Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label housing. Show all posts

Tuesday, 6 January 2009

SHAC emergency rally 12 pm tommorrow (Jan 7)


From SHAC:

The university won their case against SHAC in the supreme court meaning they can now order the police to evict us when they choose. The university has given us a new deadline to get out 12 pm tomorrow (wednesday) .

We are not leaving and are calling on all our supporters to come to SHAC and help us resist eviction.

We do not know if the police will actually be coming on wednesday afternoon but we are going to hold a mass emergency rally out the front. We are anticipating that a lot of media will be attending.

Please pass this message on to your networks.

If you want to help defend SHAC against eviction you are welcome to sleepover at SHAC, please byo bedding.

Contact Us

shachouse@gmail.com

Visit us!

272 - 8 Faraday Street,
Carlton, VIC
Australia

http://www.shacmelbourne.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, 10 December 2008

Redfern pilot tailored to cut energy needs

by Matthew Levinson
in the Sydney Morning Herald, December 10, 2008

TEN Redfern housing blocks have been torn down to make room for a new era in public housing.

The grim bed-sits will be replaced by Australia's first public housing development to pilot the "Green Star" national standard for energy-efficient residential buildings and the pilot project has implications for up to 150,000 properties owned by Housing NSW.

The new homes will not come a moment too soon, says Mary Perkins, an advocate of low-income housing. Skyrocketing energy costs, especially electricity, are hurting poor tenants.

"People are telling us they've turned off the hot water tank [or] they've cut their soup intake," says Ms Perkins, the executive officer at Shelter NSW. "I wouldn't dismiss anything that reduces their energy costs."

Contractors have demolished 88 units at the Elizabeth Street site to make room for a mix of 246 public and private apartments and houses, with land for 149 private apartments being sold to offset the project's $28 million price tag.

John Gregory, acting director of asset management at Housing NSW, says that in the face of climate change, low-income households will be "adversely affected" if buildings do not operate more efficiently. "We know that electricity prices will go up as carbon pricing works its way through the system," he says.

The new housing at Redfern will have gas-boosted solar hot water, water-saving shower heads, rainwater tanks to supply water for washing clothes and flushing toilets, native landscaping and water recycling for gardens.

There will also be cross-ventilation within residences, insulation and thermal materials that act to reduce energy costs year-round.

Redfern is one of six residential pilots under way nationally.

Saturday, 6 December 2008

University refuses to evict homeless students

(2nd September 2008)

Last night the University of Melbourne Council acknowledged the lack of affordable student housing and formally requested that the Vice-Chancellor Glyn Davis examine co-operative housing as a solution.

The University Council was informed of the activities and plans of the Student Housing Action Co-operative (SHAC). Students from the SHAC Co-operative have been living in vacant terraces owned by the University for the past two weeks. The terraces on Faraday street have been abandoned since 2005 and the University have no current plans for their use.

According to the President of University of Melbourne Postgraduate Association (UMPA), Tammi Jonas, who was present at the council meeting, "The University will undertake an investigation of co-operative student housing to address homelessness amongst students."

SHAC member Liz Turner said, "The SHAC co-operative is taking direct action to address the real need for low cost student housing. We are acting for ourselves and for our fellow students who are in stressful housing situations.

"The students living at Faraday street have been putting the co-operative model into practice for the last two weeks. Students will continue to make Faraday street their home. Most people support what we are doing because they are aware of the lack of affordable accommodation."

The Faraday street terraces have now been transformed into safe, secure, clean and warm living environments. The students have made improvements to the premises and have implemented health and safety procedures with the support of unions. SHAC has also provided free breakfasts and dinners for students and others in the local area.

For comment contact:

Tammi Jonas, President UMPA, 0422 429 362

Liz Turner, SHAC, 0402 657 392

**************************************************

Rally in support of SHAC - 28 November, 2008


Sunday, 8 June 2008

Rudd, Poverty and the Rise of the Underclass

In a good article in today's Sydney Morning Herald, Kerry-Anne Walsh hits upon the worst-kept secret at the heart of Australian society and the economic "boom" of the past decade. Despite all the talk of economic growth, behind all the bluster and blow about interest rates, the rhetoric about "working families" and cutting fuel excise, there is the reality of a growing impoverished underclass in Australia. As Walsh writes:

“THERE is something terribly wrong in a rich country of only 21 million people when 2 million were driven last financial year to seek help from social services.”

