NSW peak oil bill defeated

Lee Rhiannon has informed the peak oil activists in NSW that the NSW bill to run an inquiry for a peak oil masterplan has been defeated. It’s like the NSW government doesn’t want to prepare!

Dear All

The Greens Peak Oil Response Plan Bill was voted down in the NSW Upper House yesterday – by 20 votes to 19 votes.

The object of the Greens Bill was to establish a Peak Oil Taskforce, which would inquire into and report on the best strategies to mitigate the impact of peak oil on New South Wales. We also proposed a moratorium on the construction of oil-dependent infrastructure, such as motorways, for the duration of the inquiry.

Lee’s speech in reply and the vote on the bill can be seen in Hansard here: http://parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/hansArt.nsf/V3Key/LC20090303040

The Labor party did not support the bill on the basis that the market will solve the problem of peak oil and on the basis that the Government is already sufficiently prepared for peak oil. In the debate, the Coalition were split on their approach to the bill – Trevor Khan said his party would not oppose the bill, but Rick Colless referred to peak oil as ‘nebulous’ and said that his party would not reveal its position. Ultimately the Coalition did support the bill however there are clearly internal tensions about the response to peak oil.

Neither of the major parties mentioned public transport as part of the response to peak oil in the parliamentary debate.

You can follow the entire debate here:

And the bill is here:

Many thanks to those who provided advice and support on this bill. The Greens will continue to campaign on peak oil.

Yours sincerely


This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to NSW peak oil bill defeated

  1. byron smith says:

    19-20. So depressing.

    Time to write to some to some senators again…

  2. Eclipse Now says:

    Yes, very frustrating!

    Who knows, if our group beyondfederation.com ever succeeds maybe we won’t even have State governments bungling these matters? Legislation and policy would be dealt with in a streamlined, super-efficient National legislature and National Departments for the Environment, Health, Police, Welfare, Education, etc… and implementation and service delivery would be supervised at the local / regional level.

    We’d have one Legislature instead of 9, save billions in parliamentary feeds, and pump the extra money into important health and welfare and public transport instead!

  3. byron smith says:

    Yeah, I was just reading your piece on the abolishing state governments. I think I’ve been convinced ever since I heard my brother argue this position in a debate when I was about 14 (he was probably about 18 at the time and I don’t think he believed it himself, he was just debating, but I was persuaded).

    That said, I’m not sure I’m particularly optimistic that the outcome would be a “streamlined, super-efficient National legislative and National Departments”. More efficient, yes. Super-efficient, I won’t hold my breath. 🙂

  4. Eclipse Now says:

    Ha ha! Yes, I know what you mean. I think I was using the term “super-efficient” in comparison to today’s system which cannot even save the Murray Darling river system, let alone deal with the “race to the bottom” tax incentive system to attract jobs to each state from multinationals. What about an effective National rail system, or even having the finances to run these Departments properly?

    Can you remember any points your brother raised that convinced you?

    As a peak oiler I at first thought this would all be more Centralist, while peak oilers tend to be for localism. But while we are talking about effective National Legislation and Policy on Health and Education etc, we are also arguing for more local supervision and implementation of these services. Did you know that Local Councils are not even mentioned in the Constitution?

    Anyway, I don’t know whether or not Beyond Federation will ever be successful, but it is worth having the debate.

  5. byron smith says:

    Can’t really remember what my brother said. I think he mentioned the cost of the states and the fact that they were initially set up as a concession to each colony’s suspicion of the others (esp everyone’s suspicion that Sydney and/or Melbourne would have too much power), but that we have moved past this colonial mindset and saw ourselves as Australian, rather than New South Welsh, etc. At that age, it might not have mattered what he said – I would have agreed with it (I really looked up to him!).

    Yes, removing states would (or should) see an increase in local oversight, not simply national.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s