Australia is Indirectly Meddling in Indonesia

When John Howard met recently with Indonesian President Megawati Soekarnoputri he got an important assurance from her:  that Indonesia does not regard Australia as anti-Islam.  This was crucial in the light of the war against terrorism and possible conflict in the Gulf.  In return, Megawati raised the issue of Indonesian sovereignty, and her concern that Australian government funds to aid Australian non-government organisations were being used to support separatist movements in Indonesia.  All Howard could do was to give an undertaking that this was not the government's intent.

As Howard will discover, Indonesia's concerns are valid.  Australian foreign-aid NGOs are actively undermining the sovereignty of Indonesia and promoting independence for West Papua.  This was alluded to during the recent debate on the proposed anti-terrorism laws.  As a member of an Australian foreign-aid NGO noted in The Australian Financial Review last May:  "There are concerns if the bill is passed in its present form, organisations that directly support and provide advocacy for independence movements may be deregistered by the attorney-general and face other consequences resulting from a freedom movement being classified as a terrorist organisation".  (Nathan Laws, Australian Legal Resources International, AFR, May 16, 2002).

Although Howard will not find any government grants earmarked for "supporting independence in West Papua", the reality is that its funding often underwrites much of this activity and it is time that Australian official aid agency, AusAID, be made accountable.

For example Union Aid Abroad (APHEDA), the ACTU's own aid agency, states in its annual report that it "campaigns in support of independence in West Papua".

While the Australian government does not explicitly fund APHEDA's pro-independence campaign, it does so indirectly.  First, it gives it tax-deductibility status.  Second, the government, through AusAID, gives it 70 per cent of total funding.  In terms of funding, the term "non-government" is a bit of a misnomer.

APHEDA is not the sole Australian foreign NGO to support independence, it is just the most transparent about its intentions.  In a democracy, groups have a right to support causes peacefully.  But NGOs that rely heavily on government funding don't have these same unfettered rights.

This applies especially to the ABC.  The government-funded ABC was supporting the Morning Star Concert, an event designed to raise funds for West Papuan independence, until the Howard government stopped it.  Australia can play a role in West Papua by bringing the parties together and promoting dialogue, like in another troubled province, Aceh.

Supporting independence in West Papua is not in our national interest.  Nor is letting Australian NGOs run around with government money, seeking regime change in our most important neighbour.

ADVERTISEMENT

No Answer in the Wind

Sponsors of wind power are keen to promote it as not only clean and green but the modern way to meet our electricity requirements.  Governments, businesses and trendy unionists are all dazzled by the development, profits, and jobs that wind generators seem to offer.  And every week brings new proposals -- the latest being two in South Australia and one in NSW.

Over the four years to the end of last year, some 330 Megawatts of wind generation was installed in Australia and five times this amount is on the drawing boards.

This is a rapid growth from a standing start.  But it needs to be put in perspective -- the total installed power is less than one twentieth of that in the Latrobe Valley.  Moreover, windmills can only operate when the wind actually blows -- 25 per cent of the time.

Under scrutiny, the promises from wind development disappear.

All the employment (several thousand jobs) tends to be in Germany and Denmark where three firms dominate world manufacturing.

Profits from wind power are even more will o' the wisp.  They are entirely dependent on government subsidies.  These subsidies involve the consumer being forced to pay wind generators over twice the normal electricity price.

Moreover, the subsidies do not end there.  Because of its inherent unpredictability, wind power needs a great deal of back-up support if it is to be fed into power grids.  This plays havoc with fundamentally coal-based systems like those in most of Australia, where there is relatively little fast-starting hydro electricity.

It might be said, however, that wind is on a fast improving efficiency curve.  And so it is but so too are other power systems.  Hence the cost gap is unlikely to narrow appreciably.  And there are strict laws of physics which limit any future possible gains in efficiency.

Wind generators face another difficulty, a green backlash.  Having played the green card to win political support for the subsidies that wind generators require, their sponsors hardly expected this.  But, in Victoria at least, the generators are besieged by a determined and vociferous environmental lobby.  This has emerged because the best sites for windmills tend to be exposed promontories which are often in areas of great scenic value.  Even the mildest mannered nature lover tends to be irritated by a windfarm of a score or more 110 meter high behemoths emitting a steady thump-thump-thump in the wilderness or in picturesque spots.

Wind generation is indelibly linked to greenhouse and global warming:  does this exist;  if so, will it be harmful;  how can it be fixed and at what cost?  Under the Kyoto treaty, developed countries agreed to limit their emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases".  Australia and the US have refused to join the treaty but intend to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with its provisions.  But whatever the long term solutions may be, wind can never offer much help.

ADVERTISEMENT

Business Opposes IR Changes

Most in the construction industry expect that after the Cole Royal Commission presents its report in late February a few fall guys may go to jail but over time the status quo for doing business will return.  However, there are persistent indicators that the Commission could produce reverberations beyond the construction industry and affect the institutional way Australian business has traditionally operated.

This is highlighted in a late submission to the Commission from the Australian Industry Group which expresses concern that the Commission should contemplate removing or changing "employment" exemptions from the Trade Practice Act [s51(2)(a)].  AIG claims that these exemptions are, "the very foundations upon which Australia's industrial relations system is built".

