To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

Franklin Dam controversy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Franklin Dam controversy
The iconic campaign sticker "No Dams In S-W Tasmania · World Heritage ·" was used to show opposition to the Franklin Dam in the early 1980s
Datecirca 1978-1981
LocationTasmania, Australia
Type
ThemeEnvironmental debate
Participants
OutcomeThe High Court ruled that the World Heritage (Western Tasmania Wilderness) Regulations (Cth) and the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act, 1983 (Cth) were within constitutional powers, rendering it unlawful for the Hydro-Electric Commission of Tasmania to construct the dam, except with the consent of a Commonwealth Minister.[1]
Arrests1,217
LitigationCommonwealth v Tasmania aka "The Tasmanian Dam Case"

The Gordon-below-Franklin Dam (or simply Franklin Dam) project was a proposed dam on the Gordon River in Tasmania, Australia, that was never constructed. The movement that eventually led to the project's cancellation became one of the most significant environmental campaigns in Australian history.

The dam was proposed for the purpose of generating hydroelectricity. The resulting new electricity generation capacity would have been 180 megawatts (240,000 hp).[2] The proposed construction would have subsequently impacted upon the environmentally sensitive Franklin River, which joins with the Gordon river nearby. During the campaign against the dam, both areas were listed on the UNESCO World Heritage Area register.

The campaign that followed led to the consolidation of the small green movement that had been born out of a campaign against the building of three dams on Lake Pedder in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Over the five years between the announcement of the dam proposal in 1978 and the axing of the plans in 1983, there was vigorous debate between the pro- and anti-dam lobbies, with large protests from both sides.

In December 1982, the dam site was occupied by protesters, leading to widespread arrests and greater publicity.[3] The dispute became a federal issue the following March, when a campaign in the national print media, assisted by the pictures of photographer Peter Dombrovskis, helped bring down the government of Malcolm Fraser at the 1983 election. The new government, under Bob Hawke, had promised to stop the dam from being built. A legal battle between the federal government and Tasmanian Government followed, resulting in a landmark High Court ruling in the federal government's favour.[1]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    3 874 781
    6 266
    1 029
    4 352
    3 741 853
  • The New Deal: Crash Course US History #34
  • Franklin River Dam Environment Movement
  • TASMANIAN DAM CASE (1983): The Corporations and External Affairs Powers of Section 51 | AUSSIE LAW
  • Putin courts Africa, offers to mediate Nile dam dispute
  • 12 Moments You Wouldn’t Believe If Not Filmed

