The week in Parliament wasn't remarkable for a lifting of the standards of performance. Question Time remains unmoved by calls for improved behaviour, particularly with regard to the way in which questions are answered by Ministers.
One debate I wished to join was on Bio-fuels; increasing the mandated levels of ethanol and bio-diesel in use. Unfortunately the debate was adjourned to Friday. As I believe my attendance at a Union meeting at Mannering Park regarding proposed power sector privatisation is more important, I missed the opportunity to contribute to the bio-fuels debate.
What I would have said is:
The benefits of and arguments for bio-fuel as either ethanol or bio-diesel seem to have compelling logic. We all know that E10 has provided a consistently lower cost option for motorists to fill their cars for some time. This was no doubt mostly appreciated by motorists during the period of rapid price escalation of petrol through 2007 and 2008.
While price differential and pricing point is not quite so significant at this point in time, petrol prices having reduced significantly, this will inevitably change in the foreseeable future; and, E10 is still saving motorists money.
The environmental benefits of bio-fuels have been at the forefront of the enthusiasm to increase the use of bio-diesel, and ethanol, inparticular, for many years. I can clearly recall the increased enthusiasm for ethanol coming out of the environmental movement in the 1970’s and 80’s. It was seen as a green alternative fuel that would reduce demand on finite and diminsihing fossil fuel reserves.
And so it is in many aspects. As well as reducing the demand for fossil fuel, the burning of bio-fuels produces less carbon output than fossil fuels and also less particulate matter, a major cause of health impacts particularly on our more densely populated communities.
The Member for Riverstone, in introducing the Bill on behalf of the Minister, made reference to the distinction between first-generation bio-fuels and second-generation bio-fuels, the latter of which seem at least 5 to 10 years away from being commercially viable. This Bill mandates a bio-fuel increase where for at least the short to medium term will see the feedstock being from feedstock that has other potential uses, or at least, fit the definition of first-generation bio-fuel feedstock.
Second generation include a much wider range of feedstock for ethanol production, including, manure, food waste, wood, straw, sewage, algae and other waste or by-product from food production with no current economic use.
As well as the distinction between 1st and 2nd generation feedstock, the point has been strongly made by other members that feedstock for this bio-fuel increase, even though it is first-generation bio-fuel, will be from sources that have no impact on food product or agricultuaral land that would be otherwise used for food production.
That is pleasing to know and I am sure that no member here would want to be part of supporting an industry that would have huge impacts in the areas of social justice or ecological destruction. Under the scenarios used to justify this Bill, all seems good. Without impacting on food production we can advance bio-fuel using first-gen feedstock as we move to even more sustainable second-generation bio-fuels.
Of course this doesn’t allay the fears of many including a number of academics who have watched the development of the bio-fuel industry. We are creating an industry by the use of legislated targets. It would be amazing if this industry does not reach a point where it wishes to expand beyond the mandated levels – this will no doubt change everything and create demand for feedstocks that ae currently being ruled out.
I note the Member for Kiama stating that 40% of the fuel for vehicles in Brazil is now from ethanol. The fact that vehicles can effectively be run on 40% ethanol is noted, but so should the worldwide concern over the loss of food productive land and the threat to one of the most incredible and important ecosystems on the planet, the Amazon rainforest. No one can seriously wave the flag for the industry in Brazil without recognising the massive ongoing environmental destruction occurring there.
Mandating a figure for bio-fuels intentionally creates an artificial environment for this industry. This could be supported if the concerns around bio-fuels were clearly addressed, particularly by only mandating increased bio-fuel production with second or third-generation bio-fuels.
It is inconceivable that once the mandated target is achieved, this new industry will not wish to expand, and if that means placing pressure on food production or ecological valuable land, this will be hard to resist by the government of the day.
I acknowledge that within the legislation there are provisions to suspend the mandate if available supplies of bio-fuels or feedstocks are inadequate or uneconomic. The way in which the Expert Panel referred to would consider this or apply the Sustainability Standard referred to, is unknown, and as far as I know the details surrounding the Sustainability Standard are unknown.
These matters should be much better understood prior to increasing these mandated bio-fuel levels. As with any technology, there needs to be a period of growth and development so as to be able to improve the technology. Perhaps until we know more about the impacts of bio-fuel production, the approach should be that the prescribed levels are maximum levels of bio-fuel rather than minimum.
In an article in TIME magazine of 27 March 2008, Michael Grunwald, stated “biofuels have become the vanguard of the green-tech revolution, the trendy way for politicians and corporations to show they’re serious about finding alternative sources of energy and in the process slowing global warming.”
As the Member for Sydney stated in her contribution, we are part of a global economy, and what we do here cannot be seen in isolation to other parts of the world. In many areas around the world, bio-fuels are clearly causing greater problems through their production, than easing problems associated with global warming.