Her article is a response to the contents of the annual Australian Community Sector Survey (ACCS), released on Friday. The ACCS found a 6.3% increase in the number of people assisted by community service agencies in the year 2006-7, as well as a 24% increase in those turned away from the services they needed and were eligible for. The survey also found:


There is more, though not in that report. At least ten percent of the population is undeniably living in poverty (a figure which is more likely double that in reality). Over 39 percent of those over 65 years old live below the poverty line, as do most students. And the numbers are worse for aboriginal Australia.

As if this weren't enough, well over 100,000 people in Australia are homeless (including at least 36,000 youth), when there are – in Sydney alone – over 122,211 buildings being kept empty, artificially and deliberately out of public reach in order to fulfill the whims of the market.

Another estimated 300,000 households are under severe mortgage stress, with Australian households owing an average 160 percent of their disposable income. Renters face the unenviable situation of rents that have risen by over 80 percent since 1996. And let’s not talk about how many private properties ministers in the NSW government own!

Then, of course, we have to deal with interest rates, food prices, (we are now promised in NSW) public transport costs and other basics costs of living all increasing – not to mention the environmental crisis, and the effects it will have. And the devil-may-care capitalist banditry of the privatisation-happy NSW government under Iemma and Costa, and their co-thinkers around the country.

Walsh correctly points to the idiocy of bragging in these circumstances about a $22 billion dollar surplus, but – all things considered – her blows against the government fall a bit soft. She rightly takes them up on the spin-cycle nature of politics, and calls upon them to do better. But is it likely that this mob of charlatans will?

Rudd and Co. continue to manage the capitalist system here exactly the way big business wants it, providing little more than the necessary rhetoric - circuses but no bread - to placate a population still exhaling a massive sigh of relief after the Howard Years. A call to arms Walsh’s article was not – but it should be.

While the Rudd government continues to throw around fluffy words, ideas and phrases - talking of working people "tightening belts", pretending to act on climate change, calling for job cuts to prevent interest rate increases, and promising mealy-mouthed (and economically irrational) actions like setting up “FuelWatch” or cutting the tax on fuel - the reality is quite simple, and not just a little dire.

It's the kind of situation that makes you want to update "History will absolve me", and storm, say, Puckapunyal military barracks a la Fidel Castro.

Quite obviously failing that, we need a political alternative with some backbone, and a willingness to call it how it is. To, as Walsh puts it, “move above such tasteless proposals that a government should forgo $2 billion a year in petrol taxes to give a Vegemite sandwich in relief to those who can actually afford to run a car.”

In a society that tolerates wealthy parasites like former Macquarie Bank CEO Alan Moss giving themselves $60 million golden handshakes, this kind of change isn’t going to happen if we sit and wait on the mainstream parties to step up to the plate, and it’s not going to happen without a fight.

Of course, Socialist Alliance recognises the need for urgent action, as do numerous others - individuals and groups alike. But it's one thing to have policy and pithy responses: link 1; link 2; link 3; link 4; link 5; and it's another to find ways to implement it. We still need a stronger, more united, left to make this possible - both red, and green, and perhaps other colours too. If the left can't see past it's organisational and programmatic shibboleths, and start working together in the face of these facts (not to mention the climate crisis) then it is condemning itself to irrelevance. Unfortunately, that struggle for left unity remains the one of the biggest - and most important - challenges we face today.


Finally, in case you missed it, the 7:30 Report's Clark and Dawe have nicely captured the nonsense of Rudd's economic conservatism with regards to the (or any) budget surplus. The transcript can be found here: Clarke and Dawe and a tale of two economies.

Friday, 6 June 2008

What would a liveable city look like?


Dave Holmes
30 May 2008

When one sees a modern city from the air, especially at night, it is a truly awe-inspiring spectacle. The immensity of the project is a testimony to the power and creativity of human beings. However, on the ground and actually living and working in this wonder, things are quite different: the social and ecological problems crowd in and fill your view. The truth is that our cities have always been dominated by the rich and powerful, and built and operated to serve their needs rather than those of the mass of working people who live and toil in them.