Transcription

Episode 34 – The New Deal Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history, and today we’re going to get a little bit controversial, as we discuss the FDR administration’s response to the Great Depression: the New Deal. That’s the National Recovery Administration, by the way, not the National Rifle Association or the No Rodents Allowed Club, which I’m a card-carrying member of. Did the New Deal end the Depression (spoiler alert: mehhh)? More controversially, did it destroy American freedom or expand the definition of liberty? In the end, was it a good thing? Mr. Green, Mr. Green. Yes. Ohh, Me from the Past, you are not qualified to make that statement. What? I was just trying to be, like, provocative and controversial. Isn’t that what gets views? You have the worst ideas about how to make people like you. But anyway, not EVERYTHING about the New Deal was controversial. This is CrashCourse, not TMZ. intro The New Deal redefined the role of the federal government for most Americans and it led to a re-alignment of the constituents in the Democratic Party, the so-called New Deal coalition. (Good job with the naming there, historians.) And regardless of whether you think the New Deal meant more freedom for more people or was a plot by red shirt wearing Communists, the New Deal is extremely important in American history. Wait a second. I’m wearing a red shirt. What are you trying to say about me, Stan? As the owner of the means of production, I demand that you dock the wages of the writer who made that joke. So after his mediocre response to the Great Depression, Herbert Hoover did not have any chance of winning the presidential election of 1932, but he also ran like he didn’t actually want the job. Plus, his opponent was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who was as close to a born politician as the United States has ever seen, except for Kid President. The phrase New Deal came from FDR’s campaign, and when he was running FDR suggested that it was the government’s responsibility to guarantee every man a right to make a comfortable living, but he didn’t say HOW he meant to accomplish this. Like, it wasn’t gonna come from government spending, since FDR was calling for a balanced budget and criticizing Hoover for spending so much. Maybe it would somehow magically happen if we made alcohol legal again and one thing FDR did call for was an end to Prohibition, which was a campaign promise he kept. After three years of Great Depression, many Americans seriously needed a drink, and the government sought tax revenue, so no more Prohibition. FDR won 57% of the vote and the Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in a decade. While FDR gets most of the credit, he didn’t actually create the New Deal or put it into effect. It was passed by Congress. So WTFDR was the New Deal? Basically, it was a set of government programs intended to fix the depression and prevent future depressions. There are a couple of ways historians conceptualize it. One is to categorize the programs by their function. This is where we see the New Deal described as three R’s. The relief programs gave help, usually money, to poor people in need. Recovery programs were intended to fix the economy in the short run and put people back to work. And lastly, the Run DMC program was designed to increase the sales of Adidas shoes. No, alas, it was reform programs that were designed to regulate the economy in the future to prevent future depression. But some of the programs, like Social Security, don’t fit easily into one category, and there are some blurred lines between recovery and reform. Like, how do you categorize the bank holiday and the Emergency Banking Act of March 1933, for example? FDR’s order to close the banks temporarily also created the FDIC, which insures individual deposits against future banking disasters. By the way, we still have all that stuff, but was it recovery, because it helped the short-term economy by making more stable banks, or was it reform because federal deposit insurance prevents bank runs? A second way to think about the New Deal is to divide it into phases, which historians with their A number one naming creativity call the First and Second New Deal. This more chronological approach indicates that there has to be some kind of cause and effect thing going on because otherwise why would there be a second New Deal if the first one worked so perfectly? The First New Deal comprises Roosevelt’s programs before 1935, many of which were passed in the first hundred days of his presidency. It turns out that when it comes to getting our notoriously gridlocked Congress to pass legislation, nothing motivates like crisis and fear. Stan can I get the foreshadowing filter? We may see this again. So, in a brief break from its trademark obstructionism, Congress passed laws establishing the Civilian Conservation Corps, which paid young people to build national parks, the Agricultural Adjustment Act, the Glass Stegall act, which barred commercial banks from buying and selling stocks, and the National Industrial Recovery Act. Which established the National Recovery Administration, which has lightening bolts in its claws. The NRA was designed to be government planners and business leaders working together to coordinate industry standards for production, prices, and working conditions. But that whole public-private cooperation idea wasn’t much immediate help to many of the starving unemployed, so the Hundred Days reluctantly included the Federal Emergency Relief Administration, to give welfare payments to people who were desperate. Alright. Let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. Roosevelt worried about people becoming