The Member for Riverstone in his introductory speech quoted Rudolf Diesel when he said “The engine can be fed with vegetable oils and would help considerably in the development of agriculture in the countries that use it.” Mr Speaker, I suggest Rudolf Diesel could never have imagined the world population growth, demand for resources and the environmental impacts that we would be dealing with in 2009.
From the aforementioned Time article by Michael Grunwald, “The biofuels boom, in short, is one that could haunt the planet for generations – and it’s only getting started.”
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Fixed Term Government - O'Farrell's option
Barry O'Farrell is proposing changes that would allow for an incompetent or corrupt Government to be forced to an election before the end of the fixed 4 year term. He is proposing that if they win the election in 2012 the Liberal/National government will begin investigating options that will be put to a referendum at the following election in 2016.
I do support fixed 4 year terms as I believe that it gives some surety to the government to get on with the job and be able to accomplish an agenda within that term. Being fixed, it also removes as much as possible, the temptation to manipulate the election cycle by short term announcements to direct favourable sentiment their way, prior to calling a snap election. The recent WA experience tells us this does not always work, but that example was one of the crudest attempts we have seen - the public saw through it and Alan Carpenter paid the price.
The people should have a fall back position to remove a government, but it should not be easily done. The process would have to be able to safeguard against the ability of short term, special interest groups, to generate enough political heat to trigger an election. That would make government untenable and cause a blowout in the cost of democracy. The system should be fair to the people and fair to the government. As it stands now, it favours the government.
Given a reasonable proposition, I would be supporting Barry O'Farrell on this one.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
State Planning for and on behalf of the NSW Development Industry
There is significant concern regarding the use of Planning Law to remove the rights of local communities to determine how their community will develop.
Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is well known for its use, or abuse, to remove from Councils, developments that are considered State Significant. There have been calls for Part 3A to be removed. Clearly there are times when the use of Part 3A is appropriate and it would be counter productive for it to be repealed. Part 3A should either be used sparingly or modified to more clearly define what is State Significant.
The current Government has shown contempt for local planning and decision making. Instead of working with Councils to reach agreement on streamlining the planning process, it has capitulated to the demands of the development industry and chosen their policies against the advice and concerns of Councils and communities. And this is a LABOR government!
One mechanism the government uses to invoke its call up powers, is SEPP No. 71, Coastal Protection.
SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection (policy aims listed below) applies to coastal land, including the lake foreshore, within 1 kilometre of the Mean High Water Mark. An area such as Lake Macquarie, with a poulation already approaching 2000,000, quite naturally, has significant demand for development in reasonable proximity to its foreshore. SEPP 71 has as its overwhelming principles and goals, the protection of the coast against inappropriate development. While at face value this is laudable, the reality is that this SEPP removes, in a most patriarchal way, the responsibility and opportunity for local elected representatives and their community to shape the future of their area.
There are examples in Lake Macquarie of what would otherwise be minor developments, easily within the resources and expertise of Council to determine and which have been removed by this SEPP. Other controversial developments such as Trinity Point at Morisset Park would have been well within the capacity of Lake Macquarie City Council to assess and determine. Indeed, it is very likely that the proposed development would have been much more in line within community thinking if the proposal was not trapped by SEPP 71 and the option to use part 3A was not available to the developer.
SEPP 71 should only do what was envisaged, i.e. ensure protection of our coast against inappropriate development. This can be best done by altering SEPP 71 to provide for the State Department of Planning to be required to consider making a submission on any such Development Application to the Consent Authority (the Council) and also by providing the ultimate power of veto to protect against inappropriate development. It should be used to stop bad development, not to take consideration of development away from the local community.
Part 3A should only be used for developments that fit strenuous tests of appropriateness. Examples of what might be appropriate include rail and regional/state/national road infrastructure, gas and water pipelines, and major regionally significant infrastructure such as the Tillegra Dam.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection.
(1) This Policy aims:
(a) to protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New South Wales coast, and
(b) to protect and improve existing public access to and along coastal foreshores to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and
(c) to ensure that new opportunities for public access to and along coastal foreshores are identified and realised to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and
(d) to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage, and Aboriginal places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge, and
(e) to ensure that the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and
(f) to protect and preserve beach environments and beach amenity, and
(g) to protect and preserve native coastal vegetation, and
(h) to protect and preserve the marine environment of New South Wales, and
(i) to protect and preserve rock platforms, and
(j) to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991), and
(k) to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and
(l) to encourage a strategic approach to coastal management.
Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act is well known for its use, or abuse, to remove from Councils, developments that are considered State Significant. There have been calls for Part 3A to be removed. Clearly there are times when the use of Part 3A is appropriate and it would be counter productive for it to be repealed. Part 3A should either be used sparingly or modified to more clearly define what is State Significant.
The current Government has shown contempt for local planning and decision making. Instead of working with Councils to reach agreement on streamlining the planning process, it has capitulated to the demands of the development industry and chosen their policies against the advice and concerns of Councils and communities. And this is a LABOR government!
