The White Picket Fence

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Green groups and the government: A dangerous duopoly

''Coalition victory could set climate agenda back years ... Environment group Friends of the Earth (FoE) has expressed grave concern at the prospect of the Coalition taking power following yesterday's state election because of its approach to climate change issues.''

-- Cam Walker, Friends of the Earth Spokesperson, the day after the 2010 Victorian State Election. Friends of the Earth received $55,000 from the Victorian Government during 2009-10

INTRODUCTION

Governments are using public money and fine revenue to fund advocacy organisations to encourage behavioural change in the community.

In some cases, advocacy organisations which have received taxpayer support have conducted extensive political and legal campaigns against government and opposition parties, as well as major Australian businesses and industry sectors.

This purposeful misallocation of public funds represents a dangerous new duopoly between green groups and government, as well as an outrageous abuse of taxpayers trust.

A government grants and penalty system which has become completely politicised and discredited must never be permitted to stand.

An immediate review of third party funding arrangements is necessary to restore the publics trust.

COMMENTARY

The central mission of contemporary government is to enhance the lives of its citizens.

Over the past two decades, in both New South Wales and Victoria, the motto ''a great place to live, work and raise a family'' ⁽¹⁾ was heralded as the guiding motivation for the two Labor Governments which governed there between 1995-2011 (New South Wales) and 1999-2010 (Victoria). Yet despite this gallant ethos, multiple governments operating in these two jurisdictions have been using taxpayer funds to support the operations of environmental and political action groups which unashamedly act against the best interests of the public, and routinely campaign against the governments / oppositions which fund and / or oppose their agenda.

Funding to these organisations has been distributed through a series of grants and programme funding rounds overseen by government. In some cases, the funds have been specifically provided ''to assist with salaries and salary on-costs for executive and administrative staff; office accommodation rental; electricity, gas, phone and other similar charges; essential office supplies and equipment; staff and volunteer training; photocopying and printing costs; and travel costs incurred on behalf of the organisation.'' ⁽²⁾

According to IPA research, these organisations have been the beneficiaries of over $10 million ⁽³⁾ of taxpayer funds since 2004, although this is not exhaustive account.

Upon receiving government support, these organisations have used public funds to promote their radical economic, cultural and social agendas to the wider community, including impressionable school children. Actively engaged in the political process, some of these organisations have also directly campaign against political parties and governments. Often operating under the guise of environmental altruism, these organisations advocate, defend and preach a number of policy positions which flow against the interests and values of ordinary Australians. Some of their positions include:

The mass retrenchment of jobs in the coal mining, exporting and power generation sectors -- resulting in the devastation of regional communities and export businesses;
The promotion of a carbon pricing mechanism (with minimal transition support) which seeks to increase the cost of almost everything in the economy including electricity, petrol, gas prices and manufactured goods;
The dismantlement of the logging and wood processing sectors -- resulting in job losses and factory closures;
Curtailing mining, drilling and resource exploration activity -- resulting in reduced Australian and foreign investment, lower export income and industry retrenchments;
Halting the expansion of the community's urban footprint -- resulting in land shortages, higher housing prices and the accelerated densification of existing suburbs;
Curbing population growth -- resulting in skills shortages, wage pressures and a radical redefinition of the consequences of human reproduction;
Opposition to the construction of essential community infrastructure such as roads, highways, freeways, ports, power stations and dams -- leading to increasing congestion, electricity and water price rises, and higher construction and transportation costs;
Higher taxes on businesses and individuals -- leading to reduced discretionary spending power for families and decreased international competitiveness;
Tougher regulatory and auditory controls over businesses -- leading to amplified red tape and fines for businesses, and higher end costs for consumers; and,
Prosecution of publicly funded political campaigns against political opponents, including the governments which fund their activities.

While the official objectives and emphasis of each organisation varies, their overriding philosophical motivations are the same -- to fundamentally change the way Australians, consume, behave and act.

Over the past seven years, the following government departments and statutory authorities have provided generous financial assistance to these groups:

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water (New South Wales)
Department of Justice (Victoria);
Department of Sustainability and Environment (Victoria);
Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Federal)
Department of Transport (Victoria);
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) (Victoria);
Legal Services Board (LSB) (Victoria); and,
Sustainability Victoria (SV) (Victoria)

There are two troubling aspects to this unfortunate situation which warrant discussion:

The contradictory nature of government policy priorities; and,
The blatant abuse of taxpayer funds and trust

CONTRADICTORY NATURE OF GOVERNMENT POLICY PRIORITIES

The idea that an Australian government would actively seek to reduce the living standards of the general public is an anathema to ordinary Australians. Consequently, it will come as a surprise to learn that several Australian governments have been funnelling taxpayer-financed grants and preferments to advocacy organisations which seek to promote that very cause.

There are two key organisations which warrant specific mention, Environment Victoria and the Wilderness Society.

In the case of Environment Victoria, this is an organisation which is committed to putting thousands of Victorians in the La Trobe Valley out of work (coal miners and coal power station employees). ⁽⁴⁾ Moreover, Environment Victoria is actively seeking to dramatically increase the cost of electricity for Victoria's businesses and citizens by seeking the closure of all the coal-fired power plants in the region, including the short term closure of Hazelwood. ⁽⁵⁾

For many Victorian taxpayers, it will no doubt be strange to learn that despite their elected Governments routinely promoting the future of the local coal industry, ⁽⁶⁾ they were also funnelling almost $4 million into an organisation seeking its destruction. ⁽⁷⁾ In the case of Environment Victoria, that is exactly what the former Victorian Government and current Federal Government did between 2004-2010 and 2007-10 respectively.

A prime example of the same thing taking place in New South Wales occurred with the financial support provided by the former Government to the environmental activist group, the Wilderness Society. The Wilderness Society regularly campaigns against major project developments throughout the state of New South Wales. They do so because they have an ideological objection to large scale development. In their own words, the Wilderness Society believes that ...

... ''if it can't be proven beyond doubt that a development will not impact on the environment, a community, or existing industries, it should not go ahead. It's as simple as that''. ⁽⁸⁾

By holding such an uncompromising position, it seems impossible for any government intent upon improving living standards to find common ground with such an organisation. Yet despite these ideological differences, the New South Wales Government continued to provide financial support to the organisation, going as far as directly subsidising ''their administrative costs''. ⁽⁹⁾

Sadly, examples of contradictory policy settings within government are not particularly hard to find. In fact, the two-faced nature of government policy priorities in this space is honeycombed throughout almost all of the environmental and industry related portfolios.

If the public's faith in government policy priorities is to be effectively restored, and the conflicts of interests which permeate funding priorities are to be completely eliminated, then all arrangements which permit such activities to occur must be reformed. Anything less would amount to a tacit endorsement of double-dealing in government.

ABUSE OF TAXPAYERS' FUNDS AND TRUST

The financial relationship which exists between governments and their citizens is always a tense one. Due to the nature of tax collection, and the history of repeated government misuse of taxpayer funds, most Australians remain sceptical of the breadth, reach, utilisation and effectiveness of government taxation.

Consequently, it will come as a great disappointment for many Australians to learn that their taxes are being used to support organisations which:

Advocate radical economic, environmental or cultural agendas;
Engage in political and ideological campaigns against the government and / or opposition parties; and,
Waste taxpayers funds on activities of dubious community value.

However, what will undoubtedly upset Australian taxpayers most of all is the fact that many of the environmental organisations which are receiving government funding do not support or even espouse mainstream values. In some cases, these organisations conduct extensive political and legal campaigns against those who do.

Three important examples of this kind of activity can be found in the public comments of the Australian Conservation Foundation, the Friends of the Earth and Surf Coast Energy Group.

In the case of the Australian Conservation Foundation, an organisation which has received funding from the Victorian and New South Wales Governments, ⁽¹⁰⁾ it has publicly called upon the Federal Government to redefine human reproduction as a threat to our wildlife. ⁽¹¹⁾ By singling out population growth as a serious threat, the Australian Conservation Foundation is seeking to have the Federal Government abandon mainstream values and instead adopt its own radical social change agenda.

In relation to the Friends of the Earth, their activities represent a different kind of breach of trust -- one of political neutrality. It is a generally accepted principle in Australia that taxpayers' funds should not be directed to organisations for use in political activity -- unless sanctioned by AEC approved election funding arrangements. ⁽¹²⁾ However, despite this very important point, generous financial support has been given to the Friends of the Earth -- an organisation which has aggressively campaigned against multiple political parties in Victoria and New South Wales. ⁽¹³⁾ While there is always room for alternative opinion in Australia's political discourse, it is something else entirely to be funding its promotion at the taxpayers' expense.

Concerning Surf Coast Energy Group, this organisation's recent funding boost ⁽¹⁴⁾ is an excellent example of how governments waste taxpayer funds on frivolous environmental endeavours unrelated to their primary responsibilities. In September 2010, the Surf Coast Energy Group received $50,000 to help Victorians grow household food. Evidently, this funding allocation represents a bizarre diversion from the core business of government. Put simply, taxpayers do not pay tax to subsidise the green thumb hobbies of other citizens.

Sadly, government funding of groups like those mentioned above is not an uncommon occurrence in Australia. In addition to it being a function anomalous to the primary role of government, its existence represents a serious misallocation of public funds and an outrageous abuse of taxpayers trust. It also represents a glaring breakdown of the supposed checks and balances which should be operating within all government departments. Short of investigating the end uses of such inappropriate allocations, funding to third parties which have engaged in similar practices should cease immediately.

CONCLUSION

What is evident from this review is that the former Victorian and New South Wales Governments, and the current Federal Government, have each failed to enforce suitable checks and balances over the allocations of government funds to third party groups.

In each of these three cases, third party funding arrangements have been exposed as being poorly targeted, politically biased, weakly monitored and operationally irrelevant in terms of serving a credible function of government.

Additionally, the growth of these funding abuses also represents a worrying trend in the expansion of a dangerous duopoly between green groups and government.

In order to remedy the situation, the current Victorian, New South Wales and Federal Governments should each commence an extensive review of their third party funding practices. The goal of this effort should be to restore the community's faith, stop the reckless waste, and put to an end the abuse of public funds.

Australian taxpayers, overtaxed as they already are, deserve and expect nothing less.

CASE STUDIES

4.1 ENVIRONMENT VICTORIA

Environment Victoria asserts that it is the ''peak non-government environment group in Victoria''. ⁽¹⁵⁾ Its primary objective is to mobilise all Victorians to safeguard the environment.'' ⁽¹⁶⁾ ⁽¹⁷⁾ Funding: Over $4 million has been provided by the Victorian and Federal Governments since 2004.

Funding Sources:

Victorian Government

Department of Sustainability and Environment

Environment Policy and Climate Change Grant, 2009-10: $600,000; ⁽¹⁸⁾
Sustainable Water Management and Supply Grant, 2009-10: $188,180; ⁽¹⁹⁾ and,
Regional Sustainable Living Program (In partnership with Sustainability Victoria, the Australian Conservation Foundation and Clear Horizon Consulting) -- Delivery of the Eco-Wise Action, Seniors Eco-Wise, Families Go-Green and Youth Eco-Challenge, ⁽²⁰⁾ 2006-10: $2,100,000. ⁽²¹⁾

Sustainability Victoria

Flemington Green -- Neighbourhood Renewal Project, Round 4, 2010: ⁽²²⁾ Amount undisclosed;
GreenTown -- Growing Sustainable Action with Diverse Communities -- Sustainability Fund Open Round 4, 2009-10: $300,000; ⁽²³⁾
GreenTown -- Multicultural Communities for Sustainability (Trains 40 environmental champions) -- Sustainability Fund -- Sustainable Communities Round 3, 2008: $560,647; ⁽²⁴⁾ and,
Nha Dep Green Purchasing Program (Vietnamese Community Sustainability Education Program) -- Sustainability Fund -- Behaviour Change and Community Engagement Projects Round 1, 2004-08: $182,000. ⁽²⁵⁾

Federal Government

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Grant Allocation Round, 2008ƒ{09 (received funding for three years): $87,000; ⁽²⁶⁾ and,
Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Grant Allocation Round, 2007ƒ{08: $55,000. ⁽²⁷⁾

Background

Environment Victoria is one of the largest recipients of government funding amongst Australia's environmental activist sector.