dependent on relief handouts, and preferred programs that created temporary jobs. One section of the NIRA created the Public Works Administration, which appropriated $33 billion to build stuff like the Triborough Bridge. So much for a balanced budget. The Civil Works Administration, launched in November 1933 and eventually employed 4 million people building bridges, schools, and airports. Government intervention reached its highest point however in the Tennessee Valley Authority. This program built a series of dams in the Tennessee River Valley to control floods, prevent deforestation, and provide cheap electric power to people in rural counties in seven southern states. But, despite all that sweet sweet electricity, the TVA was really controversial because it put the government in direct competition with private companies. Other than the NIRA, few acts were as contentious as the Agricultural Adjustment Act. The AAA basically gave the government the power to try to raise farm prices by setting production quotas and paying farmers to plant less food. This seemed ridiculous to the hungry Americans who watched as 6 million pigs were slaughtered and not made into bacon. Wait, Stan, 6 million pigs? But…bacon is good for me... Only property owning farmers actually saw the benefits of the AAA, so most African American farmers who were tenants or sharecroppers continued to suffer. And the suffering was especially acute in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado, where drought created the Dust Bowl. All this direct government intervention in the economy was too much for the Supreme Court. In 1936 the court struck down the AAA in U.S. v. Butler. Earlier in the Schechter Poultry case (AKA the sick chicken case - finally a Supreme Court case with an interesting name) the court invalidated the NIRA because its regulations “delegated legislative powers to the president and attempted to regulate local businesses that did not engage in interstate commerce.”[1] Thanks, ThoughtBubble. So with the Supreme Court invalidating acts left and right, it looked like the New Deal was about to unravel. FDR responded by proposing a law that would allow him to appoint new Supreme Court justices if sitting justices reached the age of 70 and failed to retire. Now, this was totally constitutional – you can go ahead at the Constitution, if Nicolas Cage hasn’t already swiped it – but it seemed like such a blatant power grab that Roosevelt’s plan to “pack the court” brought on a huge backlash. Stop everything. I’ve just been informed that Nicolas Cage stole the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. I want to apologize to Nic Cage himself and also everyone involved in the National Treasure franchise, which is truly a national treasure. Anyway, in the end, the Supreme Court began upholding the New Deal laws, starting a new era of Supreme Court jurisprudence in which the government regulation of the economy was allowed under a very broad reading of the commerce clause. Because really isn’t all commerce interstate commerce? I mean if I go to Jimmy John’s, don’t I exit the state of hungry and enter the state of satisfied? Thus began the Second New Deal shifting focus away from recovery and towards economic security. Two laws stand out for their far-reaching effects here, the National Labor Relations Act, also called the Wagner Act, and the Social Security Act. The Wagner Act guaranteed workers the right to unionize and it created a National Labor Relations Board to hear disputes over unfair labor practices. In 1934 alone there were more than 2,000 strikes, including one that involved 400,000 textile workers. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? Man, I wish there were a union to prevent me from getting electrocuted. The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. And I’m usually wrong and get shocked. “Refusing to allow people to be paid less than a living wage preserves to us our own market. There is absolutely no use in producing anything if you gradually reduce the number of people able to buy even the cheapest products. The only way to preserve our markets is an adequate wage.” Uh I mean you usually don’t make it this easy, but I’m going to guess that it’s Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Dang it! Eleanor Roosevelt? Eleanor. Of course it was Eleanor. Gah! The most important union during the 1930s was the Congress of Industrial Organizations, which set out to unionize entire industries like steel manufacturing and automobile workers. In 1936 the United Auto Workers launched a new tactic called the sit-down strike. Workers at the Fisher Body Plant in Flint, Michigan simply stopped working, sat down, and occupied the plant. Eventually GM agreed to negotiate, and the UAW won. Union membership rose to 9 million people as “CIO unions helped to stabilize a chaotic employment situation and offered members a sense of dignity and freedom.”