Today the destructive effect on the quality of urban life of the capitalist pursuit of profits before anything else is growing alarmingly:

•Modern capitalist cities are absolutely dominated by cars and trucks. This leads to massive, life-threatening pollution and a vast network of roads and car parks that scar the urban landscape. People live on islands surrounded by seas of asphalt and concrete — 40% or more of the city surface is asphalt and concrete. The city creates its own, warmer climate.
•Motor vehicles also directly kill and maim large numbers of people each year; still greater numbers die from the pollution. Vehicle emissions are also a major contributor to greenhouse gases and climate change that threatens humanity with utter catastrophe.
•Public transport systems are weak and take second place to the motor car. Similarly, the great bulk of freight is carried by trucks not rail.
•Developers, aided by governments, have created the appalling urban sprawl with all its ecological and social consequences (erosion of farmland, huge distances between home and work, etc.). The word “developers” is an appalling euphemism — capitalist sharks would be a more accurate description.
•And now, in the name of urban consolidation, these same developers are being encouraged to build their often crappy-blocks of units anywhere and everywhere.
•Then look at what the developers actually construct. Modern houses and buildings are generally not only hard to maintain but ecologically wasteful and often extremely unhealthy (emissions from building materials, plastics and cleaning agents). They could be designed differently — we could easily have ecologically sensible houses instead of the current extremely wasteful “McMansions” favoured by the building industry.
•In the cities, public land — modest though it is — is constantly being alienated by greedy devoured in league with councils and city and state governments.
•Not only are house prices soaring beyond the reach of most workers, but homelessness is growing sharply (estimated to be over 100,000 nationally) as governments refuse to build public housing and rely on the market to solve everything (preferring to give subsidies to people to rent from private landlords).
•Shopping centres (malls and supermarkets) dominate much of city life. They kill most of the neighbourhood shops and force people to rely on cars to do their shopping. But these juggernauts are purely the result of the capitalist thirst for profit — they appear before us as facts of life; people never get to discuss what is really needed. Moreover, the ubiquitous shopping mall represents a serious privatisation of social space — we all have to use them and they thus fulfil a social function but access and control is wholly in the hands of the private owners. •As the supermarkets and malls kill off many of the neighbourhood shops, their place is taken by chain outlets (7-11, Coles Express, petrol station shops) all offering emergency supplies at much higher prices.
•Within the city we have the monstrous swelling of the city centre (full of truly ugly buildings all jostling for position) and the bleak wasteland of the sprawling suburbs.
•In the 1960s, “decentralisation” was a buzzword. Governments encouraged a modest movement of services and industry to regional centres. But today country towns and villages are dying as governments cut services and jobs and banks close branches. This has a multiplier effect. People move to the city (or at least to the big regional centres) and the rural crisis intensifies.
•There is a movement back to some regional centres but — under the wonderful capitalist system we have — it becomes a ghastly caricature of what is really needed. The rich and middle classes build holiday homes in coastal towns, forcing up prices and making life impossible for ordinary working-class pensioners and renters who have to move elsewhere.

Peak oil and climate change

On top of the all this, as the concept of peak oil and the eventual end of this finite resource laid down over millions of years gains currency, the fragility of the modern city is suddenly laid bare. The movie The End of Suburbia demonstrates very well how the American suburbs have been built on the automobile. If the motor vehicle as we know it goes — i.e., can no longer serve as mode of mass transport — then the urban sprawl becomes even more untenable and an alternative way of living becomes desperately urgent.

Similarly, climate change has put a big question mark over the modern city. Effecting a drastic and rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is a life-and-death question.

In Australia, perhaps the most dramatic manifestation of climate change for the cities is the question mark over water supplies. Achieving water security and sustainability is a burning issue. To date, the main response of state and federal governments has been to go for big-budget projects (in Victoria, a desalination plant and a diversion pipeline to take scarce water from the equally drought-affected Murray-Goulburn irrigation area in the north).

Arguably, such responses do not address the real problem and will actually make it worse. For instance, Victoria’s projected desalination plant will be a major emitter of greenhouse gases.

All in all, climate change calls into question many aspects of our current urban existence.

