nature. So, it became to her a living symbol of that eternal godhead, the lake was witness to man (in an age of disorder, destruction and disbelief ) of values more valuable than money or possessions. It said in effect to government and individuals: “I am an expression of the Divine, heed me. Study me, comprehend me, for the face of God is reflected in my waters. Bring back your hearts and minds to the forces that made me; reconcile your world with mine.” That was the voice she heard. To Brenda Hean the contemplation of nature was an act of worship. Pedder was a shrine, a sanctuary. Its needless destruction was desecration, like the bombing of a cathedral, a฀defiled฀altar.฀She฀knew฀God’s฀legions were indestructible. She knew that nature’s energy was never spent: that one small seed, buried within the earth, could outlive empires, but it saddened her that, even momentarily, the ignorant and the insensitive should have their triumph, and generations of men grow up impoverished, denied that beauty and that peace of mind which Pedder gives. So, in her last years, she offered up her life in service of the lake – to the God of all lakes, and in the end, most aptly, her฀sacrifice฀has฀been฀accepted.฀She฀is฀one฀now with the lake and wilderness and the spirit that created them. 130 UNITED TASMANIA GROUP The original Greens Celebrating UTG’s 50th year This document is principally a compilation of the United Tasmania Group’s (UTG) policies over the years 1972–2020 as part of the celebration of the 50th year of the world’s first ‘Green’ party (the term ‘Green’ had not been invented back then and, when it was it became a term of abuse, especially in Tasmania). The policies are reproduced here with historical accuracy, i.e., no content editing and no grammar corrections. Most of the content of this compilation comes directly from original documents and pre-published material—this was intentional so that it is historically accurate. All statements in this publication can be substantiated by reference to print copies of the original documents. This compilation is about policies, not individuals or the 335 original members of UTG (as at the end of 1977), with the exception of Dr. Richard (Dick) Jones, as founding President of UTG and Hugh Dell, author of A New Ethic. Dr. Richard (Dick) Jones.