[2] That quote, by the way, is from our old buddy Eric Foner. God, I love you, Foner. And unions played an important role in shaping the ideology of the second New Deal because they insisted that the economic downturn had been caused by underconsumption, and that the best way to combat the depression was to raise workers’ wages so that they could buy lots of stuff. The thinking went that if people experienced less economic insecurity, they would spend more of their money so there were widespread calls for public housing and universal health insurance. And that brings us to the crowning achievement of the Second New Deal, and/or the crowning achievement of its Communist plot, the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Security included unemployment insurance, aid to the disabled, aid to poor families with children, and, of course, retirement benefits. It was, and is, funded through payroll taxes rather than general tax revenue, and while state and local governments retained a lot of discretion over how benefits would be distributed, Social Security still represented a transformation in the relationship between the federal government and American citizens. Like, before the New Deal, most Americans didn’t expect the government to help them in times of economic distress. After the New Deal the question was no longer if the government should intervene, but how it should. For a while, the U.S. government under FDR embraced Keynesian economics, the idea that the government should spend money even if it means going into deficits in order to prop up demand. And this meant that the state was much more present in people’s lives. I mean for some people that meant relief or social security checks. For others, it meant a job with the most successful government employment program, the Works Progress Administration. The WPA didn’t just build post offices, it paid painters to make them beautiful with murals, it paid actors and writers to put together plays, and ultimately employed more than 3 million Americans each year until it ended in 1943. It also, by the way, payed for lots of photographers to take amazing photographs, which we can show you for free because they are owned by the government so I’m just going to keep talking about how great they are. Oh, look at that one, that’s a winner. Okay. Equally transformative, if less visually stimulating, was the change that the New Deal brought to American politics. The popularity of FDR and his programs brought together urban progressives who would have been Republicans two decades earlier, with unionized workers - often immigrants, left wing intellectuals, urban Catholics and Jews. FDR also gained the support of middle class homeowners, and he brought African Americans into the Democratic Party. Who was left to be a Republican, Stan? I guess there weren’t many, which is why FDR kept getting re-elected until, you know, he died. But, fascinatingly, one of the biggest and politically most important blocs in the New Deal Coalition was white southerners, many of whom were extremely racist. Democrats had dominated in the South since the end of reconstruction, you know since the other party was the party of Lincoln. And all those Southern democrats who had been in Congress for so long became important legislative leaders. In fact, without them, FDR never could have passed the New Deal laws, but Southerners expected whites to dominate the government and the economy and they insisted on local administration of many New Deal programs. And that ensured that the AAA and the NLRA would exclude sharecroppers, and tenant farmers, and domestic servants, all of whom were disproportionately African American. So, did the New Deal end the depression? No. I mean, by 1940 over 15% of the American workforce remained unemployed. But, then again, when FDR took office in 1933, the unemployment rate was at 25%. Maybe the best evidence that government spending was working is that when FDR reduced government subsidies to farms and the WPA in 1937, unemployment immediately jumped back up to almost 20%. And many economic historians believe that it’s inaccurate to say that government spending failed to end the Depression because in the end, at least according to a lot of economists, what brought the Depression to an end was a massive government spending program called World War II. So, given that, is the New Deal really that important? Yes. Because first, it changed the shape of the American Democratic Party. African Americans and union workers became reliable Democratic votes. And secondly, it changed our way of thinking. Like, liberalism in the 19th century meant limited government and free-market economics. Roosevelt used the term to refer to a large, active state that saw liberty as “greater security for the average man.” And that idea that liberty is more closely linked to security than it is to, like, freedom from government intervention is still really important in the way we think about liberty today. No matter where they fall on the contemporary political spectrum, politicians are constantly talking about keeping Americans safe. Also our tendency to associate the New Deal with FDR himself points to what Arthur Schlessinger called the “imperial presidency.” That is, we tend to associate all government policy with the president. Like, after Jackson and Lincoln’s presidencies Congress reasserted itself as the most important branch of the government. But that didn’t happen after FDR. But above all that, the New Deal changed the expectations that Americans had of their government. Now, when things go sour, we expect the government to do something. We’ll give our last words today to Eric Foner, who never Foner-s it in, the New Deal “made the government an institution directly experienced in Americans’ daily lives and directly concerned with their welfare.”[3] Thanks for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is made with the help of all of these nice people. And it is possible because of your support at subbable.com. Here at Crash Course we want to make educational video for free, for everyone, forever. And that’s possible thanks to your subscription at subbable.com. You can make a monthly subscription and the price is up to you. It can even be zero dollars although more is better. Thanks so much for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. ________________ [1] Foner. Give me Liberty ebook version p. 870 [2] Foner. Give me Liberty ebook version p. 873 [3] Give me Liberty ebook version p. 898