•The motor vehicle culture that big business has foisted on us is no longer viable (if it ever was). If declining fuel supplies and ever-more-expensive petrol costs don’t kill it off, surely climate change will. Public transport systems will have to be developed to replace it.
•The urban sprawl especially characteristic of Australian capital cities — which compels people to travel vast distances to get to work — will have to give way to some form of consolidation. The growth of the city centre and the bleakness of much of the suburbs needs to be overcome. A much better spread of jobs would mean that people didn’t have to travel vast distances to work.
•Over time the fetish of the quarter-acre block — the equivalent of every family owning its own car — would start to ease and eventually disappear as people realised that denser living with radically improved public amenities (parks, transport, services) had a lot to offer (as it does in some European cities).
•As currently constructed, our houses and buildings embody huge amounts of water and energy and considerable greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, their actual operation is characterised by a high and unsustainable energy and water consumption.
•Climate change will put our food supply under extreme pressure. What foods we eat, how they are transported and distributed will become important questions. As well as finding ways to guarantee our food security, reducing the water and energy consumed in the whole process will be vitally important.
•We need a much more uniform distribution of the population over the countryside. At the very least, the cities must get smaller and the country towns grow. But, unlike what is happening today, this needs to be done in such a way that jobs and services move out also, transport access is maintained and actual living communities are created. In time, the traditional isolation of the countryside would disappear along with the swollen capital city with its bloated centre.

In this regard socialists reject the current developer-driven model whereby greenfields housing estates gobble up precious farmland and create McMansion-style ghettos on the fringes of the city, isolated and with few amenities, a trap for the less mobile and a terrific burden for those who have to travel vast distances to work. We can surely work out something much better.

Abandon affluence?

As an aside, Ted Trainer, in his 1985 book Abandon Affluence, had a lot to say on the modern city. But his non-Marxist, radical green framework marred a lot of the useful points he made.

He saw “over-consumption” by the West as the source of the global ecological crisis. In his book he bases everything on reducing consumption.

Marxists, of course, see the fundamental problem not as “over-consumption” but the capitalist drive for profits ahead of all else; achieving a relative material abundance is essential if humanity is to leave class conflict behind and achieve full communism. With modern technology, it would be quite possible to achieve relative material abundance and — by improving production processes and eliminating the wastefulness of capitalist production and society — at the same time actually reduce our ecological footprint massively.

One can say generally that the West consumes too many resources but this obscures the reality that these are class-divided societies and a large proportion of the population doesn’t consume very much at all. For example, in the United States there is a huge internal Third World which radically under-consumes the necessities of life. They are not responsible for the reckless extravagance of the US — that should be sheeted home squarely to the ruling capitalist plutocracy.

While we oppose the wasteful use of resources and while we too are opposed to capitalist consumerism, posing the problem in terms of reducing consumption as such is wrong and would be political suicide for the socialist movement. For instance, supermarkets, for all their capitalistic form, are actually a tremendous labour- and time-saving convenience. The liberation of women and the whole working class has many aspects; a key one is reducing drudgery to the minimum. We want to go forwards from capitalism, not backwards.

Trainer’s city of the future has a very definite reactionary, feudal, labour-intensive feel to it, but even allowing for this rather basic weakness, he does paint a thought-provoking picture of the new city, with the old freeways and roads dug up, with vegetable gardens where the factories once stood, etc.

Monstrous beast in the room

Making our cities livable and grappling with peak oil, climate change and sustainability are really one and the same thing.

Ideally, we would have a big discussion, develop a rational plan and then organise ourselves to implement it. If we were, say, a small community living in ancient times before the development of class society, that is exactly what we would have done.

But today, the problem is not that the population has grown but that the economy on which we all depend — the productive apparatus and everything associated with it — is not owned collectively by society, but by a tiny handful of capitalists. Working people’s labour operates the means of production — in that sense it is social — but only a few per cent of the population privately own it.

This is the monstrous, slaving beast in the room. At every turn of the wheel it has to fed. Its ravenous appetite must be satisfied ahead of any human need. What it wants — profits — is not what the rest of us want: meaningful action on climate change and other social problems.

For example, in Victoria right now, the big-business-oriented Brumby ALP government is moving at high speed in the opposite direction to what is needed to confront peak oil and climate change:

•Rather than a massive program of fitting all dwellings with water tanks and recycling systems, imposing conservation targets on industry and agribusiness, and establishing the infrastructure for large-scale stormwater capture, it has signed off on the desalination plant and the northern pipeline — bonanzas for big business but a disaster for the rest of us. Water bills for ordinary households are projected to double within five years.
•Rather than a program to phase out our disastrous dependence on brown coal and make the switch to renewable energy, the state government is intent on pursuing the mirage of “clean coal” technology. Power prices are also set to double for ordinary users over the next few years.
•It refuses to put the necessary resources into public transport, which exists in absolutely infuriating and permanent crisis; instead its program is roads and still more roads. Now it is inching towards a truly insane monster road tunnel under Melbourne’s general cemetery. Not even the dead are to be left to rest in peace!
•It is going ahead with a radical dredging of Melbourne’s Port Phillip Bay that threatens to lead to the flooding of low-lying suburbs at high tide. And all this is so that bigger ships — laden with yet more consumerist crap — can transit the bay.
•It has given the go-ahead to GM canola. Brumby’s utterly ludicrous comment was that this was giving the consumer “choice”! The consumers don’t want this sort of fake “choice” — they want safe foods. GM was given the green light to give a profit bonanza to Monsanto and a few big exporters; the rest of us will pay the price (an increase in allergies and who knows what other long-term health damage).

Public ownership and planning

In order to grapple with the crisis of climate change we need a total mobilisation of society and a drastic, rapid reorientation of our entire economy. But to imagine that anything can compel a horde of profit-crazed corporations to be “responsible” is utterly fanciful. The commanding heights of the economy must be in public hands.

•Socialists call for the nationalisation of the entire energy sector. This vital infrastructure must belong to the community — whether it is in federal, state or municipal hands. The charter of this sector must be to phase out the fossil fuel power plants and make the “big switch” to renewable energy as quickly as possible.
•The public transport and freight systems must also be in public hands. The aim must be to achieve a rapid, substantial reduction in the use of motor vehicles. The roads should be kept safe; apart from that, massive investments must be poured into rail, trams and feeder bus systems.
•The automobile industry should likewise be nationalised. The car plants should be retooled to produce public transport stock and renewable power equipment.
•As the crisis of climate change bites deeper, food security will become a big issue for society. We can’t leave the bulk of the distribution system in the hands of profit-gouging supermarket chains like Coles and Woolworths, that exploit small suppliers and consumers alike. They too should be brought under public ownership.
•The banks, which underpin the capitalist economy, should be nationalised and a single state bank created. This would guarantee bank workers’ jobs, provide services and generate funds for the reconstruction of the economy.

Economic planning based on public ownership of the means of production has tremendous power. Here is just one example.

In 1967 Isaac Deutscher, the renowned biographer of Trotsky, published The Unfinished Revolution, his well-known study of the Soviet Union. He pointed out that if you allowed for all the years the USSR took to simply get back to pre-war levels of production (following World War I and the Civil War and then World War II), then in the equivalent of a mere 25 peaceful years — from a very low base — it had created the second most powerful industrial economy in the world.

Put aside Stalinist bureaucratism and repression, the deliberate neglect of consumer needs in favour of heavy industry, and the damage to the environment — this example nevertheless shows the enormous power of collective labour, once it is freed from the shackles of capitalism and allocated according to a conscious plan.

Of course, the capitalist class has immense power and wealth and will not give it up without a tremendous struggle. Only the growth of a vast popular movement, solidly based on the great working-class majority, can succeed. The development of a movement to fight for meaningful action on climate change will at the same time prepare the political conditions for a workers’ government which will finally bring the economy under collective ownership and control.

This — and only this — will enable us to begin to construct a society based on the fulfilment of human needs and living sustainably in harmony with nature.

[Dave Holmes is a member of the Democratic Socialist Perspective, a Marxist tendency within the Socialist Alliance. This article is based on a talk presented at the Climate Change — Social Change Conference in Sydney in April, 2008. The conference was organised by Green Left Weekly.]
From: Comment & Analysis, Green Left Weekly issue #753 4 June 2008.

Wednesday, 7 May 2008

Questions for Sydney’s future

The wombats have been flat out with stuff, nonsense and politics for the past couple of weeks, making it hard to keep up to date with the 1000 and 1 things that appear to be happening around us (sometimes, frustratingly, to no particular purpose). Consequently, we've been looking for bits and bobs that might be worth replicating. This is one such, from The Guardian, paper of the rapidly ageing Communist Party of Oz. While we do, of course, agree with their last point, we tend to think that this might be a better option than the CPA.

*********************************

Peter Mac


Just before the NSW ALP Conference last weekend the popularity rating of current premier Morris Iemma had fallen to just 28 percent, reminiscent of Prime Minister Howard’s last popularity rating before his recent electoral annihilation.