Some of Environment Victoria's key policy positions include opposition to future major road construction, the provision of land for residential housing and the long term survival of the Victorian coal industry.

''The Victorian Government should introduce a moratorium on new major road projects ....'' ⁽²⁸⁾ -- Environment Victoria, Government Submission

''The Victorian Government should recommit to principles of urban consolidation, and reverse its decision to expand the Urban Growth Boundary.'' ⁽³⁹⁾ -- Environment Victoria, Government Submission

''The state government needs to give up its obsession with developing the state's coal resources'' ⁽³⁰⁾ -- Mark Wakeham, Campaigns Director

Environment Victoria also works against the State and Federal Government's infrastructure, investment and energy strategies. In recent months, it has established an interactive website devoted to bringing ''about a moratorium on new coal projects, or the expansion of existing coal projects for Victoria''. ⁽³¹⁾

In Environment Victoria's own words...

...''US activists have had huge success in recent years preventing the expansion of the coal industry there. We plan to replicate that success here.'' ⁽³²⁾

4.2 THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

The Wilderness Society ''is a community-based environmental protection organisation'' ⁽³³⁾ which seeks to promote its agenda through events such as ''marches and rallies, street theatre, parades and festivals, art exhibitions and media stunts.'' ⁽³⁴⁾

Funding: Over $120,000 has been provided by the New South Wales and Victorian Government's since 2009.

Funding Sources:

New South Wales Government

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial funding for 2009-12): $75,000 ⁽³⁵⁾

Victorian Government

Legal Services Board

''Assessment of Victoria's Environmental Laws and Regulatory Framework'' --Project Grant, 2009-10: $50,000 ⁽³⁶⁾

Background

Despite the Wilderness Society's radical positions on modern infrastructure development, and its aggressive political activity, a significant portion of its administrative costs are paid for courtesy of the former New South Wales Government. ⁽³⁷⁾

The Wilderness Society opposes the development of modern infrastructure and roads.

''If it can't be proven beyond doubt that a development will not impact on the environment, a community, or existing industries, it should not go ahead. It's as simple as that.¡¨ -- Warrick Jordan, Newcastle Campaigns Manager. ⁽³⁸⁾

''Our conclusion is that the two biggest parties, the ALP and the Liberal-National Coalition, have been missing-in-action on the environment this election ... Our final assessment shows that the Greens are way ahead on environmental policy.¡¨ ⁽⁴⁹⁾ -- Wilderness Society Media Release

4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS OFFICE

The Environmental Defenders Office ''is dedicated to protecting the environment in the public interest''. ⁽⁴⁰⁾ ''They provide legal representation and advice, take an active role in environmental law reform and policy formulation, and offer a significant education program designed to facilitate public participation in environmental decision making.'' ⁽⁴¹⁾

Funding: Over $1.1 million has been provided by the New South Wales and Victorian Governments since 2006.

Funding Sources:

New South Wales Government

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

Environmental Education -- Community Grants, 2010: $63,440; ⁽⁴²⁾
''Public Interest Environmental Law project -- Community extension'' -- Legal Services Board Major Grant, 2009-10: $599,000; ⁽⁴³⁾
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial fund for 2009-12): $180,000; ⁽⁴⁴⁾
Environmental Education -- Community Grants, 2008: $94,657; ⁽⁴⁵⁾
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2007: $30,000; ⁽⁴⁶⁾ and,
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2006 (triennial fund for 2006-09): $135,000. ⁽⁴⁷⁾

Victorian Government

Legal Services Board

''Improving Community Participation in Planning and Environment Appeals'' --Project Grant, 2007-08: <$50,000; ⁽⁴⁸⁾ and,
''Public Interest Environmental Law Project -- Major Grant 2007-08: >$50,000. ⁽⁵⁹⁾

Background

The Environmental Defenders Office provides legal services ''to regional, state and national conservation groups, resident action groups and individuals, to protect the built and natural environment.'' ⁽⁵⁰⁾ ''The Environmental Defenders Office makes it possible for individuals and groups who want to protect the environment to pursue public interest conservation issues through the legal and planning systems with expert, professional help.'' ⁽⁵¹⁾

By providing direct financial assistance to the Environmental Defenders Offices, the Victorian and New South Wales Governments are funding two organisations which regularly challenge or assist with challenging their policies and decisions through the legal system.

''In 2009-10 EDO provided legal representation in 73 public interest matters, including against the Victorian Planning Minister.'' ⁽⁵²⁾ ⁽⁵³⁾ Moreover, ''EDO ran 68 community education projects and 49 policy and law reform projects. ⁽⁵⁴⁾

By providing financial support to the EDO, these two governments increased the likelihood that they would face legal action or project disruption in the future -- which would also has the potential to undermine government performance and increase taxpayer costs.

In short, the Environmental Defenders Office acts as the primary legal support service of the broader Australian environmental movement -- and a substantial amount of their capacity to do so is funded by the taxpayer. Some examples include:

''This workshop introduces climate law in Australia to community groups, climate action groups and interested individuals....As a community campaigner for climate action, do you have questions about who you should be targeting and what you should be asking for?¡¨ -- Environmental Defenders Office Event Flyer: ''A crash course in climate law -- Training for community, climate action groups and individuals'' ⁽⁵⁵⁾

''The EDO has been working with peak environment groups for over a year to encourage the Murray-Darling Basin Authority and the Federal Government to produce a plan that will end decades of over-extraction of water and restore health to the Basin while supporting regional communities.'' -- Nicola Rivers, Law Reform Director. ⁽⁵⁶⁾

4.4 FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

Friends of the Earth ''is a grassroots and decentralised organisation that operates from an environmental justice perspective.'' ⁽⁵⁷⁾ Through Friends of the Earth International, Friends of the Earth (Australia) seeks to ''challenge the current model of economic and corporate globalisation.'' ⁽⁵⁸⁾

Funding: Over $60,000 has been provided by the Victorian and Federal Government's since 2008.

Funding Sources:

Victorian Government

Department of Sustainability and Environment

Forests and Parks Grant, 2009-10: $55,000 ⁽⁵⁹⁾

Federal Government

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Grant Allocation Round, 2008ƒ{09 (received funding for three years): $10,000 ⁽⁶⁰⁾

Background

Friends of the Earth is a federation of political activist organisations who advocate radical economic and environmental reform. Some of their most recent campaigns include opposing the expansion of the Victorian and Queensland coal industry and campaigning against the election of the Liberal-National Coalition in Victoria.

''Friends of the Earth (FoE) today condemned the announcement by the Brumby Government to give approval to a new coal-fired power station in the La Trobe Valley.'' ⁽⁶¹⁾ -- Louise Morris, Climate Campaigner

''The Queensland Government needs to be planning it's exit strategy from the coal industry rather than planning new coal ports and mines¡¨. -- Eleanor Smith, Spokesperson. ⁽⁶²⁾

''Coalition victory could set climate agenda back years...Environment group Friends of the Earth (FoE) has expressed grave concern at the prospect of the Coalition taking power following yesterday's state election because of its approach to climate change issues.¡¨ -- Cam Walker, Spokesperson. ⁽⁶³⁾

Friends of the Earth works against nationally significant infrastructure and investment initiatives. In April 2010, Friends of the Earth ''denounced the development of two new coal export terminals near Bowen in North Queensland'' ⁽⁶⁴⁾ which are both considered vital to the long term growth of Australia's export sector.

As with the Wilderness Society, a portion of the administrative costs for Friends of the Earth are paid for by the government -- in this case, the Federal Government. ⁽⁶⁵⁾

It should also be noted that Friends of the Earth promotes itself as an organisation which ''receives no government or corporate funding'' ⁽⁶⁶⁾ despite State and Federal Government records suggesting otherwise. ⁽⁶⁷⁾

4.5 TOTAL ENVIRONMENT CENTRE

The Total Environment Centre describes itself as ''a hub -- a resource and support base -- for environmentalists.'' ⁽⁶⁸⁾ ''Total Environment Centre has been campaigning for environment protection in the city and country, changing government policy, advising the community and challenging business -- since 1972.'' ⁽⁶⁹⁾ The ''Total Environment Centre chooses to concentrate its resources on direct campaign activity, lobbying and research.'' ⁽⁷⁰⁾

Funding: Over $450,000 has been provided by the New South Wales Government since 2006.

Funding Sources:

New South Wales Government

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

Environmental Education -- Community Grants, 2010: $46,620; ⁽⁷¹⁾
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial fund for 2009-12): $240,000; ⁽⁷²⁾
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2007: $30,000; ⁽⁷³⁾ and,
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2006 (triennial fund for 2006-09): $135,000. ⁽⁷⁴⁾

Background

Some of Total Environment Centre's key policy positions include opposing the construction of dam infrastructure and new coal-fired power stations.

Over the past half decade, the Total Environment Centre has regularly undermined the NSW Government's infrastructure delivery program. This is despite it receiving over $250,000 in government funding to cover its administrative costs. ⁽⁷⁵⁾

''Declaring Tillegra Dam critical infrastructure will ensure a sham assessment process...TEC has called on the Government to abandon the proposed Tillegra Dam...¡¨ ⁽⁷⁶⁾ -- Jeff Angel, Director

''Total Environment Centre (TEC) today slammed the NSW Government for keeping the door open for more polluting coal-fired power...''The Premier must immediately rule out any new coal-fired power.¡¨ -- Jane Castle, Senior Campaigner. ⁽⁷⁷⁾

4.6 AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION

The Australian Conservation Foundation has existed for over 40 years and seeks to ''inspire and promote a society which is environmentally aware and responsible.'' ⁽⁷⁸⁾ The ''Australian Conservation Foundation campaigns to protect, restore and sustain the environment.'' ⁽⁷⁹⁾

Funding: Over $2.9 million has been provided by the Victorian and New South Wales Government since 2006.

Funding Sources:

Victorian Government

Department of Sustainability and Environment

Environment Policy and Climate Change Grant, 2009-10: $600,000; ⁽⁸⁰⁾ and,
Green Home Program -- Helps regional Victorians become champions for sustainability, 2006-09: $2,100,000. ⁽⁸¹⁾

New South Wales Government

Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water

Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial fund for 2009-12): $120,000; ⁽⁸²⁾
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2007: $15,000; ⁽⁸³⁾ and,
Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2006 (triennial fund for 2006-09): $67,500. ⁽⁸⁴⁾

Background

Some of the Australian Conservation Foundation's policy positions include advocating higher business taxes and redefining human reproduction as a threat to Australian wildlife.

The Australian Conservation Foundation is a multi-year recipient of the New South Wales DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants. Despite its radical reproductive and taxation agenda, this organisation receives over $100,000 in financial support from the New South Wales Government for its administrative costs.

''If the government's proposal (Mining Tax) can be criticised at all, it is that it doesn't go far enough.¡¨ -- Charles Berger, Director of Strategic Ideas. ⁽⁸⁵⁾

''The Australian Conservation Foundation has asked the Federal Government to agree that population growth is a threat to our wildlife.'' -- Prof. Ian Lowe, President. ⁽⁸⁶⁾

4.7 CLIMATE COMMUNITIES PROGRAMME

The Climate Communities Programme was launched in 2010 and ''provides local groups across Victoria with advice, information, research and funding to take practical action on climate change in their own communities.'' ⁽⁸⁷⁾

Funding is sourced from the Sustainability Fund which is ''jointly administered by the Victorian Treasurer and Minister for Environment and Climate Change and managed by Sustainability Victoria on behalf of the Victorian Government.'' ⁽⁸⁸⁾

Funding: $10 million (over first three years) ⁽⁸⁹⁾

Background

The Climate Communities programme has been abusing its position as a non-political government information portal by directing Victorian citizens to the highly politicised activist group, Environment Victoria.

Through the following web address, Climate Communities has been encouraging visitors to visit and become associated with Environment Victoria. ⁽⁹⁰⁾

As established above, Environment Victoria actively campaigned against the Victorian Coalition in the 2010 State Election ⁽⁹¹⁾ and offered varying degrees of support for the Australian Labor Party (Victoria) and the Victorian Greens. ⁽⁹²⁾

REDISTRIBUTION OF EPA PROSECUTION REVENUE

Another area of concern is the former Victorian Government's practice of redistributing EPA prosecution revenue to environmental and political activist groups.