Announcement of the plans

Franklin Dam controversy is located in Tasmania
 
Gordon below Franklin
Gordon below Franklin
Dam #2
Dam #2
Original locations of the proposed dams in Tasmania

In 1978, the Tasmanian Hydro Electric Commission (HEC) announced intentions to construct the dam. The original proposal was for two dams:

The idea polarised the Tasmanian community. It gained support from some sections of the community for generating jobs in an area of the state that was struggling economically. It was suggested that the construction of the dam would assist in bringing industry to Tasmania, on top of the jobs that it would create directly. The initial opinion polls showed around 70% support for the dam.

However, the protest movement which had gathered to fight the construction of the Lake Pedder Dam earlier in the 1970s began to reassemble in response to the announcement. The Tasmanian Wilderness Society which had formed from the anti-Lake Pedder Dam and South West Tasmania action groups, the Tasmanian Conservation Trust, and the Australian Conservation Foundation began to mount a public interest campaign concerning the river. The photographs of Dombrovskis and his colleague, Olegas Truchanas, attracted significant attention. The campaign generated 30,000 letters of support in a fortnight. A film, The Last Wild River, was shown on Tasmania's two commercial television stations.

In June 1980, an estimated 10,000 people marched through the streets of Hobart, demanding that the government not proceed with construction. This was the largest rally in the history of the state.[7]

Attempts at compromise

The Labor state government, under premier Doug Lowe, backed down from the original proposal, and agreed to place the Franklin River in a new Wild Rivers National Park. Instead of the original 'Gordon below Franklin' proposal, Lowe now backed an alternative, the 'Gordon above Olga' scheme.[8] While this was above the Gordon's junction with the Franklin, it still would have intruded into wilderness quality areas. This compromise did not appease the environmental groups, who maintained a policy of no dams in southwest Tasmania.

In July, both the pro-dam and anti-dam groups (the former of which also included the union movement) initiated an advertising blitz in Tasmania. The HEC claimed that up to 10,000 potential jobs would be lost if the dam was not built. The conservative-dominated Legislative Council then blocked the Labor government's 'Gordon-above-Olga' compromise, instead insisting that they proceed with the original proposal. The two parties could not agree on a solution, which led to a deadlock between the two houses of parliament.[9]

Inquiry, referendum, and Tasmanian state election

In 1981, Australian Democrats Senator Don Chipp initiated a Senate inquiry into "the natural values of south-west Tasmania to Australia and the world" and "the federal responsibility in assisting Tasmania to preserve its wilderness areas of national and international importance".

From early 1981, archaeologists uncovered evidence of human habitation dating from about 15,000 years before present in caves which would be flooded if the dam were to be built. The most significant cave had been rediscovered by geomorphology student Kevin Kieran in January 1977,[10] and he first named it Fraser Cave after the then Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, because ...we were trying to direct the attention of politicians to the area...'.[11] It was renamed Kutikina in mid-1982, as suggested by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. Kiernan and a group of cavers (speleologists) found over 100 caves in the region.[10]

Concerns also began to be raised about habitat loss for endangered species.

On 12 December 1981, the state government held a referendum, the Power Referendum 1981, in an attempt to break the deadlock.[12] The referendum gave voters only two choices, one for each dam proposal. In rounded figures, 47% voted in favour of the original Gordon below Franklin scheme, 8% for the compromise Gordon above Olga scheme, and 45% voted informally.[12] There had been a significant campaign for voters to write "No Dams" on their ballot papers, and in total more than 33% of voters did this; these were initially all counted in the informal vote, but some were later recounted as formal as they also included a valid vote for one of the two dam options.[12]

The ongoing crisis resulted in the replacement of Lowe as premier by Harry Holgate, a Labor politician who was markedly more supportive of the dam proposals. In response, both Lowe and Mary Willey, another Labor MP, resigned from the party and sat in the parliament as independents. This resulted in the loss of a Labor majority in the lower house. Norm Sanders, an Australian Democrats MP and anti-dam campaigner, moved a no-confidence motion, and a state election was called for 15 May.[13]

