Abbott on farming v mining
|
As with so many other issues, Tony Abbott simultaneously holds all positions on the mining versus farming issue. “We support the mining industry but we don’t want to see prime agricultural land destroyed and we think that the rights of farmers should always be respected,” he said this morning, in a decidedly futile effort to clarify his position. The only clarity to be found was in the comments he made before he got to those remarks, which was to declare “we don’t support the Greens. We’re not going to support the Greens”. That is, Abbott was crystal-clear on the politics, but entirely confusing on the policy. His problem, however, rests with the clarity he provided for his friend Alan Jones last week. Jones thinks an invasion is under way — presumably to complement the maritime invasion by asylum seekers — consisting of foreign governments buying up farmland to guarantee their own food supplies and foreign mining companies trampling all over the properties of Australian farmers looking for opportunities to start mining. Abbott occasionally finds the wherewithal to decline to agree with Jones’s incessant whingeing, but last week he couldn’t help himself and endorsed Jones’s “invasion” comments with the remark “It’s certainly becoming a matter of enormous public concern and people are right to be concerned.” That was after he said “if you don’t want something to happen on your land, you ought to have a right to say no”. Forget any distinctions between freehold and leasehold land or comparisons with native title. Martin Ferguson, self-appointed friend at court of the extractive industries, has been making hay … well, making coal seam gas, ever since. Doubtless he’s enjoyed accusing the Coalition of creating “sovereign risk” for mining companies. But as Jones’s froth-mouthed ranting shows, there’s a great many issues wrapped up in all this — the fictitious issue of food security, foreign acquisition of property, farmers’ rights in relation to extractive industries on their land, the impact of fracking, our addiction to coal. Some of these issues have made life difficult for Abbott before. In April last year he for once resisted the populist temptation and, contradicting Joe Hockey, defended foreign buyers of residential property. ”If you are effectively saying to some people ‘look, you’re not allowed in the market’, you are inevitably going to reduce the maximum price that people might get for their property.” A similar argument might be made about farmers selling their properties. Unlike climate change, where Abbott’s simultaneous holding of all possible positions on the issue has worked, declaring you support farmers and miners on these issues is merely going to make everyone unhappy. It pits a core Coalition constituency against its biggest funders, the mostly foreign owned mining companies that helped destroy Kevin Rudd and bankrolled much of the Coalition’s 2010 election campaign, particularly in the west. Strategic ambiguity won’t remain a viable option for very long. That’s partly because the Greens have been busy in this space for years. Mining versus farming has been their entrée into regional communities where they’re keen to expand their support. In 2009 Lee Rhiannon’s bill to protect farmland came within one vote of being passed in the NSW Upper House with strong support from farming groups. In comparison, the likes of Campbell Newman, Barnaby Joyce and now Abbott are comparative latecomers who’ve missed how this issue is upsetting and dividing regional communities. The issue isn’t going anywhere. While coal and energy prices remain high, the tension between farming and mining will simply get worse, especially while coal is unencumbered by a price for its carbon emissions. |
|
|
|
100 Comments
“Lee Rhiannon’s bill to protect farmland” that would be the Lee Rhiannon who, according to a Herald Sun editorial, is the most dangerous person in politics and has changed her name just like Stalin?
But seriously is it just me or is the media starting to turn a little and hold Abbott more to account on these mulit position policies?
What I fail to understand is the position of the National Party in regard to farmers’ rights to preserve their land. The last time I looked the National Party was still part of the Coalition. Yes, no?
It appears Alan Jones and the Greens the only ones who give a toss about our rural cousins.
i happened to hear the interview and tony abbotts rant regading the greens on this mornings radio, honestly the man is a ratbag
how this imbicile is leader of the opposition and how he could be the next pm of this country is frankly beyond my comphrension
he makes sarah palin seem articulate and clever
Unfair to label Jones as froth-mouthed, he’s all frot.
Sorry, I did mean all froth. :^)
Hi Jimmy @ 1
Had a look at this story in the National Affairs section of the Australian.
There were 25 comments and about 23 were negative about Abbot and highlighting his consistent inconsistancy and his lack of policy integrity.
I reckon that the worm is turning.
The Pav - I suppose it just shows that you can’t get away without having a policy, or at east one that can be paid for, forever. Let’s hope it is the beginning of the end.
The only thing I wonder about is the cause, is it that Gillard has actually got some runs on the baord in the last few weeks, is it that with the coalition in a strong position in the polls Abbott is coming under more scrutiny or is t just that Gillard sat down with the News Ltd Editors?
Meski,
Can’t help but admire your work.
did someone say ‘wedge’? ROTFLMAO
I think fracking should be banned for all time after watching Gasland twice.
I had to laugh at the OO’s headline of “Brown wedges Abbott” though because Abbott well and truly wedged himself by trying to be all together too clever.
Had to laugh at the mad article in the HUN by Alan Howe. Is there a special Godwin’s Law for accusing someone of being a Nazi and a Stalinist at the same time, from birth? The HUN was faced with a problem with the Abbott mines story, how to run it without making Tony look a total F**wit. Well simple, they just ignored it.