But it’s not all bad news. For example, the NSW government and the Sydney Council have agreed to erect 700 new inner-city flats for workers on low and medium pay.

That’s welcome news. Sydney’s workers now travel from as far as Newcastle, Nowra and Blue Mountains. However, the proposal will certainly not meet Sydney’s inner city housing demand, especially given its current appalling rate of mortgage defaults and evictions.

The government has admitted that the housing proposal is crucial because Sydney needs bus drivers, nurses, police officers and cleaners, but it seems to have overlooked the idea that working people have a right to live in affordable housing in the inner city, a principle which underwrote many of Sydney’s great post-war public housing programs.

The government is also seeking to associate itself with the far more popular Sydney City Council, currently headed by Clover Moore. That’s pretty ironic, given that numerous Liberal and ALP governments spent enormous time and money over many years attempting to prevent the progressive Ms Moore from gaining the mayor’s position.

Ms Moore recently announced a number of highly imaginative, if in some cases extremely expensive ideas for improving the human qualities of the city. In comparison the stench of corruption clings to the Iemma government relentlessly. That’s nowhere more evident than in the changes to planning regulations.

Odious developments

New planning laws in NSW will in effect grant Frank Sartor, the NSW Minister for Planning, near-dictatorial powers. Sartor has recently announced his intention to appoint a new temporary External Advisory Panel, to make recommendations on major development proposals.

Sartor is at liberty to ignore their recommendations. The Panel will expire in three months, after the government’s highly controversial new planning laws create the new Planning Assessment Commission.

The legislation will also enable development proposals which are now dealt with by councils to be handled by "independent" authorities, i.e. private certifiers, arbitrators, joint regional panels and the Planning Assessment Commission, all of which would be appointed by the government.

Planning experts and legal authorities now claim that the new laws will slow down the development application process, and make it extremely contentious and expensive.

They also claim that the new alternative planning authorities will be in legal competition with the Land and Environment Court, because the development applicant will be able to apply to the alternative authority if that promises them a more satisfactory outcome.

A good example of the implications of the new planning powers is the Aboriginal housing complex known as "The Block", in central Redfern.

In 2004, after the government created the Redfern Waterloo Authority, Ken Morrison from the Property Council of Australia declared with great enthusiasm: "If Redfern Station is to become the hub of a new commercial zone, then the Block will just have to go." The Authority can override local councils and heritage laws, and under the existing planning laws Sartor can compulsorily acquire property and sell it off to developers.

Greens MP Sylvia Hale commented: "How better to fulfil two of the minister’s long-term ambitions — to move Aborigines out of Redfern while simultaneously assisting those generous donors to the ALP, the development lobby."

How to get there

The Iemma government has failed to address the crying need for better, cheaper and more extensive public transport in Sydney.

That need is nowhere more painfully felt than in Sydney’s western suburbs. Sixty percent of western Sydney residents travel to work alone by car, compared with 53.7 percent for the whole of Sydney. In one western council area the average house has 2.1 vehicles, compared with the city average of 1.5. Only 13.6 percent of western suburbs residents catch a train or bus to work, whereas the average for the city as a whole is 17.7 percent. In some western areas buses come only once per hour, or not at all.

Water at a cost

Big rises in the cost of Australia’s water are to be expected, because of long-term diminishing rainfall, which will force the government to invest in extra water supply infrastructure.

However, the situation in Sydney has been exacerbated by the State government’s assumption that critical new situations demand big, visually impressive new projects, which of course involve huge commissions for the private sector. The government has virtually ignored proposals from the Greens and many environmental groups for extra rainwater collection and the recycling of waste water.

Construction work is now proceeding for the controversial Sydney desalination plant. The first results were the spillage of construction spoil into the waters of Botany Bay, followed by structural damage to nearby houses.

That hasn’t helped to the Iemma government’s plummeting popularity.

Planning’s about the future

A refusal to focus on issues which will become of crucial importance in the next twenty to thirty years is evident in government planning in NSW and elsewhere in Australia.

Climate change and the dwindling supply of petroleum will force enormous change on the way we live, on the economy and on our systems of government. The current incentives for energy and water conservation and renewable energy production are praiseworthy, but are entirely inadequate.

Australian governments have failed to implement good policies with regard to these crucial issues. And that’s the message. If we really want to tackle crucial planning policy issues, we have to look to parties other than those which currently rule Australia’s political domain.