“I’ve bagged these inner-city types over the years, but at least they have a sense of common good.”
These were the words of Mark Latham in his diaries after he was beaten by John Howard at the 2004 federal election. After many years of disparaging progressives and trying to build a support base out of “battlers” and “aspirationals”, he was outdone by Howard. Only then, could he sympathise with the seemingly one section of the population that cared.
Heading into the Queensland election, there appears to be two groups who care about the issues. And although they have formed an alliance at the grassroots level, they aren’t being given a united voice at the ballot box.
Two years ago, environmentalist and former Greens candidate Drew Hutton was fed up with the burgeoning and relatively unchecked expansion of Queensland’s coal seam gas (CSG) industry. Fearing the devastating effects fracking could have on the underground aquifers of the Great Artesian Basin, he came to the conclusion that the only way to fight the industry was to unite two groups that had for so long fought each other: farmers and environmentalists.
He would spend much of the next six months visiting farmers to forge a coalition.
One day, a farmer opened his door and said to the long-time activist, “I know you. You’re Drew Hutton, you’re that guy who’s responsible for all those bloody tree clearing laws.” Hutton replied: “Can I talk to you about coal seam gas?” “Sure, come on in …”
Two years later, and Hutton’s Lock The Gate Alliance has made plenty of ground. Nowadays, Hutton finds himself in agreement with a diverse range of people. He is invited by his old tennis coach Alan Jones to discuss CSG on the notorious shock jock’s radio show. It can be a surreal experience listening to Hutton and Jones have a yarn about all these fracking, as if there’s not an issue in the world that separates the two.
But for Hutton, there’s nothing surreal about it: “It’s not surreal for me … because I’ve spent the last two years talking with farmers who are socially conservative.”
It’s not just Jones who is backing the long-time Greenie. Last year, coming out of his court case in Dalby after he was arrested for joining a blockade against the construction of a CSG pipeline, Hutton was welcomed by two Bobs — Katter and Brown that is.
The Senate committee chaired by Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan investigating the CSG industry released its findings and recommendations late last year, recommending a moratorium on further exploration until further research is undertaken.
And CSG is shaping up to be a significant issue at the upcoming state election. The LNP member for Dalrymple Shane Knuth recently defected to Katter’s Australian Party, citing CSG as a huge factor in his decision. LNP leader Campbell Newman has since given some ground, ruling out Arrow Energy’s plans to mine CSG in the Scenic Rim, south of Brisbane.
Although last month’s 10-day blockade of Arrow Energy’s drill site in the Kerry Valley ended with the company drilling on, the protesters garnered national recognition. One cannot help but be moved by a YouTube video filmed on the last day of the blockade: landholder Rod Anderson gives an impassioned plea for public recognition of their plight before trucks leave the site driving over farmers’ Akubra hats.
Early on, Hutton saw that a strategic alliance between the two groups wasn’t just possible, but necessary.
“Because neither side could win it on their own,” he says. ” I think it’s been a massive success because each side was prepared to work with the other and acknowledge that there have been differences in the past and will be in the future, but on this issue we’re in complete agreement.”
According to Hutton, just as farmers need to understand how important it is to look after the environment, environmentalists needed to accept that sustainability is at the core of good farming enterprise: “I don’t see why there has to be any fundamental clash between environmentalists and farmers, in fact the best farmers are good environmentalists — the better the farmer the better the environmentalist.”
But the question that has yet to be really explored is this: can these groups be united at an election? Hutton says uniting the two constituencies at a political level wasn’t his goal, but thinks it could be possible.
He recently called for the Greens and Katter’s Australian Party to swap preferences at the election, which both parties didn’t quite warm to. So could it really be done?
Heading into the election, they appear to be the two constituencies that will be more swayed by the issues, rather than funding announcements. For example, landholders in North Queensland and Western Australia with little threat of CSG are concerned about their fellow farmers’ plight down south and to the east, because they care about the land.
These two groups united would pose a considerable block of the population that politicians from all sides wouldn’t be able to ignore. The Greens and National Party voters from the 2010 federal election total 15.5% of the vote. That’s not even taking into account the progressive vote for Labor and the vast amount of people in rural areas who feel let down by the National Party and opt for independents or other parties.
But we can’t discount the gulf that divides the two groups. Farmers are, generally, socially conservative. They are opposed to social changes such as gay marriage and increased migration. And just as social issues heavily affect the way rural constituents vote, so too for progressives.
But with India and China’s rapidly expanding middle class increasing the demand for gas (and with the ability to liquify the gas for export), it is predicted that there will be 40,000 gas wells in Queensland by 2030. So the issues around land rights and the contamination of the water supply will only get greater, increasing the chance that the economic and environmental issues will eventually trump the social issues when the two groups walk into the ballot box.