Can someone explain why food security is a fictitious issue?
How like Canberra is to the world of quantum physics, knowing that Tony Abbott simultaneously holds all positions on the mining versus farming issue.
But it came as a rather wonderful insight.
Tony Abbott is the living proof that the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal is not restricted to the atomic scale. Heisenberg recognised that it was impossible to measure the energy state and the position of a sub-atomic particle at the same moment, and that the introduction of the observer affects the observed.
And if we can’t be sure that if a tree falls in the forest unobserved, it make any sound, is it possible to be sure Mr Abbott exists without the presence of the television camera?
shepherdmarilyn - he is a rhodes scholar afterall - wedging on the carriculum?
Farmers’ rights? What rights?
I would rather have happy, contented and productive farmers - food every day - can always wear a jumper every other day.
“Lee Rhianon’s bid to protect farmland”
Bahahaha! She doesn’t care about farmers, she just hates them less than miners.
Food security isn’t a fictitious issue, nor is “this issue … dividing regional communities”.
I’ve seen no issue that has united rural communities more.
The miners and the few landowners who’ve allowed mining and not been screwed around seem to be the only ones in favour of unfettered CSG.
The Labor party definitely runs the risk of being wedged on this. The Queensland government has been already.
The age-old law about rights to minerals needn’t be overturned, just the State governments’ overenthusiastic granting of licenses.
As usual let’s have the facts get in the way of sound bite politics. BK did a great job of staring that corrective journey.
1. Minerals are generally owned by the States/Territories (inside 3 mile shore limit), ie the community at large, not by the landowner
2. This is therefore a state issue, may be unconstitutional if the Feds try to butt in - Messrs Brown & Rhiannon to note please and save Parliament time and money
3. Quality freehold ag land is already protected - explorers, let alone miners, cannot access vineyards, orchards, market gardens, within 100m of houses, sheds etc, etc - perhaps the protagonists should read some current regulations first
4. Freeholds farmers can already deny consent to access (but this can be legally challenged in some cases and is usually subject to negotiation, timing of harvest)
5. Economic losses by farmers due to exploration/mining are compensable
6. Environmental aspects of fraccing, water liberation, hydrogeological impacts, etc can be adequately handled by existing EIS regulations and procedures - we’ve seen some recent examples
7. Food security arguments are laughable given the small land areas (as % of total ag land) in question
As with most NIMBY arguments this is really about lifestyle, $’s, ideology and individual rights vs community benefit. Time for politicians to uphold community benefit with appropriate checks and balances.
Food security a “fictitious” issue? Here is one quote, from the CSIRO:
“The likelihood of a food crisis directly affecting the Australian population may appear remote given that we have enjoyed cheap, safe and high quality food for many decades and we produce enough food today to feed 60 million people. However, if our population grows to 35-40 million and climate change constrains food production, we can expect to see years where we will import more food than we export. We are now facing a complex array of intersecting challenges which threaten the stability of our food production, consumption and trade.”
This comes from a report titled Australia and Food Security in a Changing World.
Remember that this is a conservative report from a conservative organisation based on conservative assumptions regarding climate change and population, and not taking into account the possible loss of arable land to rapidly increasing mining activity.
There are a number of other assertions within Bernard’s article which, I believe, display his tendency to allow his somewhat neo-liberal economic tendencies to override his common sense.
At least the French had the environmental awareness to ban fracking altogether. There again according to the Treaty of Lima Australia is considered nothing more than a quarry.
Reasons why Food Security (the availability and access of food) is a fictious issue (in Australia)
1. Estimates of foreign ownership of farm land (based on other western countries with similar foreign investment rules i.e the US/Canada) <= 1%
2. Australia is a net exporter of food. (we currently export around 2/3rds of our food production)
3. Australia's GDP per capita is in the top 10 countries in the world
In Australia, when we own most of the land, have good incomes and we are exporting most of our food production; we do not have a problem with feeding ourselves.
If anything, foreign investment in agriculture is too low. It should be a national priority to increase out productivity of the land (though increased capital and foreign expertise). We should be encouraging investment, not trying to shut it down by increasing barriers of entry.
Thr constant harping on about foreigners buying up our farm land (from both sides of politics) is pure protectionism.
Not quite sure that I agree with your summation Dennis,
A large part of the perceived problem lies in the interpretation of the EIS regulations where governments, both state and federal, have effectively ignored their own decision making criteria, for example in regard to material safety data sheets (MSDS) for the fraccing process.
I think what the problem that most people have with the resource/mining industry is their track record, where unsafe working hours and conditions, combined with a complete lack of social responsibility have eroded any faith we may have had in the industry to either self regulate or to follow basic safety proceedures.
The current “gold rush” mentality infecting sectors of the mining and resource industries, do not encourage us to believe that there will be any changes to their operations in the near future.
One only needs to look at the environmental disasters that are The Hunter Valley and Gladstone, to know that we dont want this repeated anywhere else.