Within the State of Victoria, the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) is charged with working ''with other government agencies, industry and people in the community to reduce and control air and water pollution, waste and noise.'' ⁽⁹³⁾ As an established ''independent statutory authority under the Environment Protection Act 1970'', ⁽⁹⁴⁾ the EPA is able to prosecute organisations which it believes have breached that Act.

''Under section 67AC...a magistrate may direct a company or individual found guilty of environmental pollution to fund a community environmental project instead of, or in addition to, paying a fine.'' ⁽⁹⁵⁾

Through this provision, several political and environmental activist groups have been receiving funding support at the expense of government revenue. Over the past four years, prosecution revenue which has been redistributed to these groups has ranged from $750 to $210,000. ⁽⁹⁶⁾

This practice represents another unsatisfactory development in how governments are funnelling resources to dubious sources and / or politically and environmentally charged activist groups.

Two of the worst examples include the provision of $80,000 to the Future Canvas Group for the construction of a community garden in the Docklands ⁽⁹⁷⁾ and a $2,500 donation to the Friends of Merri Creek. ⁽⁹⁸⁾

While the Friends of Merri Creek donation is a very basic example of what happens when governments get sloppy with fine redistribution guidelines, the Docklands community garden represents something more serious -- an absurd waste of public funds.

The Future Canvas group project seeks to support the ''growing of fresh produce, community training, composting workshops, permaculture courses and urban gardening seminars.'' ⁽⁹⁹⁾ It also provides ''take-home farming kits, seedlings, tools and a pot.'' ⁽¹⁰⁰⁾

In the post Global Financial Crisis world, it seems unbelievable that a State Government which lacks the funds to effectively address declining housing affordability has the resources to subsidise the publics' green thumb interests.

These two examples are just a small sample of the destinations EPA prosecution fine revenue is going. While there are a few recipients which could claim to be deserving sources, the process by which they receive their funding is misguided.

Quite clearly, something has gone wrong in the decision making process if the Victorian Government believes the redirection of fine revenue to these causes, is more important than directing funding to the areas of primary government responsibility.

The recently elected Victorian Government is encouraged to conduct a thorough review of this misguided practice.

APPENDIX 1.

E.P.A. PRIOR CONVICTION REGISTER 2007-11

Outlined below is a summary of the EPA Prior Conviction Register 2007-11. The details contained within the list are not exhaustive, but highlight who was charged, what their alleged charge was, and who the court instructed the defendant to pay the fine revenue to (often without conviction).

WC = Without Conviction

Table 1. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2010-11

Defendant	Charge	Result (Fine revenue recipient)
Boskalis Australia Pty Ltd	Pollute waters of Port Phillip Bay. Contrary to s39(1) Cause or permit environmental hazard, to Port Philip Bay. Contrary to s.27A(1)(c) Enforceable Undertaking	Swinburne University: Funding a course on dredging and its environmental impacts. Swinburne University: $75,000 sponsorship of a PhD project on of Turbidity in Port Phillip and Coastal Areas of Victoria.
Visy Paper Pty Ltd	Permit an environmental hazard at Reservoir. Contrary to S.27A(2)(a) WC	City of Darebin: $100,000 for the Edwardes Lake: Circling the Lake Project: Involves revegetation of the lake, lighting installation, signage installation, education events and a recycling trial.
Barro Group Pty Ltd	Did dump, deposit, discard or abandon or permit to be dumped deposited, discarded or abandoned industrial waste at an unlicensed site, at Yea. Contrary to s.27A(2)(a) WC	Murrindindi Climate Network Inc.: $64,800 to develop a Murrindindi Green Business Code of Practice in bushfire communities. Yea Wetlands Trust: $60,000 development of an interpretive education centre (Discover-E Centre Interpretive Display). Involves Yea Wetlands Committee of Management, Murrindindi Shire Council and the University of Melbourne.
Swift Australia Pty Ltd	Did cause an environmental hazard at Yarraville. Contrary to s.27A(1)(c) WC	Brooklyn Residents Action Group Inc.: $50,000 to develop a green open space including tree planting and picnic facilities. Involves Hobson Bay City Council.

Table 2. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2009-2010

Defendant	Charge	Result (Fine revenue recipient)
West Point (Vic) Pty Ltd	Pollute atmosphere (make offensive to the senses of human beings) at Footscray. Contrary to s41(1)(a)	Gould Group: $80,000 for Sustainability Wiz, an interactive online waste reduction program with 8-12 schools. Covers teacher training, access to online tools, tool development, program coordination and tech support. Mission Australia: $80,000 for People and Places -- Buna and Mulahang Reserve Redevelopment. Covers the development of a community orchard, vegetable garden, an indigenous garden and an automated irrigation system.
SITA Australia Pty Ltd	Contravene condition of licence at Brooklyn. Contrary to s.27(2) WC	Hobson Bay City Council: $40,000 for the Brooklyn Environmental and Education Sustainability Program. Covers retrofit of local facilities, tree planting program, home energy audits and sustainability workshops.
Scott's Transport Industries Pty Ltd	Pollute waters and make harmful or potentially harmful to animals, birds, wildlife, fish and other aquatic animals, at Wantirna. Contrary to s.39(1)(c) WC	Australian Platypus Conservancy Inc.: $55,000 for Yarra Platypus Count -- Yarra River catchment. Covers monitoring program and schools education component. Darebin Creek Management Committee Inc.: $25,000 for Darebin Creek Catchment Community Education Program. Covers the purchase of portable classrooms to create habitat gardens along Darebin Creek. DCMC works with Friends of Darebin Creek, Darebin Parklands Association and La Trobe University.
George Weston Foods Ltd	Cause waste to be discharged onto a dry bed of a waterway in circumstances where if the waterway had contained waters the discharge would be likely to result in those waters being polluted, at Castlemaine. Contrary to s.39(4). Did pollute land so that the condition of the land was so changed as to make the land unduly offensive to the senses of human beings, Castlemaine. Contrary to S.45(a)(e) WC	Mt Alexander Sustainability Group Inc.: $60,000 for the Pathways to a Sustainable C02 Future. Covers education materials, speaking program, training sessions, a program guide and an awards ceremony.
Brett William Beattie	Cause an environmental hazard at Reservoir. Contrary to s.27A(1)(c)	Friends of Merri Creek Inc.: $2,500 donation.

Table 3. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2008-09

Defendant	Charge	Result (Fine revenue recipient)
Whelan the Wrecker Pty Ltd	Dump industrial waste at unlicensed site. Contrary to s.27A(2)(a) WC	West Gippsland Catchment Management Authority: $30,500 for JARR Project which covers removing willows and stabilising eroding banks, building fences and planting trees. Involves Yarram Yarram Landcare Network. $9,500 for Morwell River NEIP Project. Covers signage, interpretive displays and upgrading roads. Involves Boolarra South Landcare Group and Friends of the Upper Morwell River Falls.
Willis & Palmer (Vic) Pty Ltd	Discard industrial waste (by burning it) at unlicensed site. Contrary to s.27A(2)(a) WC	Friends of Tarra-Bulga National Park: $5,000 for the Tarra-Bulga National Park -- Sycamore Maple Eradication. Covers laurel and weed removal and contractors to undertake work.
Air Liquide Australia Limited	Pollute atmosphere (make harmful to the health, welfare, safety or property of human beings). Contrary to s.41(1)(b) WC	Moonee Ponds Coordination Committee Inc.: $49,840 for the Creek Crusaders Education Program. Covers an environmental education program for school students from 40 schools. Requires employment of a person with an education background. Moonee Valley City Council: $16,800 for the benefit of Friends of Steele Creek Inc to undertake the Spring Gully Reserve Grassland Revegetation Project. Covers grassland plantation and weed removal.
Tasman Group Services Pty Ltd	Pollute waters (make harmful to the health of human beings and aquatic life). Contrary to s.39(1)(b) & (c). Fail to comply with 2 section 62B(1) directions, contrary to s.62B(5) Place waste where it could gain access to waters. Contrary to s.39(3) WC	Banyule City Council: $8,000 for the Heidelberg West Industrial Estate Project (2009). Covers a small business survey. Involves Melbourne Water, and local environment groups, including Waterwatch. Victoria University: $132,000 for the Keilor-Werribee Plains Flora & Fauna Conservation Promotion Project (2009-10) -- an initiative of the Iramoo Sustainable Community Centre. Covers research, website design and ascertaining community and school data presentation needs. Parks Victoria: $60,000 for Stony Creek revegetation project (2010-12). Covers revegetation of 3 sites.
Transpacific Cleanaway Ltd	Deposit waste. Contrary to s.27(2) WC	Melbourne's Living Museum of the West Inc.: $75,000 for Billi Tea Tales. Covers education schools groups, indigenous and digital storytelling and clay animation workshops. Promotes involvement and awareness of with local waterway Friends groups -- Kororoit Creek, Stony Creek, Newport Lakes and Maribyrnong Valley. Involves Waterwatch, Gozer Media, Melbourne Water, Environment Victorian and Maribyrnong City Council.
Mobil Refining Australia Pty Ltd	Cause environmental hazard. Contrary to s.27A(1)(c) WC	Williamstown High School: $210,000 for Project 1 Jawbone Marine Sanctuary Stormwater Recycling Wetlands project. Covers creating a wetland and interactive / educational trails. Melbourne Water Corporation (Waterwatch program): $110,000 for Project 2 Drain Spotters project. Covers training and equipping of 4 Drain Spotter teams. Jawbone Marine Sanctuary Care Group Inc.: $30,000 for Project 3 Jawbone Marine Sanctuary Enhancement project. Covers ecological monitoring and interpretive signs for the Sanctuary.
Caltex Australia Petroleum Pty Ltd	Permit environmental hazard. Contrary to 2.27A(1)(c) WC	Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc.: $80,000 for the Carboncut2: Low Income Community Capacity-Building for Climate Change project. Covers training of young people to conduct energy and water efficiency installations and audits. Also covers young training, workshops and support youth leadership on climate change. Involves South Port Uniting Care, City of Port Phillip, Port Phillip Community Group, South East Water and Park Towers Housing Commission.
DP World Australia Limited	Pollute Atmosphere to make offensive to humans. Contrary to s.41(1)(a) WC	Future Canvas Inc.: $80,000 for the Urban Reforestation in the Docklands. Covers the construction of a community garden at Shed 4 in Victoria Harbour, Docklands. Supports growing of fresh produce, community training, composting workshops, permaculture courses and urban gardening seminars. Provide take-home farming kits, seedlings, tools and a pot.