In May 1982 the Holgate Labor government was defeated by the strongly pro-dam Liberal Party under Robin Gray. The new Premier immediately ordered the original plan to go ahead and passed the necessary legislation. Gray attempted to dissuade the federal government from intervening by threatening to secede from the Commonwealth if they did so. The federal government initially declined to intervene in the dispute.[citation needed]

The campaigns broadens

During 1982, active membership of anti-dam organisations increased a hundredfold in mainland states. The iconic "No Dams" triangle sticker was printed.[14] Rallies and events were held in cities around Australia. Bob Brown toured the country raising support for the anti-dam campaign, attempting to convince Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser to intervene and override the state legislation allowing the dam's construction. British botanist and TV presenter Professor David Bellamy addressed 5,000[citation needed] people at a Melbourne rally.

By the end of 1982, any perception that "greenies" equated with hippies had been greatly challenged, for example in Sydney, Bob Brown and Bellamy addressed 500 people at a candle-lit dinner serenaded by string quartet,[15][16] ABC's classical music radio station featured a "Concert for the Franklin", and electronics entrepreneur Dick Smith committed to civil disobedience. Many people who had not previously considered conservation issues decided that wilderness was a vote-worthy issue, as evidenced by the following ballot paper write-in campaigns.

In the federal Lowe by-election in Sydney, March 1982, volunteers[17] at every polling booth encouraged voters to write "No Dams" on their ballot paper, and 9% did so.[18] At that first 'Write-in' campaign, few people knew that they could write a message on their federal ballot paper without invalidating their vote.[19] In the ACT House of Assembly mid-1982 election, up to 40% of voters wrote "No Dams" on their ballot paper.[20] In the federal Flinders by-election in Victoria in December 1982, 40% of voters wrote "No Dams" on their ballot papers.[21]

Blockade

The photograph Morning Mist, Rock Island Bend, Franklin River, by Peter Dombrovskis was used by the Tasmanian Wilderness Society in advertising against the dam's construction

In November 1982, the conflict stepped up a notch when Brown announced that a blockade of the dam site would begin on 14 December. On the same day, the UNESCO committee in Paris was due to list the Tasmanian wild rivers as a World Heritage site. The blockade, at "Warners Landing" (42°34′7″S 145°41′24″E / 42.56861°S 145.69000°E / -42.56861; 145.69000) drew an estimated 2,500 people, from not only Tasmania, but also from interstate and overseas.[22] This resulted in the subsequent proclamation of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, which covered both the Franklin and Gordon Rivers. However, Tasmania itself was still divided, with a pro-dam rally in Hobart also attracting around 2,500 people. While the blockade was ongoing, Norm Sanders resigned from the Tasmanian House of Assembly to contest a seat in the Australian Senate. He was replaced in the Assembly by Bob Brown, who had only been released from jail the previous day after spending nineteen days behind bars for his role in the blockade.

Throughout January 1983 around fifty people arrived at the blockade each day. The state government made things difficult for the protesters, passing several laws and enforcing special bail conditions for those arrested. Bulldozers were unloaded at the site from a barge under the protection of police. A total of 1,217 arrests were made, many simply for being present at the blockade. Protesters impeded machinery and occupied sites associated with the construction work. Nearly 500 people were imprisoned for breaking the terms of their bail. This caused an overflow of prisons in the region. British botanist David Bellamy was jailed, which gave the dispute international attention. The author John Marsden, after being arrested at the blockade, was placed in the maximum security division of Risdon Prison for a week as there was nowhere else to hold him.

In February, a Hobart rally against the dam drew approximately 20,000 people. On 1 March, the movement launched a day of action, which they labelled 'G-Day'. 231 people were arrested as a flotilla of boats took to the Gordon River. In Hobart, the Wilderness Society flag was flown above the HEC building.