The Greens and Katter could take the first step by heeding Hutton’s advice to preference each other at the next election. With the two major parties hardly giving the issue a look-in, it would make a tonne of sense to give environmentalists and farmers a united voice this election.
CORRECTION: The original version of this article stated a prediction that there will be 4000 gas wells in Queensland by 2030. It should have said 40,000.
*Stay tuned for a special joint investigation by Crikey and the team at FAQ Research into the issue of coal seam gas in the lead-up to the Queensland election
16 thoughts on “Qld election: can greenies and farmers unite on CSG?”
michael crook
February 15, 2012 at 12:10 amSorry, should be “walking for a future” , follow their adventures on facebook.
LisaCrago
February 15, 2012 at 8:51 amGalloway Anthony, I don’t mind sounding pedantic on this one as by its very nature electoral voter behaviour is all about the details.
You are looking at a single election result and this is not an accurate analysis of who *followed* a political party’s HTV card.
We get this answer when we ask the voters; “Who did your vote for” + “who did you preference” + “did you follow a HTV card”.
In Fed elections for the House of Representatives, Green Voters preference the ALP 80% of the time regardless of what is printed on the Greens HTV card.
This leads one to ask; Why does anyone especially the ALP bother chasing Green preferences?
It is mainly due to the preference deals done for the Senate/Upper House group voting tickets and such a deal is not relevant to this QLD election.
Being united on an issue like CSG may unite KAP and the Greens In The House but it transposes to a big fat Nothing as far as a preference swap printed on a HTV card handed out on election day.
Peter Ormonde
February 15, 2012 at 9:20 amAn old commie ratbag mate of mine – George Mulholland – used to supplement his aged pension with a little gold prospecting our in the bush. George was also a bit of a bush lawyer. And he was pretty good at it for a bloke who had no schooling to speak of.
The embryonic environment movement was campaigning against a local toxic lead refinery. NSW Health wanted to tests the locals for lead and the Sulphide Corporation was fighting it every step of the way.
George gets this idea – he got lots of them – channeling Don Quixote I used to think.
Next thing anyone knows George has slapped a permit of some sort on the front lawns of the company’s offices, has set up camp and is running a noisy stinking smoking diesel drill into their turfed and manicured gardens 24/7. Drove ’em nut. Drove the coppers nuts. Drove the company to the negotiating table in two weeks.
One of Australia’s truly wonderful characters … and a complete and utter card-carrying ratbag. I miss old George. I miss all the old Georges.
Anyone had a look at the chance of CSG somewhere in the parliamentary triangle?
Out front of the war memorial, parliament house, the high court…. I reckon it looks quite promising myself.
Mike Flanagan
February 15, 2012 at 9:22 amConsidering the number of reports and studies that call for a moratorium on the expansion of our drive for the exploitatationof CSG you would think the industry, itself, would have second thoughts.
But no, we get the usual inaccurate assertions from their representatives that is only consistent with their demands for a short term impact on their bottom lines.
Here, we have an industry without the slightest regard to their long term impacts on the social fabric of communities, with complete disregard to the potential to have a massive degradation of our water, both surface and underground aquifers, and all to make a dollar for their overseas dominated share register members.
This is yet another manifestation of the corporatisation of the principles of democracy.
It is time the people demanded their principles back from the avaricious corporations who rape and pillage our resources and way of life, for their short term gains and depart the nation like theives in the night.
Karen
February 15, 2012 at 9:56 am@Simon Mansfield – clearly you don’t live in a CSG affected area to make that ‘sleight of hand’ and wilfully blind comment about ‘properly mined CSG and shale gas’. There is no such thing on existing technologies. That’s the point. If there was a safe alternative, this would not be the issue that it is.
Unfortunately, fracking technology introduces carcinogenic pollutants to break up rock deep below the earth; the drilling and the extraction process also causes depressurisation and land subsidence, as alluded to in Heidi’s excellent post. The results world-wide have been obvious and dreadful, as they have been here.
Peter Ormonde
February 15, 2012 at 10:09 amG’day Karen,
Not just the frakking I reckon. More to it that that … It is also about the industrialisation of the rural landscape. The irretrievable loss of something we deeply treasure. Something that makes us, us.
We are talking about 40,000 wells in Queensland alone. We are talking about 10s of thousands of kilometers of silver pipeline snaking all over the bush. Of concrete pads, tanks, access roads, cleared bush, compacted topsoils… We are just throwing away the look of the place as if it was worthless to us.
A nation of strip miners. I reckon we should put together a new national anthem: Finder’s Keepers.
And now they’re writing poetry! Last time we saw anything like that the audience was wearing uniforms.
I’m hoping Gina next turns her talents towards opera … Mine Mine All Mine!
The “parrot” could do the music.
We live like locusts.