Table 4. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2007-08

Defendant	Charge	Result (Fine revenue recipient)
John Dale	Dump industrial waste at an unlicensed site at Yackandandah. Contrary to s.27A(2)(a). WC	Yackandandah Bush Nursing Hospital: $750 Yamaroo Hospital: $750 Yackandandah Landcare Group: $750
New Golden Shipping	Discharge oil from ship into State waters at Bass Strait. Contrary to s.8(1) of POWBONS. Pollute land and make poisonous to animals, birds and wildlife at Phillip Island. Contrary to s45(1)(c)	Dolphin Research Institute Ltd: $25,300 for Multidisciplinary Investigation of the Dolphin Populations in Port Phillip, Western Port and Gippsland Lakes. Covers three Monash University students and two Dolphin Institute Directors. Phillip Island Nature Parks: $25,000 for Public and Emergency Beach Access, South Coast Phillip Island -- Park Street Beach Access, Surf Beach. Covers the installation of a 190 metre gravel pathway. Involves Bass Coast Shire Council.
Melbourne Water Corporation	Pollute waters (make harmful or potentially harmful to fish or other aquatic life) at Christmas Hills. Contrary to s.39(1)(c). WC	City of Whittlesea: $60,000 for Growling in the Grass -- An Endangered Frog Recovery Project. Covers the design and construction of a purpose built frog breeding wetland and water quality treatment bioretention swale. Involves the City of Whittlesea.
Melbourne Water Corporation	Pollute waters (make harmful or potentially harmful to fish or other aquatic life) at Cardinia. Contrary to s.39(1)(c). WC	Western Port Seagrass Partnership Ltd: $90,000 for Improving Water Quality in Western Port using Mangrove and Seagrass Planting to control the erosion of the Lang Lang Coastline. Covers replanting mangroves to reduce erosion.
Paul Damian McKenzie	Pollute waters (make harmful or potentially harmful to fish or other aquatic life) at Swan Hill. Contrary to s.39(1)(c). WC	Lake Boga Landcare Group: $7,000 for projects identified by the group.
Onesteel MBS Pty Ltd	Cause an environmental hazard at Somerton. Contrary to s.27A(1)(c). WC	Merri Creek Management Committee Inc.: $75,000 for Streets to Streams project. Covers community education, guided walks, display materials, information packages and restoration work. Involves the City of Yarra, the City of Darebin, the Hume City Council, Friends of Merri Creek and Fawkner Community House.
Universal Metals Pty Ltd	Permit the dumping of industrial waste at an unlicensed site (at Ringwood). Contrary to s.27A(2)(a). WC	City of Manningham: $45,000 for Craithie Reserve Waterway Improvement Program. Covers a capacity building and awareness program for local residents. Involves Port Phillip and Westernport Waterwatch, Friends of Anderson Creek, Manningham Waterwatch Group, local residents and Monash University Facility for Advanced Water Engineering.
Amcor Packaging (Australia) Pty Ltd	Pollute waters (make harmful or potentially harmful to fish or other aquatic life) at Alphington. Contrary to s.39(1)(c)	Darebin Creek Management Committee Inc.: $26,000 for Stormwater Education in Schools within Darebin Creek Catchment. Educates students on local waterway issues at 65 schools. $20,000 for Drain Labeling within Darebin Creek Catchment. Covers drain labeling. South Alphington and Fairfield Civic Association Inc.: $34,000 for the Alphington Park Wetlands Revegetation Project. Covers revegetation program and community planting days.
Waste Management Pacific Pty Ltd	Cause an environmental hazard at Campbellfield. Contrary to s.27A(1)(c).	Merri Creek Management Committee Inc.: $50,000 for Nearby Nature: Focus on Galada Tamboore Campbellfield program. Covers weed control, revegetation works, and consolidation of remnant vegetation. Involves Melbourne Water, Hume City Council, Friends of Merri Creek, and local residents and schools.

APPENDIX 2.

RECIPIENT ORGANISATIONS

Environmental Action Groups

Australian Conservation Foundation ($2.9 million)

DSE Environment Policy and Climate Change Grant, 2009-10: $600,000; ⁽¹⁰¹⁾
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial fund for 2009-12): $120,000; ⁽¹⁰²⁾
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2007: $15,000; ⁽¹⁰³⁾
DSE Green Home Program -- Helps regional Victorians become champions for sustainability, 2006-09: $2,100,000; ⁽¹⁰⁴⁾ and,
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2006 (triennial fund for 2006-09): $67,500. ⁽¹⁰⁵⁾

Ballarat Permaculture Guild

Backyard Bounty (Encourages home food production and keeping chickens) -- Climate Communities Grants Program Round 1, 2010: $50,000 ⁽¹⁰⁶⁾

Ballarat Renewable Energy and Zero Emissions ($152,767)

Climate change Action -- a model for community action groups (works with Environment Victoria to develop a network of climate change groups) -- Sustainability Fund -- Sustainable Communities Project Round 3, 2008: $152,767 ⁽¹⁰⁷⁾

Central Victoria Greenhouse Alliance ($1.2 million)

Retrofitting the Region -- Sustainability Fund Open Round 4, 2009-10: $200,000; ⁽¹⁰⁸⁾
Monitoring and Reporting for the Central Victorian Solar Cities Program (Monitor, manage and reduce energy consumption) -- Sustainability Fund Climate Change Projects Round 2, 2006: $1,000,000; ⁽¹⁰⁹⁾ and,
DSE Castlemaine 500 Program -- Involving residents in ''household assessments, householder workshops, energy monitoring and action plans.'' 2006. ⁽¹¹⁰⁾ Amount undisclosed.

Environment Defenders Office (Victoria) Ltd ($1.1 million)

DECCW Environmental Education -- Community Grants, 2010: $63,440; ⁽¹¹¹⁾
''Public Interest Environmental Law project -- Community extension'' -- Legal Services Board Major Grant, 2009-10: $599,000; ⁽¹¹²⁾
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial fund for 2009-12): $180,000; ⁽¹¹³⁾
DECCW Environmental Education -- Community Grants, 2008: $94,657; ⁽¹¹⁴⁾
''Improving Community Participation in Planning and Environment Appeals'' -- Legal Services Board Project Grant, 2007-08: <$50,000; ⁽¹¹⁵⁾
''Public Interest Environmental Law Project -- Legal Services Board Major Grant, 2007-08: >$50,000; ⁽¹¹⁶⁾
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2007: $30,000; ⁽¹¹⁷⁾ and,
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2006 (triennial fund for 2006-09): $135,000. ⁽¹¹⁸⁾

Environment Victoria ($4.04 million)

DSE Environment Policy and Climate Change, 2009-10: $600,000; ⁽¹¹⁹⁾
GreenTown -- Growing Sustainable Action with Diverse Communities -- Sustainability Fund Open Round 4, 2009-10: $300,000; ⁽¹²⁰⁾
Flemington Green -- Neighbourhood Renewal Project, Round 4, 2010. ⁽¹²¹⁾ Amount undisclosed.;
DSE Sustainable Water Management and Supply Grant, 2009-10: $188,180; ⁽¹²²⁾
GreenTown -- Multicultural Communities for Sustainability (Trains 40 environmental champions) -- Sustainability Fund -- Sustainable Communities Round 3, 2008: $560,647; ⁽¹²³⁾
DSE Regional Sustainable Living Program (In partnership with Sustainability Victoria, Australian Conservation Foundation and Clear Horizon Consulting) -- Delivery of the Eco-Wise Action, Seniors Eco-Wise, Families Go-Green and Youth Eco-Challenge. ⁽¹²⁴⁾ Aim is to engage the community on sustainability issues. 2006-10: $2,100,000; ⁽¹²⁵⁾
DSEWPC Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Grant Allocation Round, 2008-09 (organisation received this level of funding for three years): $87,000; ⁽¹²⁶⁾
DSEWPC Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Grant Allocation Round, 2007ƒ{08: $55,000; ⁽¹²⁷⁾ and,
Nha Dep Green Purchasing Program (Vietnamese Community Sustainability Education Program) -- Sustainability Fund -- Behaviour Change and Community Engagement Projects Round 1, 2004-08: $182,000. ⁽¹²⁸⁾

Friends of the Earth ($65,000)

DSE Forests and Parks Grant, 2009-10: $55,000; ⁽¹²⁹⁾ and,
DSEWPC Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Grant Allocation Round, 2008ƒ{09 (organisation received this level of funding for three years): $10,000.

Mind (Mind Australia) -- Sprout

Local Food, Local People, Global Thinking (Helping low income people establish home food gardens) -- Climate Communities Grants Program Round 1, 2010: $50,000 ⁽¹³⁰⁾

Murrindindi Climate Network Inc.

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Development of a Murrindindi Green Business Code of Practice, 2010-11: $64,800 ⁽¹³¹⁾

Port Phillip EcoCentre Inc.

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Carboncut2: Low Income Community Capacity-Building for Climate Change project. Covers training of young people to conduct energy and water efficiency installations and audits. Also covers young training, workshops and support youth leadership on climate change. Involves South Port Uniting Care, City of Port Phillip, Port Phillip Community Group, South East Water and Park Towers Housing Commission. 2008-09: $80,000 ⁽¹³²⁾

Surf Coast Energy Group

Grow It! (Training to grow household food) -- Climate Communities Grants Program Round 1, 2010: $50,000 ⁽¹³³⁾

Total Environment Centre ($451,620)

DECCW Environmental Education -- Community Grants, 2010: $46,620; ⁽¹³⁴⁾
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial fund for 2009-12): $240,000; ⁽¹³⁵⁾
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2007: $30,000; ⁽¹³⁶⁾ and,
DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2006 (triennial fund for 2006-09): $135,000 ⁽¹³⁷⁾

Upper Yarra Creative Climate Community

Seeking creative responses to climate change (Engaging disengaged people on climate change) -- Climate Communities Grants Program Round 1: $50,000 ⁽¹³⁸⁾

Warrnambool Coastcare Landcare Group

Story of Warrnambool, Land between the River (Picnics, songs and stories to encourage action on climate change) -- Climate Communities Grants Program Round 1, 2010: $48,500 ⁽¹³⁹⁾

The Wilderness Society (Victoria) and (Sydney) ($125,000)

DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants, 2009 (triennial fund for 2009-12): $75,000; ⁽¹⁴⁰⁾ and,
''Assessment of Victoria's Environmental Laws and Regulatory Framework'' -- Legal Services Board Project Grant, 2009-10: $50,000. ⁽¹⁴¹⁾

World Wide Fund for Nature

DECCW Environmental Education -- Community Grants, 2008: $29,200 ⁽¹⁴²⁾

Political Action Groups

Bicycle Victoria Inc.

Ride2School (Encourages children to ride to school) -- Sustainability Fund -- Behaviour Change and Community Engagement Projects Round 2, 2006: $80,000 ⁽¹⁴³⁾

Mission Australia

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- People and Places -- Buna and Mulahang Reserve Redevelopment. Covers the development of a community orchard, vegetable garden, an indigenous garden and an automated irrigation system. 2009-10, $80,000 ⁽¹⁴⁴⁾

Moonee Ponds Coordination Committee Inc.

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Creek Crusaders Education Program. Covers an environmental education program for school students from 40 schools. Requires employment of a person with an education background. 2008-09, $49,840 ⁽¹⁴⁵⁾

United Nations Association of Australia (Victorian Division)

DSE Biodiversity Grant, 2009-10: $10,000 ⁽¹⁴⁶⁾

Public Sector Groups

Baw Baw Shire Council

Greenhome for a better Baw-Baw (Trains 20 environmental gladiators to tackle climate change -- Part of ACF's Greenhome Program) -- Climate Communities Grants Program Round 1, 2010: $16,200 ⁽¹⁴⁷⁾

Hobsons Bay City Council ($104,455)

My Smart Garden -- Sustainability Fund Open Round 4, 2009-10: $104,455 ⁽¹⁴⁸⁾

Monash Sustainability Institute

Bridging the Skills Gap Sustainability Fund (Training and mentoring environmental professionals) -- Sustainability Education and Awareness Project Round 3, 2008: $20,920 ⁽¹⁴⁹⁾

Swinburne University:

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Funding a course on dredging and its environmental impacts. 2010-11. No amount disclosed; ⁽¹⁵⁰⁾ and,
Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Sponsorship of a PhD project on of Turbidity in Port Phillip and Coastal Areas of Victoria. 2010-11: $75,000 ⁽¹⁵¹⁾

Yackandandah Bush Nursing Hospital

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Donation. 2007-08: $750 ⁽¹⁵²⁾

Yamaroo Hospital

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Donation. 2007-08: $750 ⁽¹⁵³⁾

Commercial Entities

December Films ($350,000)

Carbon Cops TV series -- Sustainability Fund -- Climate Change Projects Round 2, 2006: $350,000 ⁽¹⁵⁴⁾

Future Canvas ($150,000)

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Urban Reforestation in the Docklands. Covers the construction of a community garden at Shed 4 in Victoria Harbour, Docklands. Supports growing of fresh produce, community training, composting workshops, permaculture courses and urban gardening seminars. Provide take-home farming kits, seedlings, tools and a pot. 2008-09: $80,000; ⁽¹⁵⁵⁾ and,
Urban Reforestation -- Climate Change Action in Docklands -- Sustainability Fund -- Open Round 4, 2009-10: $75,000 ⁽¹⁵⁶⁾

Heide Museum of Modern Art ($375,000)

Heide SMart Project (cafe upgrade) -- Sustainability Fund -- Greener Buildings Round 3, 2008: $375,000 ⁽¹⁵⁷⁾

Melbourne's Living Museum of the West Inc.