I note that I do not live in a farming community, but I do eat farm produce, and would like to continue to do so.
Dennis O’Neill - wrong on a couple of counts.
The Federal government unquestionably has power to make laws for corporations - mining companies. So unless these coal seam gas company executives decide to enter these contracts as natural persons (and all the liabilities that entails) - the government can regulate them - see Workchoices case.
Western Australia allows farmers a complete veto right for farmers, but other states do not. Most states give their Department’s power to override a landholders refusal to consent to exploration, so its not a right to veto at all. The 100m buffer only applies to the actual dwelling, not the property or sheds etc.
Poisoining a water table cannot be compensated by money - the regulations are new and don’t guarantee that the regulations won’t be broken. All it will take is one stuff up and a water table’s quality to be reduced - then the regulations will really get tough.
Unfortunately, most politicians don’t believe in fixing something until it gets broken.
Looks like Anna Blight agree’s with Abbott.
So much for Gillards attacks.
TTH - Agree’s with Abbott on what? Beofre she could agree with him he would have to have a position, not every position, and judging by his quote above “We support the mining industry but we don’t want to see prime agricultural land destroyed and we think that the rights of farmers should always be respected,” combined with his oppostion to the greens proposal his position is far from clear!
Why agricultural land? With 99% of the rest of Australia to play in? How close is this to Struggle Street?
Well to be honest it doesn’t matter WHAT position Abbott has because mining laws are written by the states.
Why doesn’t someone in the media ask what Gillards position is? Oh thats right, because the leftwing media never ask Gillard the hard questions.
Bligh must smell an upcoming election to pull this kind of stunt.
TTH - “Why doesn’t someone in the media ask what Gillards position is?” “because mining laws are written by the states.” you seem to have answered your own question there.
It has only become an issue for Abbott because he was so busy trying to tell people what they wanted to hear and agree with that member of the “leftwing media” Alan Jones that he accidentally said something that sounded like a policy.
(((— the fictitious issue of food security, ))))
More homework needed on that one, but when Abbott stated on the weekend that he supported farmers on the the right to refuse mining company access, in reply, Gillard stated that, “I would like to see Tony Abbott explain to the farmers just how he would achieve that”…this statement of reply by Gillard, outlines the futility of even attempting it, which she knew that Abbott is well aware of the fact that it will never happen.
This in itself, should be the subject of a major story.
Another Abbott brain fizzle. The footage of him trying to get away from reporters and looking off into the distance - where’s my driver? style, was excruciating. There’s a bit of catalog of footage building up now and it goes to show that with a bit heat he crumbles pretty quickly.
Dennis O’Neill, your point three is simply wrong. If you suggest that “protagonists” read the regulations, at least have the nous to read them yourself first. Then you might be able to quote an actual regulation that allows a ‘farmer’ to “deny access”. Sure, there there might be tiny exceptions where some gate or house or gravestone has some limited protection but basically if a state government has given a miner (explorer, driller, whatever) a licence to assess a prospect then the state has a duty to protect the licencee as much as to protect the ‘farmer’. And that is why some miners choose to buy the whole farm first and then undertake to return it to farming after they have finished drilling, mining, fracking, gassing whatever.
Dear Truthhurts
It would seem that your definition of left wing media is any outlet that isn’t a hystrical cheerleader for Abbott.
Calling Abbot to account for being stupid isn’t a sign of bias but the glimmering of a return to balance
@Zut: Dancing underneath the radar.
TTH: Yes, it is state laws, but that doesn’t stop the feds from playing wedgie games.
TTH - “Well to be honest it doesn’t matter WHAT position Abbott has” This has to be my favourite line of argument from the right when Abbott’s inconsistency’s are pointed out. From people who are generally outraged by Gillards apparent “lie” they don’t seem to be phased in the least that the peron they would vote in as PM for the next term says whatever pops into his head and has held numerous positions on numerous policies and currently doesn’t have a dicsernable policy on things like health, education and industrial realtions.
So Jimmy, does Abbott have control over State Mining Laws?
The lefties are working themselves into a lather because Abbott expressed a personal opinion on the matter.
The coalition policy is irrelevant because it’s a state law issue.
When will the media bail this joker up and DEMAND he ANSWER tough questions?
All lathered up Truthie.
Abbott is goose! oi! oi! oi!
thetruthhurts, what you are displaying to me by your posts is that you are as smart as tony abbott
enough said,i rest my case
TTH - Ah yes the other great response of the liberal party when Abbott has a brain malfunction, it is “just personal opinion it isn’t our policy”. So for those keeping score when Abbott speaks on any topic we first have to ask ourselves if he is speaking in his personal capacity or as leader of his party and then we have to ask whether this is a carefully scripted comment that can be trusted or just something he is making up on the spot and therefore can’t be relied upon to be the truth before we can expect that he can be held to account for his comment.
As for your question, No clearly he doesn’t but he does over corporations law (which is constantly used to circumvent the states in such matters). So if he had no intention of actually using his pwoer to do something about the issue why did he speak, because it is what he thought the audience wanted to hear. Populism over leadership and policy once again.