At first glance the concern seems odd.  After all isn't industrial relations fought over provisions in industrial relations legislation?  But the AIG unmasks the real suppressed truth.  Industrial relations is the mechanism by which Australian business is delivered relief from significant competition and consumer protection enforcement requirements of the Trade Practices Act.

Because of the TPA employment exemptions, it is lawful for businesses to meet collectively within and across businesses, and to organize with unions to fix prices for the largest cost element of business:  labour.  Similar activity with any other cost item is collusive and illegal.

Seen from this angle, industrial relations loses the charade of "bosses versus workers" and "workers rights" hype and looks more like an argument over how competitive Australia will require its businesses to be.  It's an issue into which the Cole Commission was drawn.

Evidence before the Commission has uncovered the expected bully-boy tactics of unions enforcing their preferred form of labour but in addition building unions have been aggressively extending their reach into non-employment matters.  For example union service fees are aggressively pushed by building unions, but are a conceptual breach of third line forcing provisions in the Trade Practices Act.  It is illegal to make a condition of one contract, a requirement to enter a contract with a third party.  But union service fees force a worker to enter a contract with a union, as a condition of being in an employment contract.

This one example is systemically replicated many times and in many ways in the construction industry as unions use the mask of TPA employment exemptions to advance their objectives.  This suits some building companies and contractors who find the industrial relations dynamic limits competition against them in ways that would normally be illegal.  Within certain bounds businesses secretly welcome union activity if the activity constrains their competitors.

The Cole Commission must have seen enough in the construction industry to become suspicious, and opened up a line of enquiry concerning the appropriateness of the TPA employment exemption, to see if the exemption institutionally underpins systemic illegality in the construction sector.

But this line of enquiry has panicked the AIG who claim the removal of the exemption would "cripple a private employers human resources activities" and "prevent employer associations and unions effectively representing the collective interests of their members".  Business is clearly worried.

The AIG seems to suggest that Australian business could not function if it had to apply commercial law to labour areas.  But this does not explain how the 26% of the private sector workforce who work but are not "employed," manage to earn a living while subject to the full provisions of the TPA.

As with all Royal Commissions a bigger issue has emerged than that perhaps originally contemplated.  What the Cole Commission may have uncovered is that Australian industrial relations is not principally about protecting workers but is about the institutionalized protection of business from the full blast of competition law.

What now may be at stake is the concept of how business, or perhaps big business operates in Australia.  Where the focus of arguments is usually on the mind numbing complexity of industrial relations law, the real debate seems to be an old, simple and familiar one, namely protection versus competition.

When the Cole Commission releases its report, what it says on this issue more than any other could perhaps have huge impact on how business is constructed and conducted in Australia.  In policy terms the union story could prove a side issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

Biotech is Revolutionising Agriculture

Few technologies have offered so much and at the same time been demonised by so many as genetically modified crops.

Well we now have thousands of detailed evaluations based on over eight years of large scale commercial use.  And the evidence comes down overwhelmingly in favour of the technology.  Indeed the evidence is so powerful it brings into question the credibility and standing of the many anti-biotech groups.

The only GM crop currently grown commercially in Australia is BT cotton and it has proven to be highly popular with farmers (Commercial planting of GM canola is expected to start this year).  Cotton farmers have consistently planted as much of GM variety as the regulars allow.  The reason is that it has allowed them to cut their pesticide use over 50%.  Moreover the largest cuts have been in the most costly and dangerous types of pesticide.  This has translated into lower costs and higher profits as well as a huge reduction environmental impact and a new variety of BT cotton is in test stage which offers even larger reduction in pesticide use and costs.

The Australian results for GM cotton have been duplicated around the world with rapid up-take in all major cotton growing nations.  The results from China and Indonesia are particularly heartening.  In these countries most cotton is grown by small farmers who apply pesticide via handheld sprayers.  This has lead to very high rates of poisoning of farmers -- around 30 per cent in China -- using non-GM cotton.  Recent studies have shown that GM cotton has cut pesticide use by 60 per cent and cut the rate of human poisoning by 75 per cent.

While not currently grown in Australia, GM soybean is the most widely grown GM crop accounting for 74 per cent of North American soy crop.  GM soy has not only led to lower pesticide use (by 40 per cent) but higher returns (up by 30 per cent).  Importantly it has facilitated no-till farming which helps preserve soil and wildlife habitat.

Importantly none of the many scares promoted by the anti-GM activist has proven accurate.  There has been no spread of "the super-weed".  GM crops have proven to be help to Monarch butterfly and to honey bee populations not harmful.  GM crops have increased farm income not reduced it.  And small farmers in developing countries have been amongst the largest beneficiaries.

While the European Union has done its best to stop the spread of the technology -- including providing $350 million to anti-GM activist organisation -- all indicators including allowable countries, acreage and crop types continues to expand.

Importantly we are starting to see new types of "medicinal GM crops".  Golden rice which has been developed with added Vitamin A to help combat blindness in children will enter commercial use this year.  Trials will begin this year on drought resistant wheat and "waterless rice".

Unfortunate the success of the technology has had no impact on its opponents.  They have continued their campaign to stop the technology and its benefits.  That they call themselves environmentalist or humanitarian is a Monty Pythonish joke.

Lets hope science and sense rule over propaganda and greed.

ADVERTISEMENT