Redistributed EPA Prosecution Revenue -- Billi Tea Tales. Covers education schools groups, indigenous and digital storytelling and clay animation workshops. Promotes involvement and awareness of with local waterway Friends groups -- Kororoit Creek, Stony Creek, Newport Lakes and Maribyrnong Valley. Involves Waterwatch, Gozer Media, Melbourne Water, Environment Victoria and Maribyrnong City Council. 2008-09: $75,000 ⁽¹⁵⁸⁾

APPENDIX 3.

OVERVIEW OF GOVERNMENT GRANTS, FUNDS AND PROGRAMMES

Sustainability Victoria -- Sustainability Fund

The Sustainability Fund was established in 2004 ''to support community groups, local governments, businesses and industry to deliver practical projects that help to secure Victoria's environmental future.'' ⁽¹⁵⁹⁾ The Fund is overseen by the Treasurer and the Minister for Environment and Climate Change.

''Projects are supported through two funding streams, open grants and strategic initiatives.'' ⁽¹⁶⁰⁾ Open Grants exist in four forms:

Sustainable Fund Open Rounds;
EcoLiving Grants;
Neighbourhood Renewal Grants; and,
Victorian Local Sustainability Accord Grants.

Strategic Initiatives grants have a strong strategic focus upon supporting or achieving key environmental outcomes. Some examples include: ⁽¹⁶¹⁾

Environmental Sustainability Action Statement 2006;
Climate Change and Victorian Households Package 2008;
Climate Communities Grants Program 2009; and,
Jobs for the Future Economy 2010.

''The Fund supports projects that address one or more of the following priorities:

Mainstreaming sustainable behaviour;
Innovation or best practice in resource use; and,
Investigation and development of strategic tools, markets, and analysis of trends.'' ⁽¹⁶²⁾

Sustainability Victoria -- Climate Communities Grants Program

The Climate Communities grants program was launched in 2010 and ''provides local groups across Victoria with advice, information, research and funding to take practical action on climate change in their own communities.'' ⁽¹⁶³⁾ The program is managed by Sustainability Victoria and provides grants up to $50,000 and has recently been increased to $350,000. ⁽¹⁶⁴⁾ Funding is sourced from the Sustainability Fund.

''Climate Communities grants support the local community to:

Reduce emissions;
Build community resilience to adapt to climate change; and,
Trial and/or promote new ideas to help tackle climate change.'' ⁽¹⁶⁵⁾

DSEWPC Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO) Program

Through these grants, DSEWPC seeks to help ''community based environment and heritage organisations to value, conserve and protect Australia's natural environment and historic heritage by assisting with their administrative funding.'' ⁽¹⁶⁶⁾

''Funds provided through the GVEHO program may be used to assist with salaries and salary on-costs for executive and administrative staff; office accommodation rental; electricity, gas, phone and other similar charges; essential office supplies and equipment; staff and volunteer training; photocopying and printing costs; and travel costs incurred on behalf of the organisation.'' ⁽¹⁶⁷⁾

DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants

Through these grants, DECCW seeks to ''assist eligible lead environmental community organisations in NSW by contributing towards their administrative costs.'' ⁽¹⁶⁸⁾ ''The objective of the LECG program is to provide administrative funds to assist eligible lead environmental community organisations in NSW to value, conserve and protect the natural environment through:

Actively involving the community in projects to protect and enhance the natural environment raising community awareness and understanding of, and gathering information on, environmental issues with a view to bringing about behavioural change across the community;
Being effective advocates in expressing the community's environmental concerns; and,
Being actively involved in program and policy development initiatives with governments and industry bodies on environmental issues.'' ⁽¹⁶⁹⁾

DECCW Environmental Education -- Community Grants

Through these grants, DECCW seeks to ''support educational projects or programs that develop or widen the community's knowledge of, skills in, and commitment to protecting the environment and promoting sustainable behaviour.'' ⁽¹⁷⁰⁾

''The Objectives of the Environmental Education Program are:

To help attain one or more of the outcomes in the NSW Government's Environmental Education Plan, Learning for Sustainability;
To facilitate changes in behaviour of individuals and groups which affect specific environmental problems; and,
To develop and promote education projects which improve the environment.'' ⁽¹⁷¹⁾

''The total funds offered under the Environmental Education program in 2010 were as follows:

$0.5 million to the Community Organisations program; and,
$0.5 million to the State and Local Government program.'' ⁽¹⁷²⁾

''Grants of between $5,000 and $100,000 were available for projects that provide resources or the undertaking of educational projects to increase the environmental awareness of individuals, specific groups, special interest groups and/or the general community.'' ⁽¹⁷³⁾

DSE -- Environment Policy and Climate Change Grants

Through this grant, DSE seeks to enhance its ''development and implementation of strategic, whole-of-government responses to issues around environmental sustainability and climate change.'' ⁽¹⁷⁴⁾

DSE -- Biodiversity Grants

Through this grant, DSE seeks to ''protect, enhance and restore biodiversity assets, maintain ecological assets and provide for the sustainable use of Victoria's flora and fauna.'' ⁽¹⁷⁵⁾

DSE -- Public Land Grants

Through this grant, DSE seeks to improve the ''stewardship of natural, built and historic assets, and incorporates management of public land in partnership with statutory agencies, committees and local government.'' ⁽¹⁷⁶⁾

This $4 million program has a special focus on removing safety risks on Crown land by encouraging managers to undertake safety works and repairs, develop risk management strategies, improve visitor and staff knowledge and remove potential safety hazards.'' ⁽¹⁷⁷⁾

DSE -- Forests and Parks Grants

Through this grant, DSE seeks to improve the ''stewardship of Victoria's parks and forests and incorporates direct and delegated management of public land.'' ⁽¹⁷⁸⁾

DSE -- Land Administration and Property Information Grants

Through this grant, DSE seeks to enhance its ability to provide trusted systems and information services to ensure confidence and security in ownership, property boundaries and valuation.'' ⁽¹⁷⁹⁾

DSE -- Sustainable Water Management and Supply Grants

Through this grant, DSE seeks to enhance its ''oversight of, and strategic advice on, regulatory systems and institutional arrangements to drive the sustainable management and efficient use of Victoria's water resources.'' ⁽¹⁸⁰⁾

Legal Services Board Grants

The Grants program was established in 2007 ''to distribute funding to projects that aim to improve the administration of laws, increase access to justice, improve legal services and inform and educate the wider community about legal services.'' ⁽¹⁸¹⁾

''The grants are available from the Board administered Public Purpose Fund'' ⁽¹⁸²⁾ and require approval from the Attorney General. Two types of grants exist, Project Grants (<$50,000) and Major Grants (>$50,000). ''The grants can be used for:

Law reform;
Legal education;
Legal research; and,
Any purpose relating to the legal profession or law that the Board considers appropriate.'' ⁽¹⁸³⁾

REFERENCES

1. 2010 Victorian ALP Policy Platform -- Leadership for All, P11; http://www.nswalp.com/kristina-keneally/;

2. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO)

3. Refer Appendix 2

4. CoalWatch | Environment Victoria

5. Thousands expected at Hazelwood Rally this Saturday | Environment Victoria

6. The Hon. Peter Batchelor MLA, Media Release, ''New Latrobe Valley Workshop Boosts Jobs'', 20 August 2009; http://new.dpi.vic.gov.au/earth-resources/industries/coal/prospectivity/clean-coal-victoria

7. CoalWatch | Environment Victoria

8. The Wilderness Society (Newcastle), Media Release, ''Hunter Environment under threat from Coal and Gas,'' 9 March 2011

9. Lead Environmental Community Groups Program | NSW Environment & Heritage

10. Funding provided by Victorian DSE and NSW DECCW. Refer Appendix 2.

11. Australian Conservation Foundation, Canberra Times Opinion Piece, ''Human impact on the environment is costing us dearly,'' 29 March 2010

12. Election funding - Australian Electoral Commission

13. Friends of the Earth, Media Release, ''Coalition lagging badly on environment,'' 10 November 2010, Friends of the Earth, Media Release, ''One arrest at Labor Headquarters sit-in'', 23 June 2009, http://www.foe.org.au/resources/publications/general-environemntal-issues/Environment%20scorecard%202010%20Final.pdf;

14. Climate Communities Grants Program Round 1. Refer Appendix 2.

15. Who We Are? | Environment Victoria

16. What Do We Do? | Environment Victoria

17. Our Plan Our Future 2009-2010 | Environment Victoria

18. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P225

19. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P214

20. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2008-09, P68

21. Sustainability Victoria, Five years of the Victorian Government Sustainability Fund 2005-2010, P50

22. Neighbourhood Renewal

23. Sustainability Victoria, Climate Change and Victorian Households Funding Round -- General stream Supported projects 2010, P1

24. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Three 2008, P10

25. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round One 2004, P4

26. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (2008-09)

27. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (2007-08)

28. National Parks Association Inc, Environment Victoria, The Wilderness Society, Joint Submission in response to: Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Metropolitan Investigation Discussion Paper, P5, December 2010

29. National Parks Association Inc, Environment Victoria, The Wilderness Society, Joint Submission in response to: Victorian Environmental Assessment Council Metropolitan Investigation Discussion Paper, P5, December 2010

30. Environment Victoria, Media Release, ''Coal decision a reprieve for the climate,'' 10 December 2009

31. Why Coal Watch? | Environment Victoria

32. Why Coal Watch? | Environment Victoria

33. About the Wilderness Society | The Wilderness Society

34. How does the Wilderness Society achieve its goals? | The Wilderness Society

35. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

36. Legal Services Board, Project Grants Awarded in 2009-10, P2

37. The Wilderness Society is a NSW DECCW 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants recipient. These grants cover administrative costs. Refer Appendix 2.

38. The Wilderness Society (Newcastle), Media Release, ''Hunter Environment under threat from Coal and Gas,'' 9 March 2011

39. The Wilderness Society (Australia), Media Release, ''The future of our environment hangs ''in the balance,'' 20 August 2010

40. About the EDO

41. Australian Network of Environmental Defender's Offices

42. Project summaries - 2010 Environmental Education - community grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

43. Legal Services Board, Major Grants Awarded in 2009-10, P1

44. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

45. Project summaries - 2008 Environmental Education - community grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

46. 2007 lead environmental community groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

47. 2006 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

48. Legal Services Board, Project Grants Awarded in 2007-08, P2

49. Legal Services Board, Major Grants Awarded in 2007-08, P3

50. EDO New South Wales Background

51. Environment Defenders Office Victoria

52. Environment Defenders Office, Annual Report 2009-10, P2

53. Environment Defenders Office, Annual Report 2009-10, P6

54. Environment Defenders Office, Annual Report 2009-10, P2

55. EDO Vic

56. Environmental Defenders Office, The Green File Newsletter, Edition 1, 2010

57. About | Friends of the Earth Australia

58. About | Friends of the Earth Australia

59. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P224

60. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (2008-09)

61. Friends of the Earth, Media Release, ''Friends of the Earth condemns Brumby Government over new coal power station,'' 02 July 2008

62. Friends of the Earth, Media Release, ''Community Calls for No New Coal Ports,'' 29 April 2010

63. Friends of the Earth, Media Release, Coalition victory could set climate agenda back years,'' 28 November 2010

64. Community Calls for No New Coal Ports | Friends of the Earth Australia:

65. Friends of the Earth is a Federal Government 2008-09 DSEWPC Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO) Program recipient. These grants cover administrative costs. Refer Appendix 2.

66. Our Funding | Friends of the Earth Australia

67. Department Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P224; Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Grants for Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations Grant Allocation -- 2008ƒ{09 Round, P2

68. What is TEC?

69. What is TEC?

70. What is TEC?

71. Project summaries - 2010 Environmental Education - community grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

72. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

73. 2007 lead environmental community groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

74. 2006 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

75. Total Environment Centre is a multi-year recipient of the NSW DECCW Lead Environmental Community Groups Grants. These grants cover administrative costs. Refer Appendix 2.