Ever seen Tony Abbot and Leo Wanker in the same room? The head wobble, the walk, its there for everyone to see. They even explain things the same way. Spooky ay?
Is truthie Piers ??
(As for your question, No clearly he doesn’t but he does over corporations law (which is constantly used to circumvent the states in such matters)
Ok, so Abbott could use the corporations law to overide state law on the matter of mining company access to farming property?…in favour of farmers? doubtful!
The way Gillard responded was almost with a wry smile, almost like it was a pre-agreed bipartisanship not to upset our Mining Masters.
Christine Carter - “Ok, so Abbott could use the corporations law to overide state law on the matter of mining company access to farming property?…in favour of farmers? doubtful!”
That’s exactly the point, he had no intention of doing anything about the issue but he judged his audience and old them exactly what they wanted to hear. This is how the coalition have founf themselves having to come up with $70b in savings before we have even got to the election promises and is exactly why Abbott needs to be held to account for what he says.
Tony Abbott - a leader looking for a cue? Or a queue - he’s not fussy.
no christine, these posts are not about pre-agreed bipartsanship about our mining masters
they are about tony abbott once again being found to be a liar by trying to be all things to all people AND when challenged on this once again putting it in to the too hard basket
the arguments about state laws versus corportions laws are irevelevant in this discussion
he has ran around the country unchallenged for the last 12 months saying anything that came into his head to try and appease the people that he was talking to
have a read of his speech over the weekend to the wa state liberal party conference
the speech basically says that wa is carrying the whole of the australian economy etc etc and that the rest of australia is a basket case
another example of him saying anything that comes into his empty head to please the audience
i live in wa and know that that is not the case
just imagine how the murdoch press would report and portray such person if the labor party had a incompentant nutter like him as its opposition leader
mark latham was 100 times more intelligent, so was brendan nelson, so was alexander downer so was kim beazely so was simon crean
cairns 50 - Everyone knows Abbott is a hopeless granstander and will say anything that comes into his head that he sees will be “popular”. It’s rote, but the context and style of Gillards reply suggested something far deeper and darker. But if you want to turn this debate into the Left -Right dictum, go right ahead, but I agree with Christine Carter.
It’s always been a mystery to me why country people and especially farmers would support the National Party. They sold out years ago to the Liberal Party and to foreign corporate interests.
Today The Greens represent the interests of thoe on farms and in country towns far nmore than the Barnanmy Joyces of the world.
Oh dear! Another “sh*t happens” moment for “action man” Tony, and the now familiar expression of suppressed panic with nothing coming out of mouth; never mind, Christopher Pyne will as usual try and explain away the Abbott lapse in thinking through the consequence of another example of political opportunism. Meanwhile I’m still waiting to see “action man” fronting a photo op as a slaughterman in some Indonesian Abbottoir. I suspect that won’t happen anytime soon.
cairns50 :”mark latham was 100 times more intelligent, so was brendan nelson, so was alexander downer so was kim beazely so was simon crean”
agree with everything you said except Downer ? Surely some mistake !
Abbott probably got a phone call from Gina or Andrew or ?????His mates got in his ear too. How many of them have shares in the companies that are at the forefront of CSG mining? Abbott only cares about Abbott! And, as someone else queried, where’s the National Party in this? Quiet as mice and just as gutsy!
The ALP’s lack of a principled stand is a disgrace. Ferguson needs to go back and study what the ALP used to stand for, rather than pushing mining at any cost. It disgusts me.
One farmer has sold off his sheep. They were falling into ‘holes’ on the property where there are many wells already. The owners regret their naivety now. This poor young man is also fighting two forms of cancer while he’s trying to wrestle with how he’s going to manage if there’s a problem. He has a very young family. It’s extremely sad and makes me angry. Farmers are being intimidated and at present they only have control over the top 30 cms or so of their land. The water sources are further down than this. I’m not on the land, nor am I conversant with this industry except for what I’ve read and heard, but I am very concerned for the future.
One farmer taken to court over this will probably finish the industry. I will personally go and stand beside people who want to protect their homes, their livelihoods and most importantly, the health and safety of their families. Tossing farmers, partners and kids aside in public by greedy mining companies via police officers will not go down well with most Australians - I hope!
There’s a really good article in the SMH Good Weekend. I’ve also watched ‘Gasland’ a couple of times, and I do NOT believe that the risks of mining for CSG is worth it. It’s not better than coal as an energy source, and there’s much evidence to show that it’s mark on the environment might and possibly is as bad as coal. So, why take the risks? Why not go straight to solar thermal power or some other renewable source that doesn’t pose a threat to farming country?
Of course, if your view is making money first, and worrying about the planet maybe, then you’ll push CSG mining.
One point raised in the mentioned article is the very real issue of not being able to sell good farming land, EVEN if there’s no evidence of damage? Who’s going to want to take the risk down the track. Some farms have been in families for yonks, but what if people want to sell viable properties and use the money as their superannuation in retirement? Too bad, how sad, seems to be the motto.
