FED:Editorials, Saturday August 13, 2011

AAP General News (Australia)
08-13-2011
FED:Editorials, Saturday August 13, 2011

SYDNEY, Aug 13 AAP - Britain's riots remain an enigma; what happened is clear enough,
but how to explain them is not clear at all, The Sydney Morning Herald says in its editorial
today.

The event that sparked it might suggest racial tension underlies the rioting. A black
man, a father of four, was shot dead by police trying to arrest him in Tottenham.

Anger at the shooting sparked a protest that became a full-scale riot, with cars and
buses set alight. Rioting then spread, aided by social networking sites and mobile phone
messaging.

At some point it became clear to those protesting or rioting that the police were overstretched,
and whole neighbourhoods could be looted.

A section of the British population had a chance to get away with something normally
out of bounds and grasped it with both hands.

As the world looks on Britain with puzzlement and wonders how people could do such
things, who in this country would ever say Australia - same background, same values -
is immune from the same thinking, or something similar could never happen here?

Melbourne's The Age says the British government must carefully sift through the wreckage
of a week of street riots or risk a misstep in its response.

A host of stringent measures, announced by Prime Minister David Cameron, smack of over-reaction
rather than useful reaction.

The government is promising tougher sentencing, US-style anti-street gang programs
and restrictions on social media for identified troublemakers.

Social media restriction might apply in China, but not in any democratic society, where
suppressive restrictions are unreasonable and unworkable.

There have to be logical and sound reasons to strengthen legislation to avoid the risk
of infringing basic human rights.

Some "healing" has to happen before Britain can identify possible causes and a measured response.

Sydney's The Daily Telegraph says the federal government plans to shortly introduce
mandatory energy star ratings, similar to the ratings you see on electrical goods, for
all houses either on the market or being rented.

The effect of this ratings system and related legislation could cut substantial amounts
from the value of McMansion-style properties.

This seems unfair on owners who have invested considerable wealth in their houses.

At another level, this potential green penalty on many Sydney houses will reinforce
the notion that green always means a financial hit.

At a time when the federal government is trying to sell its carbon tax, one more reason
to associate the term "green" with the concept of financial hardship is not what it needs.

Melbourne's Herald Sun says no one can be sure who will have to bear the brunt of a
federal government proposal to put energy ratings on houses.

The plan is aimed at pushing people to upgrade the energy efficiency of their old homes
and for buyers to insist on a high-rating when purchasing.

But the proposal could jack up prices for buyers and lead to the value of some homes plummeting.

Under a 10-star energy rating system in the Northern Territory, prices can move about
$17,400 per star.

The homeowner would have to pay for the energy rating, which might undermine the value
of older houses and energy-inefficient McMansions.

The federal government must recognise the difficulties facing households.

The Weekend Australian says when mining impacts on people's lives we expect the conflict
to be resolved by due process based on a fair go.

Canberra has largely ignored the dismay at the march of open cut mining and coal seam
gas exploration over vast tracts of the bush.

The states have little incentive to undertake long-term land management and analysis
before granting leases because their royalties are based on the volume of minerals extracted
by fast-tracking projects to the production stage.

Perhaps state royalties should be on the agenda of the October tax forum.

The clash of economic and social goals must be addressed. In some areas we face a historic
restructuring between two great industries.

It is worth asking whether 50 years of mining royalties are better than hundreds of
years of productive agriculture. At the least, we need an open and democratic debate on
this complex issue.

Brisbane's The Courier-Mail says Premier Anna Bligh wants us to look on the bright
side and end what she called "a politics of pessimism".

Ms Bligh needs to acknowledge that much of the cynicism and pessimism she is noticing
is directed at her own administration rather than the broader state of the economy.

Bungled health payroll systems, ministers seemingly incapable of taking responsibility
for the actions of their own departments, and numerous other signs of administrative incompetence
have given voters more than enough reason to be negative about the present government.

If the Premier wants us to head into the future with a spring in our step and our heads
held high, then she has to give us a real reason for putting our faith in her administration,
with positive policies and positive campaigning.

Any return to negative campaigning in the run-up to the next election will do nothing
more than reaffirm to voters that their cynicism is warranted.

AAP jcr/rs

KEYWORD: EDITORIALS

� 2011 AAP Information Services Pty Limited (AAP) or its Licensors.