76. Total Environment Centre, Media Release, ''Tillegra dam damned,'' 5 February 2009

77. Total Environment Centre, Media Release, ''NSW Govt sceptics try to keep coal alive,'' 2 October 2009

78. About us

79. About us

80. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P225

81. Sustainability Victoria, Five years of the Victorian Government Sustainability Fund 2005-2010, P50

82. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

83. 2007 lead environmental community groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

84. 2006 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

85. Australian Conservation Foundation, Crikey, ''What does population growth mean for environmental policy?,'' 30/03/10

86. Australian Conservation Foundation, Canberra Times Opinion Piece, ''Human impact on the environment is costing us dearly,'' 29 March 2010

87. Climate Communities FAQs

88. About the Sustainability Fund

89. Climate Communities Fund | Sustainability Victoria

90. Community Enterprises and Groups | Climate Communities

91. Coalition lagging badly on environment | Environment Victoria

92. State election scorecard | Environment Victoria

93. Students | EPA Victoria

94. Environmental Protection Authority, Annual Report, 2008-09, PaB

95. Environmental Protection Authority, Annual Report, 2008-09, P5

96. Refer Appendix 1

97. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2008-09

98. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2009-10

99. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2008-09

100. EPA Prior Conviction Register 2008-09

101. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P225

102. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

103. 2007 lead environmental community groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

104. Sustainability Victoria, Five years of the Victorian Government Sustainability Fund 2005-2010, P50

105. 2006 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

106. The Hon. Gavin Jennings MLC, Media Release, ''Victoria's Climate Communities think global, act local: round one recipients announced'', 29 September 2010

107. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Three 2008, P10

108. Sustainability Victoria, Climate Change and Victorian Households Funding Round -- General stream Supported projects 2010, P1

109. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Two 2006, P3

110. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2008-09, P68

111. Project summaries - 2010 Environmental Education - community grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

112. Legal Services Board, Major Grants Awarded in 2009-10, P1

113. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

114. Project summaries - 2008 Environmental Education - community grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

115. Legal Services Board, Project Grants Awarded in 2007-08, P2

116. Legal Services Board, Major Grants Awarded in 2007-08, P3

117. 2007 lead environmental community groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

118. 2006 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

119. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P225

120. Sustainability Victoria, Climate Change and Victorian Households Funding Round -- General stream Supported projects 2010, P1

121. Neighbourhood Renewal

122. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P214

123. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Three 2008, P10

124. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2008-09, P68

125. Sustainability Victoria, Five years of the Victorian Government Sustainability Fund 2005-2010, P50

126. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (2008-09)

127. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (2007-08)

128. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round One 2004, P4

129. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P224

130. The Hon. Gavin Jennings MLC, Media Release, ''Victoria's Climate Communities think global, act local: round one recipients announced'', 29/09/10

131. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #13, 1/07/2010-30/06/2011, P5

132. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #11, 1/07/2008-30/06/2009, P18

133. The Hon. Gavin Jennings MLC, Media Release, ''Victoria's Climate Communities think global, act local: round one recipients announced'', 29 September 2010

134. Project summaries - 2010 Environmental Education - community grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

135. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

136. 2007 lead environmental community groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

137. 2006 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

138. The Hon. Candy Broad MLC, Media Release, ''Victoria Gets Eight New Climate Communities'', 16 October 2010

139. The Hon. Gavin Jennings MLC, Media Release, ''Victoria's Climate Communities think global, act local: round one recipients announced'', 29 September 2010

140. Project summaries - 2009 Lead Environmental Community Groups grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

141. Legal Services Board, Project Grants Awarded in 2009-10, P2

142. Project summaries - 2008 Environmental Education - community grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

143. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Two 2006, P6

144. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #12, 1/07/2009-30/06/2010, P2

145. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #11, 1/07/2008-30/06/2009, P5

146. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P221

147. The Hon. Candy Broad MLC, Media Release, ''Victoria Gets Eight New Climate Communities'', 16/10/10

148. Sustainability Victoria, Annual Report 2009-10, P57

149. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Three 2008, P8

150. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #13, 1/07/2010-30/06/2011, P2

151. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #13, 1/07/2010-30/06/2011, P2

152. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #10, 1/07/2007-30/06/2008, P1

153. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #10, 1/07/2007-30/06/2008, P1

154. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Two 2006, P2

155. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #11, 1/07/2008-30/06/2009, P21

156. Sustainability Victorian Annual Report 2009-10, P57

157. Sustainability Victoria, Sustainability Fund Projects Round Three 2008, P9

158. EPA Prior Conviction Register, Prosecution Folder #11, 1/07/2008-30/06/2009, P11

159. Sustainability Victoria, ''Five years of the Victorian Government Sustainability Fund 2005-2010'', October 2010

160. Sustainability Victoria, ''Five years of the Victorian Government Sustainability Fund 2005-2010'', October 2010

161. Strategic Initiatives

162. Sustainability Fund Priority Statement

163. FAQs | Climate Communities

164. News | Climate Communities

165. About Grants Program | Climate Communities

166. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO)

167. Grants to Voluntary Environment and Heritage Organisations (GVEHO)

168. Lead Environmental Community Groups Program | NSW Environment & Heritage

169. Lead Environmental Community Groups Program | NSW Environment & Heritage

170. Environmental education grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

171. Environmental education grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

172. Environmental education grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

173. Environmental education grants | NSW Environment & Heritage

174. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P123

175. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P122

176. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P122

177. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P74

178. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P123

179. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P123

180. Department of Sustainability and Environment, Annual Report 2009-10, P122

181. Grants | Legal Services Board

182. Grants | Legal Services Board

183. Grants | Legal Services Board

Friday, April 13, 2012

Premiers, state your case

Four of Australia's six state governments are now conservative, but you'd hardly know it. In Queensland it's early days. But in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia many an observer would be hard-pressed to identify precisely the differences between those governments and their Labor predecessors.

Certainly there have been some improvements. State budgets are now slightly less out of control and some green programs have been cut back, but that's about it.

What change there has been at the state level in education, health or infrastructure, for example, has been largely driven by Canberra.

Barry O'Farrell, Ted Baillieu and Colin Barnett would be entitled to be a little bit miffed by all the attention Campbell Newman is getting. Part of the reason for the focus on Newman is that, for the moment at least, he seems to be everything his colleagues are not — energetic, reform-minded and unafraid to take on the Gillard government.

Lack of ability is not the problem in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia.

The idea that state governments don't do anything any more — compared with the federal government — because of the inferior quality of state ministers and MPs, is wrong. It's a myth perpetrated by journalists in the Canberra press gallery who never lift their gaze beyond the confines of the coffee shop in Parliament House on Capital Hill.

Intellectually, O'Farrell, Baillieu and Barnett are more than the equal of the Prime Minister. Likewise their state treasurers, Mike Baird, Kim Wells and Christian Porter, can easily match it against Wayne Swan. And the task of state treasurers is harder. They can't run budget deficits and increase taxes in the same way Swan does.

Many federal ministers look good because they don't have a real job. It's not hard being federal health minister when you don't run any hospitals. And being federal education minister is easy when you don't employ a single teacher in a single school.

Coalition state governments don't suffer from a lack of ability. They suffer from a lack of ambition. Premiers and their ministers have become accustomed to the notion that their only role is to make trains run slightly more punctually with carriages that are slightly less crowded. Eventually, they convince themselves that's their only responsibility.

Punctual public transport is important but there should be more to state government. It's not as if the premiers don't have ideas. O'Farrell is passionate about public-sector reform.

Baillieu is an architect with a deep understanding of what makes cities great. Barnett appreciates the influence Asia will have on Australia probably better than any politician in the country.

The Coalition premiers should stop implementing Julia Gillard's agenda and start implementing their own.

Instead of complaining about the carbon tax, they can do something about it and mount a High Court challenge.

Next, they should put a halt to the agenda run by big business and the federal government to ''harmonise'' laws across the country. In these pages yesterday, federal Finance Minister Penny Wong waxed lyrical about how the laws on everything from trustee companies to payroll tax have been harmonised in the name of a national seamless economy.

Her aim is a seamless economy with no diversity and no competition between the states. Laws are seldom harmonised to reduce regulation.

For proof, look no further than the proposed national occupational health and safety standards.

A report to the Victorian government, released this week, analysed 20 major differences between the state's existing laws and the proposed law, and 17 of those differences impose more bureaucracy and red tape.

Victoria is recognised as having the country's best occupational health and safety regime. There's no reason for Victoria to be in the new national scheme — but for some reason Baillieu is still deciding whether to participate or not. He should have said long ago he'd never be part of it.

Big business, understandably, wants a single set of laws across state boundaries. But big business can more easily afford the extra burden of regulation that results from harmonisation than can smaller enterprises.

Most businesses don't operate across states. The premiers should take what big business says with a grain of salt anyway. After all, it was big business that said the carbon tax was a good idea.

When premiers O'Farrell, Baillieu and Barnett see the PM this morning they can try saying ''no'' to her for a change.

ADVERTISEMENT

Not such a super idea

The Federal Government's plan to increase compulsory superannuation contributions from 9% to 12% is economically dubious and morally questionable. Superannuation is one of the sacred cows of Australian politics. Both major parties — and indeed all minor parties fall over each other to lavish praise on the scheme. And there are some good reasons for this. We only need to look to the fiscal crisis which currently besets Europe — and has been exacerbated by absurdly generous government-funded pension schemes — to see the value in citizens providing for their own retirement.

If superannuation means that future Australian governments will have to pay fewer people aged pensions, then many will argue it was a valuable reform.

But it is far from clear that this will actually be the case. We simply do not know — as superannuation is actually a radical policy experiment which will take decades to assess its success or failure. But many experts are already predicting that for many people, superannuation will not be sufficient to sustain them in their retirement, and they will have to continue to rely on some level of government assistance to survive.

The government's response to these predictions has been to legislate an increase in the mandatory contribution from 9% of employees' wages to 12%. There are many problems with this approach.

But firstly let's deal with the biggest furphy in this debate: that workers will not pay for the cost of this increase. This is blatant political spin that does not withstand any serious economic analysis. Employees will ultimately pay this cost no matter how it is implemented.

Increasing the amount employers must pay for their employees' superannuation can only have one of two effects: reduced employment or reduced wages. A higher compulsory superannuation contribution makes an employee more expensive for a business to take on. They can overcome this with lower wages, or by employing fewer staff. Even assuming the business has strong market power and can pass this increased cost on to its customers hardly seems any more comforting, because consumers will simply pick up the tab.

The performance of Australian super funds over the past few decades does not suggest that superannuation is the best form of investment for most Australians. Even before the Global Financial Crisis, most funds' annual returns rarely exceeded the market average. And as economist and Sydney Morning Herald journalist Peter Martin has pointed out, anyone who has a mortgage (with an annual interest rate of approximately 7%) would be far better off financially if they were allowed to pay it off instead of being forced to park it in a fund they will not be able to access until they are 65.

For people who work part time, or are casually employed in a variety of jobs, superannuation can be a major hassle with little obvious benefits. For example, by my 24th birthday, I had acquired four different super funds, picked up at the variety of casual jobs I held while studying at university. It was hardly worth my while to go through the effort of choosing my own super fund making each employer pay into it, because the annual payments rarely exceeded a few hundred dollars. And what little they did actually accumulate was often substantially reduced by management fees.

It also seems absurd to take a large chunk of a young person's meagre salary when they are trying to cover the costs of study, rent and food, for them to spend in 40 years' time when they are likely to be far wealthier and to have accumulated assets like a home.

Perhaps this system makes sense for some people. But there's no doubt that for many others it is not the best investment they could make. What if I decided that the best financial investment I could make in my future is to enrol in a Masters degree to increase my earning capacity? The money locked away in my super fund could pay for that. But instead I might have to take out a high-interest personal loan to cover my tuition fees.

An inflexible, one-size-fits-all system that presumes that government knows best about the individual financial situations of every Australian is guaranteed to not work for many people. That was bad enough when we were forced to lock away 9% of our income. Increasing it to 12% (and some advocates suggest they won't stop there) makes it even less so.

A radical alternative could be to allow Australians to opt-out of superannuation. Instead of forcing them to save for their retirement through super, we could trust those who think they can make better investments for themselves to do so. To ensure this doesn't result in a higher burden for the pension in the future, they would also have to opt out of receiving that too. In exchange, they could be rewarded with lower tax rates on their investments. This system would still leave anyone who was content with superannuation under that system, but would provide freedom — and entrust personal responsibility — with those who choose it.

ADVERTISEMENT

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Earth Hour: the Majesty of Failure

All those darkened buildings, all that hype about switching off to save the planet! How successful is the tidal wave of support demonstrating our commitment to showing an example to the world?