As others point out, the main goal should be the production of good quality food for not only Australians, but others as well. We’re going to share the planet with about 9 billion by 2050. The world will need more food.
There are plans for mines or pipelines even around Warragamba Dam in the future. How dumb to take a risk with Sydney’s water source/s?
The States should be looking further than the dollar signs through this risky industry. Too risky, and it should be abhorrent to even think of what could happen to the environment and those who live close to these wells.
Stuff below ground belongs to the Crown I am told.
(leave monachy discussion for another occasion)
The Crown (Commonwealth=common wealth) and Crownies (States) = are owners “in trust” for all Australian citizens.
All deals involving assets “owned in trust”, after they are negotiated, should be transparent and made part of the public record - no such thing as commercial in confidence = accountability forever.
All parties involved in negotiations must declare, up front, details of last 10 years’ “donations” and no lucractive consulting fees, directorships etc for politicians or public servants.
Our stuff below ground is not renewable it is finite - but what can be replaced with? water? beach sand? - ah, forgot - Abbottised carbon!, global warming solved! - but once dug out, that’s it - the land is gone.
Whereas with clever farming, food keeps getting produced.
Playing fracking games is playing Russian roulette - can poison fertile land and water for ever (could happen anyway but if it hasn’t, lets not tempt fate?).
I am always left with one question - what is the worst that can happen?
Farmer - takes his expertise and tries to go somewhere else if s/he can.
Mining company - gets so big (either paying immaginary taxes or some other offshore wank) can’t be touched, goes bankrupt, or just moves on.
Politicians - retire on good pension somewhere on the mid north coast or semi retire as a “consultant” or one or two lucrative directorships.
You and me? - the ones who pay the GST, still paying for the GFC - fracked - whilst watching our dim past egalitarian society sink in the hole together with the “democracy for sale” sign.
Only solution - don’t need a carbon or mining tax - just get them to dig up the fertile soil and relocate together with the farmer and neighbours (with their agreement) as part of the deal.
Thought it must have been a typo or something. Downer?…for god’s sake man!
If people haven’t watched ‘GASLAND’ you can watch it here. Most enlightening!
http://www.ovguide.com/movies_tv/gasland.htm
We need to stop this farmland vandalism NOW. Our competitive advantage is food production
Oscar Jones - (Today The Greens represent the interests of thoe on farms and in country towns far nmore than the Barnanmy Joyces of the world.)
Yes, strange “daze” indeed. Is it because they are using it as a back-door ploy to get at the mining companies ( in itself probably a good thing ) or are they genuinely concerned for the farmers and the rural poor?
Why am I being moderated? I thought it was an open discussion forum. What could I have possibly said that would offend?
mr tyler, my politics are from the left side, but from the progressive side, and i realise that in the political landscape there has to be compromise so my argument is not coming from a left vs right
my point to christine carter was not that what she posted was not correct
my point was that this discussion is about a person who if the polls stay where they are will be the next pm of australia
i detested john howard peter costello etc etc, but even i will concede that they did have an intellect
this buffoon has none and more than that , he has shown himself time and time again to be nothing but an oppotunistic liar, who will do and say anthing to whatever group he is talking to
his sidekick as shadow treasurer is almost as bad
fair dinkum hes our own version of george w bush, except even george w bush has a few ideas
Hey, thanks Liz, I am going to feast on it tonight, awesome girl.
Do you know how to do doco’s Liz? I bet you have some interesting ideas.
It wasn’t froth around his mouth. It’s described as a tad saltier than that.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
@VINCENT O’DONNELL — Posted Monday, 15 August 2011 at 2:41 pm
“………….is it possible to be sure Mr Abbott exists without the presence of the television camera?……………”
I am sure we will see TV footage proving the existence of RS Tony Abbott soon to answer that.
@DENNIS O’NEILL — Posted Monday, 15 August 2011 at 2:49 pm
Yep, what can one say other than wisdom and courage are rear golden resources in politics, heed the French, heed MICHAEL CROOK — Posted Monday, 15 August 2011 at 3:13 pm — and others of the very smart and capable Crikey comments.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
A worthy piece BK. As you say this has been a long story and intelligent politicians have been showing ability to anticipate as you reveal….
“………………..That’s partly because the Greens have been busy in this space for years. Mining versus farming has been their entrée into regional communities where they’re keen to expand their support…………”
So let me get this right.
Abbott having a personal opinion on farmers rights with no power to implement = BAD
Gillard not having any personal opinion on the subject = Good
Anna Blight introducing legislation to ban miners rights on farm lands = Good
I hate to bring up the dreadfully unfashionable area of Indigenous affairs, but why is no-one (particularly the meedja) asking the Mad Monk about unfettered access to Aboriginal freehold (via abolition of permits; btw Aboriginal freehold is a stronger title than standard freehold in that it covers land below the surface also). The absurd idea that it is unreasonable to ask permission to enter Aboriginal land goes unquestioned - if Abbott has been contorting itself so far, this would be a legendary yoga demonstration to see him answer that one.
