Geoff Dowsett writes that he received a pathetic response from the Greens re the letter he sent to the Australian Minister for Immigration. He invited people to comment on the Greens response.
Last night I watched Larissa Waters and Nick Xenophon doggedly try to curb sinister bi-partisan legislation that burns down our native forests and calls this clean energy. In a final attempt to salvage some public control over this legislated attack on our native forests, they argued that the general public be ensured 'standing' to bring about complaints when they perceived breaches of these new laws. I found it nauseating to watch the arrogant demeanor of Senator Birmingham, the Minister for Education, Liberal Party, as he blocked the rights of ordinary citizens to bring about complaints under the law and as he disparaged Senator Water's attempts to bring attention to crucial matters, such as the preservation of soil fertility when forest is depleted of its biomass. Greens Senator Milne summed up the situation when she said: "You are creating an industry to drive and prop up native forest logging. You are destroying habitat, you are destroying carbon stores and you are behaving in a manner that is contrary to all of the science on what we should be doing about global warming, and you are calling it renewable when it is not renewable. It is driving the destruction of forests. That is the point. It is not about the trees being 'cut down anyway'. They are not being cut down now, because it is not economic to do so. What you are doing here is trying to put a dollar value back into logging to prop up native forest logging because it is an ideological obsession of the Prime Minister. Isn't that exactly what is going on here?"
At first glance The Australian Greens’ announcement that they would abolish the negative gearing 1 tax break, in a bid to increase government revenue through increased taxation and improve homelessness and housing affordability looks like the right move. I have, however a few questions about this.
The Greens are at the crossroads as a political party — should they focus on the wider concerns of the electorate, or should they stick to environmentalism? For instance, the humanitarian crying out for the suffering of refugees needs to be focused on what drives people to become refugees, like our engagement in unjust wars, environmental damage and over-population. Dr Peter Cock says they need to stay green. [Comment from Candobetter.net editor: Some of us here think the Greens need to rebrand if they don't become green, but we appreciate the discussion in this article, which targets our concerns.]