The numbers are in. According to the electricity market operator, the reduction in usage for Earth Hour across the eastern and southern states was two per cent in 2012. That's down from the dizzy heights of 3.6 per cent in 2008. The reduction over the course of the day itself was 0.08 per cent.

Here is the data by state.

Reduction in electricity consumption during Earth Hour

	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
QLD	3.5%	1.1%	2.5%	1.2%	0.5%
NSW	3.7%	1.9%	3.1%	2.9%	3.1%
VIC	3.7%	1.1%	2.2%	1.7%	2.0%
SA	3.3%	1.6%	2.8%	3.0%	1.5%
TAS	3.7%	1.4%	1.2%	2.5%	2.4%
*NEM* Total	3.6%	1.4%	2.6%	2.1%	2.0%
Total for day
QLD	1.5%	0.04%	0.11%	0.05%	0.02%
NSW	1.6%	0.08%	0.13%	0.12%	0.13%
VIC	1.5%	0.05%	0.09%	0.07%	0.08%
SA	1.4%	0.07%	0.12%	0.13%	0.06%
TAS	1.6%	0.06%	0.05%	0.10%	0.10%
*NEM* Total	1.5%	0.06%	0.11%	0.09%	0.08%

Divide that by 365 to get the percentage of electricity saved in a year.

Earth Hour is the ultimate in symbolic posturing, the purpose of which is to confirm the self-assessed moral superiority of those participating in it. It is directed at an issue, human induced global warming, that is becoming increasingly discredited in scientific circles and is harnessed to a solution, self-denial of energy use, where the Green Pharisees are becoming less fervent.

ADVERTISEMENT

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Regulatory failure of Titanic proportions

In one scene of the 1958 Titanic film A Night to Remember, Captain Smith is consulting with the shipbuilder Thomas Andrews.

After the two realise that the Titanic will inevitably sink and that there are not enough lifeboats for even half those aboard, Smith quietly says ''I don't think the Board of Trade regulations visualised this situation, do you?''

The Titanic's lifeboat capacity is probably the most well-known and most iconic regulatory failure of the 20th century.

The ship had carried 2,224 people on its maiden voyage but could only squeeze 1,178 people into its lifeboats. There were a host of other failures, accidents, and mishaps which led to the enormous loss of life but this was the most crucial one: from the moment the Titanic scraped the iceberg, the casualties were going to be unprecedented.

Yet the Titanic was fully compliant with all marine laws. The British Board of Trade required all vessels above 10,000 tonnes to carry sixteen lifeboats. The White Star Line ensured that the Titanic exceeded the requirements by four boats. But the ship was 46,328 tonnes. The Board of Trade hadn't updated its regulations for nearly 20 years.

It could have been worse, actually. If the Titanic had been fitted as an emigrant ship (that is, exclusively to carry migrants to the new world) it might have carried up to 10,000 passengers. And the Board of Trade's requirements would have remained the same.

The lifeboat regulations were written for a different era and enforced unthinkingly.

So why didn't the regulators, shipbuilders, or operators make the obvious connection between lifeboat capacity and the total complement of passengers and crew?

It had been 40 years since the last serious loss of life at sea, when 562 people died on the Atlantic in 1873. Don't dwell on the unique safety features of the Titanic — by the 20th century, all ships were much safer.

That distance in time changed what regulators and shipowners saw as the purpose of lifeboats. Lifeboats were not designed to keep all the ship and crew afloat while the vessel sank. They were simply to ferry them to nearby rescue ships.

Recent history had confirmed this understanding. The Republic sank in 1906, fatally crippled in a collision. But it took nearly 36 hours for the Republic to submerge. All passengers and crew — except for the few who died in the actual collision — were transferred safely, in stages, to half a dozen other vessels.

Had Titanic sunk slower it would have been surrounded by the Frankfurt, the Mount Temple, the Birma, the Virginian, the Olympic, the Baltic, and the first on the scene, the Carpathia. The North Atlantic was a busy stretch of sea.

Or, had the Californian (within visual range of unfolding tragedy) responded to distress calls, the lifeboats would have been adequate for the purpose they were intended — to ferry passengers to safety.

There was, simply, very little reason to question the Board of Trade's wisdom about lifeboat requirements. Shipbuilders and operators thought the government was on top of it; that experts in the public service had rationally assessed the dangers of sea travel, and regulated accordingly. Otherwise why have the regulations at all?

This is not the way the story is usually told.

Recall in James Cameron's 1997 film, the fictionalised Thomas Andrews character claims to have wanted to install extra lifeboats but ''it was thought by some that the deck would look too cluttered.''

Cameron saw his movie as a metaphor for the end of the world, so historical accuracy was not at a premium.

Yet the historian Simon Schama appears to have received his knowledge of this issue from Cameron's film, writing in Newsweek recently that ''Chillingly, the shortage of lifeboats was due to shipboard aesthetics'' (Schama also sees Titanic as a metaphor, this time for ''global capitalism'' hitting the Lehman Brothers iceberg).

This claim — that White Star chose aesthetics over lives — hinges on a crucial conversation between Alexander Carlisle, the managing director of the shipyard where Titanic was built, and his customer Bruce Ismay, head of White Star Line, in 1910.

Carlisle proposed that White Star equip its ships with 48 lifeboats — in retrospect, more than enough to save all passengers and crew. Yet after a few minutes discussion, Ismay and other senior managers rejected the proposal. The Titanic historian Daniel Allen Butler says Carlisle's idea was rejected ''on the grounds of expense''.

But that's not true. In the Board of Trade's post-accident inquiry, Carlisle was very clear as to why White Star declined to install extra lifeboats: the firm wanted to see whether regulators required it. As Carlisle told the inquiry, ''I was authorised then to go ahead and get out full plans and designs, so that if the Board of Trade did call upon us to fit anything more we would have no extra trouble or extra expense.''

So the issue was not cost, per se, or aesthetics, but whether the regulator felt it necessary to increase the lifeboat requirements for White Star's new, larger, class of ship.

This undercuts the convenient morality tale about safety being sacrificed for commercial success that sneaks into most accounts of the Titanic disaster.

The responsibility for lifeboats came ''entirely practically under the Board of Trade'', as Carlisle described the industry's thinking at the time. Nobody seriously thought to second-guess the board's judgement.

This is a distressingly common problem. Governments find it easy to implement regulations but tedious to maintain existing ones — politicians gain little political benefit from updating old laws, only from introducing new laws.

And just as school teachers tend to teach to the exam, regulated entities tend to comply with the specifics of the regulations, not to the goal of the regulations themselves. Once government takes over, what was private risk management becomes regulatory compliance.

It's easy to weave the Titanic disaster into a seductive tale of pre-war hubris, social stratification, and capitalist excess. But the Titanic's chroniclers tend to put their moral narrative ahead of their historical one.

At the accident's core is this reality: British regulators assumed responsibility for lifeboat numbers, and then botched that responsibility. With a close reading of the evidence, it is hard not to see the Titanic disaster as a tragic example of government failure.

ADVERTISEMENT

Friday, April 06, 2012

State debt will rise despite budget cuts next month

Next month will see the release of state and federal budgets with both focusing on lower deficits.

The Commonwealth's spending cuts will include reducing excessive staffing levels. But its main action will involve tax increases masquerading as spending cuts on items like fuels used in mining.

For Victoria, nobody can accuse the Baillieu Government of acting with unseemly haste in restoring a balanced budget.

The Baillieu Government's first budget increased spending on police, child protection, schools, and elsewhere. Spending is planned to continue outpacing tax collections and gross state income. As a result, state debt will rise until 2015.

Indeed, the only area where the Victorian budget plans serious spending reductions is in government capital infrastructure which is forecast to fall by 40 per cent. Though much government capital spending is doubtlessly misplaced (think pink batts, school halls and regional rail links), there is likely to be more waste in other spending areas. In fact, increased infrastructure spending in some areas may be necessary to facilitate increased productivity.

Queensland's incoming Liberal National government shows electrifying contrast with that of Victoria.

Within days of his election Queensland Premier Campbell Newman announced the scrapping of ''smart'' energy and solar programs that had annual spends of over $600 million. Anna Bligh's husband, the departmental official responsible for developing these costly policies, was tasked with unwinding his previous work.

And while Ted Baillieu has retained virtually all Brumby's appointments, Campbell Newman has already fired six of Bligh's departmental heads.

With regard to regulation, the other area of government imposts, the Baillieu administration in its first budget committed to a 25 per cent reduction in red tape. But the Brumby Government in 2007 made a similar undertaking, which it claimed to have achieved. However, this was based on a very narrow definition of regulation where costs amounted to only 1 per cent of state output!

Such costs could not have included economic distortion expenses like those arising from housing regulation. House building restraints add between $50,000 and $100,000 to the cost of a new home due to urban planning regulations and the 540 different approvals that the state's Growth Area Authority estimate are required to build a new house even on land within urban growth boundaries.

If the government could slash housing regulation costs, the benefits would dwarf the $13,000-$19,500 subsidy it currently provides to new buyers.

Unfortunately, the signs are that housing will see regulatory quagmires actually increase. Blind to the evidence that restrictions on land use and other barriers bring price escalations, a recent Council of Australian Governments (COAG) report has advocated more intensive planning to ''reshape'' our cities, and to ensure ''social inclusion'', better public transport and smaller housing blocks.

The COAG approach is supported by Victoria's government-funded Grattan Institute, which examined planning in several cities worldwide. Only one of these, Austin Texas, had low regulatory barriers. Austin also had the lowest housing costs and also good liveability, which the Grattan people considered to be an ''unintentional'' outcome.

Greater prosperity and freedom of choice requires lower taxation and reduced regulation, matters on which Victoria's current government has yet to make substantial progress.

ADVERTISEMENT

Tuesday, April 03, 2012

Offence against free speech

No question: in the Western world, offence is gradually trumping free speech. Consider four separate incidents, all of which occurred in the last week.

Back in 2008, News Limited's Perthnow.com.au published a series of articles covering the deaths of four Aboriginal boys, who had stolen a car and died in an accident shortly after. The mother of three of the boys took legal action over comments published below the articles.

The Australian Federal Court found last Tuesday a number of those comments breached the Racial Discrimination Act.

Absolutely, the comments were cruel. They should not have been posted. One read ''if you're hopeless at mothering, recognise you are hopeless and don't breed''. Another told law makers to ''get out of thier [sic] ivory towers and start dealing out real punishment ... instead of the 5 star treatment they get in prison''.

News Limited was ordered to pay $12,000 compensation for ''offence, insult and humiliation''.

There has been one report (published in Fairfax papers) about this trial. Compare that to the outpouring of commentary about the Andrew Bolt case late last year: Factiva counts 333 separate pieces in newspapers alone.

Yet the Perthnow finding draws heavily on precedents set by the Bolt case. Sure, the Racial Discrimination Act found its current language back in 1995. But the act's substance is only now being tested, and that substance suggests that the limitations on freedom of speech which it sets are very broad indeed. This is an evolving — and expanding — area of law.

For instance, notice that nothing in the comments quoted above makes reference to the fact that the boys were Aboriginal. The Federal Court decided, given the context of the news stories, the comments should be considered racial hatred nonetheless.

Much more attention has been given to the Kyle Sandilands episode — not least because of the extraordinary outcry when Sandilands originally aired his bizarre rant against a critic of his television show in November 2011.

Many people have suggested the Australian Communications and Media Authority's response to Sandilands has demonstrated how weak the regulator is. But obviously a regulatory agency does not have the power to sack an employee of a private company.

And the new license condition which ACMA intends to impose on Sandiland's station 2DayFM is actually quite significant. These new conditions provide a pretext under which ACMA could take away the station's licence.

The conditions stipulate that 2DayFM cannot broadcast material which ''demeans or is reasonably likely to demean women or girls generally and/or any woman or girl in particular''. Read that last clause carefully. For a speaker to ''demean'' any person who happens to be female is now forbidden — at least if they speak on 2DayFM. Sure, ''Juliar'' is in bad taste, but is it something that really needs to be regulated?

This is a dangerously illiberal path we are walking. And it's a path other Western countries have travelled further along.