And - although I oppose fracking - I am ‘amused’ about farmers talking about access to ‘their’ land - could someone brainy at crikey please elucidate how much of the land being discussed is actually leasehold, i.e. owned by us (via our benificent Crown)?
Abbott didn’t go the election promising if you vote for him, he’d make sure there was no mining on farmland.
Big Difference.
Abbott was asked for an opinion on miners access to farm land and he gave an answer. This was not a policy announcement, it was a personal answer given to a question by Alan Jones.
Bligh meanwhile is actually introducing the policy and what do we hear from the lefties? Silence.
(As others point out, the main goal should be the production of good quality food for not only Australians, but others as well. We’re going to share the planet with about 9 billion by 2050. The world will need more food.) Liz said:
You made several interesting points there Liz, but none more than the above.
(Tossing farmers, partners and kids aside in public by greedy mining companies via police officers will not go down well with most Australians - I hope! )
Right again.
I wonder if the greens would be torn if it came between a coal seem gas company and a GM Cotton grower or a live export beef grazier.
Presumably Lee Rhianon would get the 2 arguing outside the gate and lock them both out. A salvo of hurled cats at anyone who dares approach.
The notion that the greens gives a fat rat’s a*&e about farmers is ludicrous. They are to them another group of right wing, red neck, gun toting, grass chewing, rum pigs. (that don’t vote green)
BTW Not all coal seem gas is extracted be “fracking” or UCG. A lot of the time they just pump the water off the top and it comes up.
Also if gas is the be the stop gap between coal and renewable perhaps we should not rob peter to rape paul.
Meski - i think that you were correct in the first with “Jones being all frot”, as in frottage.
It was a joy to listen to him this morning railing at how “… the Greens have attacked Abbott for his comment…”. How did they attack him by offering to put forward a Bill implementing his suggestion?
Dear TTH
Check out Bligh’s policy. It’s totally different. It is to provide a cordon sanitaire around rural towns and will be a legislated protection. Quiet a reasonable act by a responsible governement it seems to me and protection that capital city dwellers effectively enjoy
This is a far different Abbott’s senseless attempt at popularity. Remember its was just a few days ago he was sucking up to the miners at the WA Libs conference and calling the rest of Australia a basket.
Your defence that it is just an opinion is asinine. It even fails as a defence in its own right as it was yet another poorly thought out opinion. He is a serial offender in this regards.
Furthermore that he could not manage an interview with one of of his fawning cheerleaders
without stuffing up just futher confirms his incompetence.
You really are a blind fool if you consider Abbott to be fit IN ANY RESPECT for high office
Have the Fibs got him back in the box again ? Run Tony Run ! and hide .
I watched Gaslands. The flame out of the kitchen tap trick (as shown on Gaslands) will be repeated in the CSG areas of Australia. Water bottling companies will do well also; more jobs and sales to farming families and communities because tap water will be undrinkable. Meanwhile, Warren Truss and his band of National Party cohorts will stand by and let it happen; it goes against the grain for the National Party to stand up for their constituants and face off with the Liberals. We now have the Greens supporting farming families on the issue that confront them, where is the National Party? No doubt once the “flames out of the tap trick” works in coal saem gas areas here, the National Party will lobby government for subsidies to purchase bottled drinking water. One day it will become apparent all - you cannot eat or drink “money”. Ha, ha, ha - sad but true!
I liked the part when Tony said “anything that damages the coal industry damages Australia” — I believe that is a direct quote, would like to be corrected if it is not.
And hell, if each of us forget how to grow vegetables and the rest of the world refuse to sell us any at any price, we’ll bulldoze a few of these outer urban developments. It will be more palatable than starving, and the logisitics are trivial.
Prime agricultural land is called prime because of its value, not its productivity.
no_party_preferred Posted Monday, 15 August 2011 at 7:05 pm
“The notion that the greens gives a fat rat’s a*&e about farmers is ludicrous. They are to them another group of right wing, red neck, gun toting, grass chewing, rum pigs. (that don’t vote green) ”
Big call. I know several farmers that vote green and many greens that don’t refer to farmers the way you put it.
There are other political spectrum beyond the yr 10 highschool left vs right catfight.
here’s a start….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum
TTH - “Abbott having a personal opinion on farmers rights with no power to implement = BAD” But that is just it if he really wanted to he could implement it by siding with the Greens.
The issue here is that he has expressed to contradictory “opinions”, what exactly is his real opinion, should the farmer have the right to say “no” or not?
And when you are a leader of a political party anything you say is more than a “personal opinion”
excellent points all, Bob.
SBH - From the Liberal side, the argument would go:
“This legisltation proposes we now have two classes of Australians- those who can refuse miners exploration and mining rights, and those who cannot”
Holden - Yes it would be an interesting discussion, “your land is “sub prime” agricultural land so you have no rights, but yours is “prime” agricultural land so you get to say “no” if you want”.