One mechanism the government uses to invoke its call up powers, is SEPP No. 71, Coastal Protection.
SEPP 71 – Coastal Protection (policy aims listed below) applies to coastal land, including the lake foreshore, within 1 kilometre of the Mean High Water Mark. An area such as Lake Macquarie, with a poulation already approaching 2000,000, quite naturally, has significant demand for development in reasonable proximity to its foreshore. SEPP 71 has as its overwhelming principles and goals, the protection of the coast against inappropriate development. While at face value this is laudable, the reality is that this SEPP removes, in a most patriarchal way, the responsibility and opportunity for local elected representatives and their community to shape the future of their area.
There are examples in Lake Macquarie of what would otherwise be minor developments, easily within the resources and expertise of Council to determine and which have been removed by this SEPP. Other controversial developments such as Trinity Point at Morisset Park would have been well within the capacity of Lake Macquarie City Council to assess and determine. Indeed, it is very likely that the proposed development would have been much more in line within community thinking if the proposal was not trapped by SEPP 71 and the option to use part 3A was not available to the developer.
SEPP 71 should only do what was envisaged, i.e. ensure protection of our coast against inappropriate development. This can be best done by altering SEPP 71 to provide for the State Department of Planning to be required to consider making a submission on any such Development Application to the Consent Authority (the Council) and also by providing the ultimate power of veto to protect against inappropriate development. It should be used to stop bad development, not to take consideration of development away from the local community.
Part 3A should only be used for developments that fit strenuous tests of appropriateness. Examples of what might be appropriate include rail and regional/state/national road infrastructure, gas and water pipelines, and major regionally significant infrastructure such as the Tillegra Dam.
Local communities should make the decisions as to what their communities will look like in the future. Elected Councillors are members of that community and directly answerable to the community. The largely succesful developer led charge to remove Councils from decision making must be reversed.
State Environmental Planning Policy No 71—Coastal Protection.
(1) This Policy aims:
(a) to protect and manage the natural, cultural, recreational and economic attributes of the New South Wales coast, and
(b) to protect and improve existing public access to and along coastal foreshores to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and
(c) to ensure that new opportunities for public access to and along coastal foreshores are identified and realised to the extent that this is compatible with the natural attributes of the coastal foreshore, and
(d) to protect and preserve Aboriginal cultural heritage, and Aboriginal places, values, customs, beliefs and traditional knowledge, and
(e) to ensure that the visual amenity of the coast is protected, and
(f) to protect and preserve beach environments and beach amenity, and
(g) to protect and preserve native coastal vegetation, and
(h) to protect and preserve the marine environment of New South Wales, and
(i) to protect and preserve rock platforms, and
(j) to manage the coastal zone in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable development (within the meaning of section 6 (2) of the Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991), and
(k) to ensure that the type, bulk, scale and size of development is appropriate for the location and protects and improves the natural scenic quality of the surrounding area, and
(l) to encourage a strategic approach to coastal management.
O'Farrell out / Premier gives more of same
So last week the Opposition Leader, Barry O'Farrell, was ejected from the Legislative Assembly for 24 hours for failing to comply with the direction of the Speaker, Richard Torbay.
Barry had asked a question which on face value was very important. It related to why the Government had removed the power of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to failures of the states' child protection system. As Mr O'Farrell later said, if you are going to be thrown out, then there could be no more important issue to be thrown out over.
Did Barry intend to be thrown out? Was it pre-planned? A stunt? Maybe. One thing for certain, Torbay was left with no other option with such a flagrant challenge to and disregard for the authority of the Speaker.
But let's not exonerate entirely the Premier. Premier Rees had the opportunity to deal with the question in a direct and appropriate manner - he chose to ignore the basis of the question and reply in the typical manner of an attack against the Opposition on their previous policies and lack of support for DOCs. This may be true, but it would be nice to see at least now and then, the Government, be magnanimous in it's use of power, by directly and professionally answering a question. This question would have been a good chance - and a more balanced response from Nathan Rees would have done him credit. He missed the chance.
Barry had asked a question which on face value was very important. It related to why the Government had removed the power of the Ombudsman to investigate matters relating to failures of the states' child protection system. As Mr O'Farrell later said, if you are going to be thrown out, then there could be no more important issue to be thrown out over.
Did Barry intend to be thrown out? Was it pre-planned? A stunt? Maybe. One thing for certain, Torbay was left with no other option with such a flagrant challenge to and disregard for the authority of the Speaker.
But let's not exonerate entirely the Premier. Premier Rees had the opportunity to deal with the question in a direct and appropriate manner - he chose to ignore the basis of the question and reply in the typical manner of an attack against the Opposition on their previous policies and lack of support for DOCs. This may be true, but it would be nice to see at least now and then, the Government, be magnanimous in it's use of power, by directly and professionally answering a question. This question would have been a good chance - and a more balanced response from Nathan Rees would have done him credit. He missed the chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