On 2 March the Wilderness Society backed the publication of what were then rare full-page colour advertisements in The Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne's The Age newspapers of what would soon become an iconic photograph:[23] Morning Mist, Rock Island Bend, Franklin River by Peter Dombrovskis. It was accompanied by the caption "Could you vote for a party that will destroy this?".

Folk rock singer Shane Howard from the band Goanna wrote "Let the Franklin Flow",[24][25] and released it in April 1983. It was performed by members of his band and members of folk band Redgum under the pseudonym, Gordon Franklin & the Wilderness Ensemble.[25][26] It was released as a single with a B-side, "Franklin River – World Heritage", written and recorded by Bob Brown.[27][28]

Resolution

On 5 March 1983, the Australian Labor Party won the federal election with a large swing. The new prime minister, Bob Hawke, had vowed to stop the dam from being built,[29] and the anti-dam vote increased Hawke's majority - some federal Victorian seats were notable for having a strong interest in the issue.[citation needed] However, in Tasmania, the vote went against the national trend and the Liberals held all five seats. Hawke's government first passed regulations under the existing National Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 1975, and then passed the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983, which prohibited Franklin River dam-related clearing, excavation and building activities that had been authorised by Tasmanian state legislation.

However, the Tasmanian government ignored both the federal regulations and legislation and continued to order work on the dam. In April 1983 the Australian Government sent a Mirage jet and later an RF-111,[30] from the Royal Australian Air Force, to undertake a reconnaissance mission over the dam to gather evidence that the Tasmanian Government was not complying with Federal legislation to stop work.[31][32]

The issue was brought before the High Court with the first day of hearings on 31 May 1983. The government of Tasmania claimed that the federal government had no powers under the Constitution to pass either the regulations or the legislation. They claimed that as the right to legislate for the environment was not named in the Constitution, and was thus a residual power held by the states, that the World Heritage Properties Conservation Act 1983 was unconstitutional. The federal government, however, claimed (successfully) that they had the right to do so, under the 'external affairs' provision of the Constitution as, by passing legislation blocking the dam's construction, they were fulfilling their responsibilities under an international treaty (the UNESCO Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage, Australia having signed and ratified that convention and the Franklin River having been listed on it). The Commonwealth government also argued (successfully) that the federal legislation was supported by the constitutional powers of a federal government to pass laws about corporations and about the people of any race (in this case the aboriginal race, whose sacred caves along the Franklin would have been inundated).[citation needed]

The resulting court case became known as Commonwealth v Tasmania. On 1 July 1983, in a landmark decision, the High Court on circuit in Brisbane ruled by a vote of 4 to 3 in the federal government's favour. Judges Mason, Murphy, Brennan and Deane were in the majority and justices Wilson and Dawson with Chief Justice Gibbs were in the minority. This ruling gave the federal government the power to legislate on any issue if necessary to enforce an international treaty and has been the subject of controversy ever since. Justice Lionel Murphy wrote most broadly of the Franklin Dam decision's broader environmental and social implications in terms of the UNESCO Convention's common heritage of humanity principle, stating that "The preservation of the world's heritage must not be looked at in isolation but as part of the co-operation between nations which is calculated to achieve intellectual and moral solidarity of mankind and so reinforce the bonds between people which promote peace and displace those of narrow nationalism and alienation which promote war...[t]he encouragement of people to think internationally, to regard the culture of their own country as part of world culture, to conceive a physical, spiritual and intellectual world heritage, is important in the endeavour to avoid the destruction of humanity."[33] The High Court ruling ended the dam's construction, and the plans have never been revived.