Bob - “The absurd idea that it is unreasonable to ask permission to enter Aboriginal land goes unquestioned” I am no expert in this area but I do own some shares is a mining company that is doing significant amount of exploration around Tennant Creek and they have had to conduct extensive negotiations with the traditional land holders before doind any drilling.
@ Jimmy. I’m not suggesting that there is open slather on all Aboriginal freehold (although there is open slather in the communities where the vast majority of non-urban NT Indigenous people live, thanks to the Intervention legislation), I’m saying that that legislation is resented as unreasonable and that many people feel they should be able to enter Aboriginal freehold land anywhere, anytime, as ‘we’re all Australians’, an attitude that doesn’t extend to other private land.
I’ve worked in the approvals side of the coal industry. I have a lot of things to say about the impacts it has, the lack of certainty with what the impacts are how (or indeed if) these can be addressed. Suffice to say I’m not at all impressed with the trade off between risk and reward. But, thats big business and they run the place.
As far as landholders go, you can try to hold off on the exploration rights, but honestly once they own the mineral rights you’re toast.
There are arguments about the ‘greater good’ - such as one hold out landowner refusing to sell holding up a mine and the jobs that go with it. But equally, what about the stress, the uncertainty for landholders? Its one thing worrying about being bought out, its another thing entirely having the farm and / or its groundwater stuffed and you being left with it.
There is a broader theme to this which raises its head in various places and in various forms. And it is simply this. What sort of country do we want to leave future generations? The whole rip tear bust mentality is really wearing thin. As is this never ending growth malarky. I’m hoping that we are starting to mature a bit, and see the country - urban and rural - as something to be looked after for the common good, not expolited primarily for the benefit of the wealthy few. But with the mineral weatlh being the crowns and captial being what it is, the average Aussie is just an after thought.
@CHRISTINE CARTER -Hi Christine - I know a bloke who was involved in making a doco in the Illawarra re the history of coal mining. It was pretty awesome. The doco was shown at a local major theatre and I was most impressed. These same people are making another one about the role of different cultures and their foods, cooking etc that they’ve brought to this area and Oz as a whole. I look forward to that one too! But, apart from that - no experience whatever!
Did you watch ‘Gasland’? Terrifying isn’t it? What really scared me was the fact that it was during the Bush years, via Cheney etc that Laws protecting farmers and others from cancer causing agents were removed as were land owners rights? I think this is what the CSG interests are doing in Australia - and they’ll succeed if we let them!
A couple of months ago there was a rally at Austinmer beach (south of Sydney) and 4000 people spelt out a ‘human message’ on the beach. I was crook and couldn’t go, but it was most impressive and a good turnout considering that parking is pretty hard to find at any time?
Did I ‘hear’ someone refer to Abbott being a rhodes Scolar? You’d think he’d be able to annunciate english words better than he does? ‘surewar’ for ‘sure’for example? Even 7 yr olds speak much better than he does - without the ‘mouth sounds too’? Drives me nuts!
TTH - What if gas was found under St Mary’s Cathedral in Sydney, or St Andrews etc? Think they might have a case against the mining companies?I support the ‘Lock The Gate’ people. It’s important to note, that many farmers and members of The Greens and other environmental /political groups are standing side by side on this issue.
It may seem strange to you, but it is possible to stand together on an important issue, while having differences of opinion on others. I’ll stand beside any conservative on this issue - gladly!
The article in the SMG GoodWeekend has the numbers of mines operating and those in the pipeline. I was shocked! It’s just plain ridiculous to take any risks with health, food and peoples’ future economic assets. How can you sell a farm with holes all over it? We know from past experience that these companies give not one s**t about cleaning up after themselves, nor are they forced to.
This should not be a left/right issue. This is about caring for our planet and our compatriots right to earn a living by growing our food, and protecting agricultural land for all our futures - it’s a miniscule amount really. We can’t afford to stuff it up!
I believe that rendering these properties valueless is akin to stealing your money for your retirement out of the bank or credit union or under your bed?
@BOB THE BUILDER - One only needs to look at the Amendments the Howard Govt made to the Native Title Act of ‘92 to realise what and why they did it. (I have copies of both on my bookshelf.) Couple this with the Intervention; the doubling of Applications for mining leases on aboriginal land since 2007 and it’s very easy to see what the plan was - it had nought to do with protecting kids or improving the lives of indigenous people - the plan was and still is to push people off their homelands! It’s abhorrent and I’m totally against it. The reality since ‘07 also makes it clear why the Racial Discrimination Act was terminated - land grab! It’s as simple, and as diabolical as that!
I have before me a small book put out by aboriginal people about the so-called ‘consultation’ between them and the Minister. It’s called, ‘This is What We Said’?
I support the aboriginal people in their quest to over turn the Intervention, resume the Racial Disc.Act and ensure their rights to continue living their lives on their land - without it being resumed for the wealthy mining companies to destroy!
Whats Gillards position on farmers rights?
Deadly silence from the Gillard Government.
They can attack Tony for having a view, but are too gutless to give us theirs.