The conviction last Tuesday of a 21-year-old student in England for a stream of racist tweets provides no better illustration. Liam Stacey has been sentenced to 56 days jail for the sort of obscene trolling which is unhappily common on Twitter.

What Stacey wrote was foul, but his is an extraordinary punishment. Stacey was apparently drunk, and hastily deleted his tweets.

Of particular importance is the law he was prosecuted under. The UK Public Order Act 1986 prohibits ''threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour'', which it places under the heading ''fear or provocation of violence''. That this has evolved to become the criminalisation of idiocy shows how apparently modest laws can become tyrannical ones.

Even further along the path is France, where the perfumer Jean-Paul Guerlain was fined 6,000 euros for saying in a TV interview that he ''set to work like a Negro''. Guerlain got off lightly. The French court could have imposed a six month prison term.

Obviously, Perthnow should not have published the seriously hurtful comments. Kyle Sandilands should not be such an oaf. One ought not get drunk on Twitter and hurl racist insults.

But if we are to remain free we must keep alive the philosophical distinction between things which are unlawful, and things which morally wrong but still lawful.

As governments expand their regulatory reach, they appear unable to conceive of the latter. Perhaps that's no surprise. Legislators, lawyers and judges see all social issues through the prism of law.

But this legalism means we are losing confidence in society to police itself; to maintain its own standards. 2DayFM saw its sponsors drain away and its audience shrink. Liam Stacey was shouted down by others on Twitter and recanted his hateful words.

Indeed, the judge in the Stacey trial said something accidentally revealing while delivering his sentence: ''I have no choice but to impose an immediate custodial sentence to reflect the public outrage at what you have done''. The power and effect of that public outrage goes unremarked here. Obviously, state regulation seems intent on supplanting society's ability to ostracise and condemn.

And a society that drags people into the courts for nothing but offence is a deeply unhealthy society.

ADVERTISEMENT

Monday, April 02, 2012

Counting the costs of higher taxes

Oliver Wendell Holmes, jnr famously said that he liked paying income tax: it was the price of civilisation. Sure, he bought his civilisation at about seven cents in the dollar, but the general point remains true today. Absent anarchy, there will always be government and always taxation.

So let's explore that price idea a bit more. If tax rates are prices, then we quickly encounter some challenges. When I go shopping, I look at prices and compare them to my subjective value. If prices are too high, I don't buy the product and, if everyone thinks prices are too high, the shopkeeper earns less money than he expected.

Keeping things simple, the government faces much the same problem. If tax rates are too high, it doesn't raise as much money as expected. The UK Coalition government has just realised that, and cut the 50p tax rate for high-income earners.

The 50p rate was introduced by the Brown government in 2010. The increased tax rate was expected to raise two to three billion pounds but failed to reach those expectations. In fact, the UK-based Institute for Fiscal Studies told the UK Daily Telegraph that the 50p tax rate might reduce revenue to Treasury. This would be due to both tax avoidance and tax evasion.

At first glance, many people find this sort of argument unconvincing. After all, there is a huge difference between buying regular goods and services and buying civilisation via the tax system. The former is voluntary, while the latter is coercive. Now, I'm not going to make the simplistic argument that anyone who can afford an accountant pays no tax. But let me say this: there are limits to coercion.

High tax rates have behavioural consequences. People stop working. Early retirement is a form of tax avoidance that the government can't do much about. As James Buchanan — the 1986 economics Laureate — argued in the late 1960s, entrepreneurs who choose to sit at home due to high tax rates are not creating better goods and services, or providing employment opportunities. By providing incentives for people to retire young, the tax imposes costs on everyone.

Early retirement is only one of tax avoidance. Long holidays is another. It turns out that Americans work more than Europeans. Of course, we could always argue that Americans are simply workaholics, while the Europeans have learned to enjoy the finer things in life. There must be some truth in that, yet the tax system plays its part too.

Edward C Prescott — the 2004 economics Laureate — argues that ''virtually all the differences between US labour supply and those of Germany and France are due to differences in tax systems''. Alberto Alesina and Francesco Giavazzi also point to labour market rigidities as an explanation.

Over time, European economic growth has become sluggish. Alesina and Giavazzi ask the question: ''What will become of Europeans who choose to work less and less, to retire early, to eschew work, thereby raising taxes that pay for an expensive welfare state, and opt for policies that discourage innovation and impede productivity?'' Well, over time, they'll get poorer.

As Adam Smith said, there is a lot of ruin in a nation. Yet we are witness to events in Europe, where government has simply run out of money to prop up inefficient welfare states.

So far, I've just spoken about early retirement and long holidays. But then there are location choices. High-income earners start moving away from high-tax countries. Social activist Bono — lead singer of Irish rock group U2 — understands the principle. In response to changes in Irish tax law, the band moved their business to Holland and a lower tax regime.

The bottom line is that there are no free lunches — even in tax policy. There are costs associated with raising tax revenue and taxpayer dollars are expensive. That means they should be used wisely.

It might seem that high tax rates are a win-win proposition. Politicians get to implement populist policy, but they don't actually raise much revenue so the very rich aren't paying too much. But it is the side effects that cause all the damage. A tax that doesn't raise much revenue is distorting economic activity away from productive value-add towards unproductive activity. I've just talked about increased demand for leisure and location choice, but other forms of avoidance (and evasion) can have much higher costs.

These costs are disproportionately borne by those individuals who are sensitive to economic conditions: the poor and the young. By choosing high taxes, society chooses that some people (the rich) will work less through early retirement while others work less through unemployment.

In short, we shouldn't be looking to the tax system to do anything more than raise revenue. Other social or political objectives should be dealt with — if at all — through different government programs and tools.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sunday, April 01, 2012

Westerners consumed by tech toys wallow in misplaced guilt

Concern for Chinese factory workers is patronising and simplistic.

Nothing demonstrates how self-absorbed Western moral sensibilities are than the recent controversy over working conditions at the Chinese manufacturer Foxconn.

Foxconn makes Apple products. And culturally, Apple's iPad and iPhone are no mere gadgets. They symbolise high-tech consumerism. Apple's brand is like a squeaky-clean combination of Greenpeace and Scientology. So criticism of Foxconn has been as much about popping Apple's otherworldly bubble as anything else.

At least it was until this month, when the radio program This American Life was forced to retract a major ''expose'' of Foxconn it aired in January. In a special episode, reporter Mike Daisey admitted he had fabricated the worst stories. Daisey had never met under-age workers, never met poison victims and never saw armed guards at Foxconn factories.

But by then, the anti-corporate activists had already moved on. A petition with 250,000 signatures had been quickly delivered to Apple. (That petition was, of course, promoted by our own opportunists at GetUp!) Technology writers around the world had called for a boycott of Apple products. Yet Foxconn has better working conditions than comparable workplaces in China. Apple conducts more inspections and audits of its supplier than any other electronics company. By Western standards, most Foxconn jobs are repetitive, boring, the workers' accommodation cramped, and there have been well-reported OH&S incidents. But by the standards of Chinese industry, they are still highly desirable jobs.

But the Foxconn story has had enormous resonance because it fits neatly into a moral tale of Western guilt. You, with your white earbuds and leather-covered iPad, are the direct beneficiary of a nightmarish, Victorian-era sweatshop. Foxconn's 1.2 million workers suffer so Australians can play Angry Birds. It's an alluring tale, perfect for sermons and email forwards. But think what this tale excludes. That is: sympathy for those who have failed to acquire a job at Foxconn. Sympathy for those who lack the skills to get a desirable factory job at all. Sympathy for those who produce goods not destined for First World boutique retail outlets.

So these consumer activism campaigns have a perverse result. We more pity the Chinese workers who have found the jobs that will lift them out of poverty than those who have been unable to do so.

Even more perverse is the implicit message behind these campaigns: that Western consumerism is to blame for the dire plight of Chinese workers. Sure, no one has to buy an iPad. But Chinese workers covet Foxconn jobs. The idea that we should boycott its products is counterproductive. A boycott would not raise labour standards but would deprive people of needed work. We don't like to think about how the moral choices we make in the developed world could be stopping people in other countries from flourishing. That is most obvious when it comes to immigration.

When Tony Abbott announced he was considering subsidising nannies, feminist academic Eva Cox complained it could lead to calls for ''cheap labour from overseas''. She was not alone. You'd think it's pretty cruel to bar poor people from seeking better jobs for themselves. But somehow, such sentiments get wrapped up in the rhetoric of compassion. Perhaps Third World poverty just seems more pressing if it's nearby. Foxconn makes high-profile products we use every day. Migrant nannies in Australia would no longer be in poor, faraway countries, but right under our noses. It's an odd, repugnant and very modern notion of moral responsibility: that we must keep a respectable distance from poverty, even if by doing so we only exacerbate it. Out of sight, out of mind. It's not the developed world's fault that some countries are poor. But it is definitely our fault if we are intentionally stopping them from seeking opportunities to get rich. And is there anything more patronising than the assumption that choices made by people in the Third World are merely the result of unthinking exploitation from the West?

Global capitalism doesn't work like that. When Australians seek employment, we hope to get something out of it. Foreigners are no different. Foreigners are morally autonomous human beings like us, with preferences and plans and intelligence. They know if they are being exploited. They know better than us their employment alternatives.

One of the revelations of the This American Life retraction was that the long hours worked by some Foxconn employees was often entirely their choice. Just as Australian workers sometimes want to work overtime, so too do Chinese workers. Certainly, not everything is rosy in Foxconn plants. But then, not everything is rosy in the developing world. Our neurotic eagerness to blame ourselves does nothing to fix that. Worse, it could easily harm the people we wish to help.

ADVERTISEMENT

RICHARD J WOOD

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal.

I see problems with all of those terms.

"Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo.

Only in Australia do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism — the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known — as conservative.

Additionally, many contemporary Australian conservatives favour state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy.

Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world — the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets — but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary Australian liberals.

The philosophy that animates my work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism."

It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and scepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

The market-liberal vision brings the wisdom of the Australian Founders to bear on the problems of today.

As did the Founders, it looks to the future with optimism and excitement, eager to discover what great things women and men will do in the coming century.

Market liberals appreciate the complexity of a great society, they recognise that socialism and government planning are just too clumsy for the modern world.

It is — or used to be — the conventional wisdom that a more complex society needs more government, but the truth is just the opposite.

The simpler the society, the less damage government planning does.

Planning is cumbersome in an agricultural society, costly in an industrial economy, and impossible in the information age.

Today collectivism and planning are outmoded and backward, a drag on social progress.

Market liberals have a cosmopolitan, inclusive vision for society.

We reject the bashing of gays, Japan, rich people, and immigrants that contemporary liberals and conservatives seem to think addresses society's problems.

We applaud the liberation of blacks and women from the statist restrictions that for so long kept them out of the economic mainstream.

Our greatest challenge today is to extend the promise of political freedom and economic opportunity to those who are still denied it, in our own country and around the world.

My ever-growing areas of expertise include the environment, deregulation, workplace relations, energy, and governance.

On these and other topics I speak at conferences, lectures and seminars, and publish a wide variety of magazines, occasional papers, and comprehensive issue backgrounders.

I also participate in the mainstream debate, appearing in newspapers and journals worldwide.

Take some time to look around my website.

I have currently an enormous range of papers, publications, commentary and issue analysis online, as well as information on upcoming events around the country.

Countdown:

Policy Papers

Australian coastal shipping: the high price of protection (1990)
Too few jobs: why governments can't cure unemployment (1990)
Vested interests and the public interest: Submission to EPAC (1990)
The destruction and creation of jobs (1990)
The Telecom monopoly, natural or artificial? (1991)
Australian grain marketing: achieving lower costs (1991)
Towards efficient transport (1991)
Higher education in Australia: a way forward (1991)
Empty bed blues: Australian health care policy (1992)
Free to fly: practical airline deregulation (1992)
The sources of union power (1992)
What do our children know?: a study of educational standards (1993)
Who pays for protection (1993)
Deregulate or decay: the lesson of the 1930s for the 1990s (1993)
Fiscal anarchy: the public funding of multiculturalism (1993)
Apprenticeships (1993)
Industry protection, a primer (1995)
The economics of mineral export licences (1995)
A new approach to defence: the Wrigley report and after (1995)
Dividing the spoils: markets, government and corruption (1996)
Honest money (1997)