Write on: letters to the editor

February 9, 2000
Issue 

Hemp, not forests

As our old growth forests continue to be destroyed, something needs to be done, and sooner rather than later.

In Australia, hemp was widely used for paper making until the 1920s, until investors in pulp technology and owners of forests bought out, and shut down, mills that used hemp.

As far as I know, hemp is now longer used in Australia. It was halted by the lack of mechanised harvesting and technology, but surely the technology is now available in the 21st century, or could be developed.

In Australia, 200,000 hectares planted with hemp could completely replace the need for all woodchips, and supply our country with all its paper goods. Considering how large Australia is and the continual struggle of farmers, hemp would be ideal for a rotation crop as it suppresses weeds without the need for toxic chemicals and improves aeration.

Also hemp is stronger, lasts longer and can be recycled seven times, as against wood's three times. Hemp has a growing season of three to six months.

So I believe we have been conned by the timber, chemical and fuel companies into believing their methods are superior to the use of more sustainable products. The oldest surviving piece of paper in the world was found in China — and, yes, it was 100% hemp.

Ross McGarva
Fig Tree NSW

Stormont

I refer to John Meehan's article "Stormont returns" (GLW, January 26), an article of negative tone with words and choice of title that seem arranged to imply that "nothing has changed, you're back with the same old Stormont rulers, folks".

Whatever anyone may say to suggest otherwise, the new Stormont has changed. The years of rigged voting, with ruling Protestant power ascendancy being guaranteed, are over.

In those days not even the crooked man could have conceived of a political path leading into the hallowed halls of Protestant Stormont, where a Protestant Unionist leader as First Minister sits next to his Deputy Minister who is a Roman Catholic Social Democratic Labour Party leader, whilst also within those walls sits the Sinn Fein party member as education minister, unbelievable but true.

Today's political landscape would have been impossible even for Salvador Dali to have painted. Yet now, an Irish dream of peace could come true.

The Good Friday Agreement may not survive in a land that got most of its bombs and bullets from the United States, the country that worships the pistol and infects the world with this Hollywood form of philosophy.

Though the paramilitaries and their Devil's housekeepers may yet succeed in slaughtering democracy, at least the large majority of the Irish people have expressed their egalitarian support for the Good Friday Agreement. God help them all.

James Dixon
Mount Hawthorn WA

Carrots, not sticks

Residential land tax in NSW is payable only on the most valuable 0.2% of owner-occupied land. The tax rate has just been reduced from 1.85% to 1.7%. Nationwide, capital gains tax cuts are impending.

Meanwhile, is there a better deal for the unemployed? Well, of course not. Due to the lack of indexation of wages, unemployment benefits are falling further behind community standards. Now the unemployed will have to apply for more jobs simply to retain their poverty level income.

Given the PM is so keen on "incentives" for business why doesn't he provide carrots rather than sticks for the unemployed? Why not pay anyone who applies for additional jobs a bonus rather than penalising anyone who doesn't?

Does the Prime Minister actually relish the thought of more destitute beggars — people disproportionately of low natural ability, with psychological problems or from underprivileged backgrounds — as his policies result in increased numbers being denied all social security?

Brent Howard
Rydalmere

No progress?

Never did I think that in the first year of this century, we would see vicious tactics by workers against workers reminiscent of happenings around the time I was born (1912). The TV shows us police with horizontal truncheons stabbing at pickets.

The workers' struggle is against Australia's biggest and richest corporation. Fortunately, a small majority of Australians are with the workers.

We are seeing how, in bankruptcies, the owners, shareholders, creditors and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all can still smile whilst the workers are crucified. They suffer under the worst PM of the last century who, with Reith and Co., have stone where the heart should be and for whom the key word is: profits!

The fight goes on. Is there progress? Of course there is.

I recall that when I canvassed the slums in Glasgow supporting Peter Kerrigan, the Communist candidate, the general secretary of the CP, Harry Pollitt, was also in Glasgow. Wherever he spoke, there was standing room only.

In reply to a man who remarked that there was no progress, he told us how in the 1920s he had stood on street corners in London "preaching the gospel of socialism" and been pelted with rotten vegetables. He raised his voice in indignation and said, "No progress! Today we have our own daily newspaper, the Daily Worker, available from Land's End to John O' Groats. Of course, there is progress!"

Norman Taylor
Henley Beach SA [Abridged.]

Telstra

Our Prime Minister is once again raising the issue of selling off the remaining 51% of Telstra which is still in government hands, in order for the government to get money to spend on essential infrastructure.

What is the essential infrastructure that the Prime Minister wants to spend money on, and will he be wanting to sell it off when it is developed?

I thought that water, sewage, public transport systems, airports, seaports, electricity generating and distribution systems, as well as telephones, were all essential infrastructure. If they are, why have they been sold? And if they are not, what is the true definition of "essential infrastructure"?

Ron Gray
Adelaide SA

Shorter work week

I was disappointed to read the comments attributed to Tony Benson of the CFMEU construction division in the Mercury on January 31. Benson said that the Tasmanian branch of the CFMEU would not be pursuing a 36-hour work week (linked to a 24% pay rise) initiated by the union's Victorian branch.

Benson virtually dismissed a shorter work week as a "long-term goal", claiming that combating unemployment was a greater priority. He also said that a bigger issue is that many Tasmanians are working seven to 12 hours of unpaid overtime a week.

For a unionist trying to tackle unemployment, dismissing a campaign for a shorter work week is not a sensible start. The demand for a shorter work week (with no loss in pay) can unite employed and unemployed workers and poses a genuine solution to the problem of unemployment. Stipulating that there should be no loss in pay means that the workers (who are not responsible for unemployment) do not pay the price of eradicating it.

Moreover, waging a campaign for a shorter work week can help empower workers to resist working unpaid overtime. When there is a culture of unpaid overtime, it is very difficult for an individual to refuse to participate. It is a different story when the entire work force refuses to work any hours unpaid. A shorter work week campaign could help spark the collective action (as well as the ideological justification) required to combat unpaid overtime.

OThe Mercury reported that the Tasmanian branch of the union was looking at "more direct methods" of job creation and "working closely" with the state government, the national CFMEU and the employer superannuation fund. This sounds to me more like cosying up with the bosses than leading a fight back.

Alex Bainbridge
Hobart [Abridged.]

Correction

From the members of Tet Offensive, thank you for the review [of our CD] in your newspaper [GLW #391]. It's nice of your writer, Ben Courtice, to extend himself to try to reach us, listen to our music and ask us important questions about what we do to try to change the world.

Just one quibble, of fact. The party (Progressive Labor Party) that I am involved in is a Marxist Leninist Party, not a Maoist Party. We broke with the ideas and practice of the Chinese communist party in 1971 and don't call ourselves Maoist in any way, shape or form because of the turn of political policies of the Chinese Party Leadership at that specific time, and since.

Although we take many cues from the past movements, we also distinguish ourselves from them in ways that would take a letter much too long for this forum. If you would like more information, check out our web page (www.plp.org) under Road to Revolution 4.

Once again, thank you and keep the struggle for workers' power alive!

Romel Espinel [Abridged.]

You need Green Left, and we need you!

Green Left is funded by contributions from readers and supporters. Help us reach our funding target.

Make a One-off Donation or choose from one of our Monthly Donation options.

Become a supporter to get the digital edition for $5 per month or the print edition for $10 per month. One-time payment options are available.

You can also call 1800 634 206 to make a donation or to become a supporter. Thank you.