To the limited extent that I follow the tea-leaf reading that passes for political coverage, I think Labor is attacking the Mad Monk for having two - mutually contradictory - views. Hardly unreasonable.
But whats Labors position?
Not having a position ISN’T a position
The federal government, subject to the Melbourne Corporation Principle if applicable, has legislative power under section 51 over taxation of minerals underground (nothwithstanding States’ interests) by virtue of, among others, the Trade and Commerce Power (s51(i)), the Taxation Power (s51(ii)) and the Corporations Power (s51(xx)).
TTH - unless the ALP state a desire to change the way things are operating, the status quo - thats their position. They could, however, take a leaf out of Tony’s book and tell people whatever they want to hear, and just like Tony they’d be promptly reminded who wields a big stick. And they’d also have the liberals berating them for inconsistent policy, creating uncertainty, etc. Actually, sorry, they probably also got a reminder from those that weild the stick …
But you can keep hoping the goverment will come out and state what is the current policy position in the hope they say something that can be turned against them. Or, they could sit by and watch Tony struggle with foot in mouth.
I’m gathering they’ll happily sit back and watch Tony eat foot.
TheTruthHurts: Yes, but equally, having contradictory positions isn’t having a position either. IMO Tony is waiting for Labor to announce support before he jellifies[1] his own position.
[1] I’d say solidify, but that isn’t Tony’s forte. He’s Mr Jellyman, the epitome of the flipflop.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
@MESKI — Posted Tuesday, 16 August 2011 at 4:07 pm
It’s just mindboggling that you’re having to bother to point out so carefully such clear self evident truths.
Peirce Ackerman was playing the totally dumbed-down repetition machine idiot on ABC TV’s Insiders last Sunday with “how is a tax going to lower the temperature even 1 degree”.
Regardless of how dumb that sounds to us who know how that will happen there are a lots of less knowledgeable people who don’t know how, and when they hear the question over and over they start feeling a legitimate question is asked as there general knowledge lacks a confident understanding of how that complex thing happens. Ask them in return how does paying income tax (lower the chance that you are killed in a traffic accident ….. as) make you live longer?
Their game (unless they are truly dim-witted) is to just keep repeating a nonsense statement/request as if they are making sense.
I think we can all sum up THETRUTHHURTS posts in this thread as per the following:
“Peirce Ackerman was playing the totally dumbed-down repetition machine idiot on ABC TV’s Insiders last Sunday “
He’s been doing it since the program’s inception.
@LIZ45 - Hi Liz, like your comments - only problem with gates is that they are above ground not what is going on underneath - wasn’t this (drilling under ground at an angle) one of the pretexts of Iraq/Kuwait melee? At least Tony Windsor is in action mode.
As for:
Rhodes’ legacy specified four standards by which applicants were to be judged:
Literary and scholastic attainments;
Energy to use one’s talents to the fullest, as exemplified by fondness for and success in sports;
Truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship;
Moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodes_Scholarship
I don’t know where you’ve been in the past few months, BOBALOT, if you were expecting TTH to actually post a comment that is relevant to the article. At least he spared us his usual pink batts/school halls twaddle.
Cheers
In a healthy, vibrant democracy lively debates and a diversity of opinions are essential and should be encouraged. Extremist views however, once aired, must subsequently be subjected to vigorous scrutiny
In our current sick environment of widespread ignorance, intolerance and selfishness only exposure and rigorous curtailing of damaging practices will prevent the destruction of what is left of our civil society.
Example 1: When a person with all the above attributes and a willingness to spread fear and uncertainty in the public in order to gain power must be condemned. A person like that is a disgrace and has no place in a civil society.
Example 2: When a media outlet publishes lies or spreads misinformation, immediate action is warranted to prevent further damage to our already adversely effected national psyche.
I suggest since TTH and BLAKE never add anything to a reasonable debate why not simply ignore their “efforts”. If nobody responds to their often ludicrous comments maybe they hopefully give up and just fade away.
I know “do not feed the trolls” - but dammit, sometimes it’s hard to resist.
gocomsys, hear hear !
he gets on these blogs just to wind people up
just ignore them is the correct advice
@ GoComSys @ Cairns50
I wont be fading away or giving up, Sirs.
You are in the minority. Just ask your mate ex labor MP Graham Richardson.
The majority of Australians are angry and have a right to voice their concerns and disconnet with the Federal Government.
@Harvey & Malcolm: It’s Piers raison d’être.
Dr Harvey M Tarvydas
@MALCOLM STREET — Posted Wednesday, 17 August 2011 at 7:54 am
I rarely watch it so thanks for the tip.
@MESKI — Posted Wednesday, 17 August 2011 at 5:37 pm
Thanks, the Piers equivalents here don’t have the audience that he has and the celebrity (God only knows why) he is granted.
Liz45,
The trick will be if you can get Suzanne B and THH to watch it (Gaslands) and if they somehow forced themselves to do so to recognize that there is a chance that they make a point worth considering.
Correction…They(Gaslands) may be making a point worth considering.