On 5 July 1983, a Huon Pine known as the Lea Tree, over 2000 years old and about 9 feet (3 metres) across was chainsawed and set alight. Three people who are thought to be the perpetrators were photographed with the tree in the background. This photograph also shows graffiti containing expletives, which appears to be directed against environmentists on the tree. This was likely done by people who were angry that the project was cancelled.[34]

However, dam-building by the Hydro was not finished. The corporation was still able to construct a 'compromise' power development scheme on the nearby King River and Henty River to compensate for the loss of the potential power generation from the Franklin scheme. Further on in time, the West Coast Wilderness Railway - the reconstruction of the old Mount Lyell Abt Railway between Queenstown and Regatta point, was mainly financed by compensation funds allocated to the Tasmanian Government for the "loss" of the Franklin River or Gordon River dams.[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Commonwealth v. Tasmania [1983] HCA 21, The Tasmanian Dam Case (1 July 1983), High Court (Australia)
  2. ^ "Professor West reminds Tasmania that hydro past constrains future". Tasmanian Times. Retrieved 12 August 2010.
  3. ^ Commons Librarian (31 August 2022). "Franklin River Campaign". The Commons Social Change Library. Retrieved 5 October 2022.
  4. ^ Bandler, H. (1987). "Gordon Below Franklin Dam, Tasmania, Australia: Environmental Factors in a Decision of National Significance". The Environmentalist. 7 (1). Springer Netherlands: 43–54. doi:10.1007/BF02277205. 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) downstream of the junction with the Franklin River, 105 metres (344 ft) maximum height above normal river level
  5. ^ "Walkabout - Strahan". Fairfax Digital. Archived from the original on 8 February 2008. Retrieved 7 March 2008.
  6. ^ "Senate Hansard 24 February 1997 pp857" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 October 2010. Retrieved 12 August 2010.
  7. ^ Stephen, Sarah (18 November 1992), "10th anniversary of the Franklin blockade", Green Left Weekly, no. 80, Sydney, retrieved 9 August 2011
  8. ^ For maps of the proposed schemes see - Thompson, Peter (1981) Power In Tasmania ACF ISBN 0858020645 pp.36 noting the potential confusion for which schemes was what -Integrated meant damming the King and Franklin as one, and the Lower Franklin and Oga rivers as the other. Separate meant Gordon above the Olga, and The King and Fraklin dammed the same as in the Integrated scheme
  9. ^ "History of the Franklin River Campaign 1976-83 | The Wilderness Society". The Wilderness Society. 15 June 2001. Retrieved 13 February 2017.
  10. ^ a b Griffiths, Billy (2018). "Chapter 8: You have Entered Aboriginal Land: The Franklin River Campaign and the fight for Kutikina". Deep Time Dreaming: Uncovering Ancient Australia. Black Inc. pp. 200–232.
  11. ^ AUSTRALIA, An Ice Age - Walk to Tasmania
  12. ^ a b c "Referendums in Tasmania". Tasmanian Parliamentary Library. Computer Services, Parliament of Tasmania. 5 August 2003. Retrieved 27 August 2009.
  13. ^ "Tasmanian Government falls". The Canberra Times. Vol. 56, no. 16, 982. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 27 March 1982. p. 1. Retrieved 11 July 2020 – via National Library of Australia.
  14. ^ "Franklin-Gordon Wild Rivers National Park". Australia for Visitors. 2005–2011. Retrieved 29 October 2012.
  15. ^ The SMH's Stay In Touch column plugged this dinner a couple of days before.
  16. ^ Tim Lamble[?spelling] operated his programmed slide show with dual projectors fading in and out 35mm slides of Tasmanian wilderness photographs, set to recorded music.
  17. ^ Volunteers were co-opted from the Australian Conservation Foundation by the NSW South West Tasmania Committee.
  18. ^ Scrutineers issued this figure in a press release, suggesting a headline like "Franklin River comes 3rd in by-election". The following day's SMH's Stay In Touch column reported this as 91% of voters refusing to write "No Dams" on their ballot paper.
  19. ^ The federal law was that as long as additional writing on a ballot paper does not identify the voter or obscure their validly expressed intentions, then the vote remains valid.
  20. ^ "'No dams' on ballot papers". The Canberra Times. Vol. 56, no. 17, 092. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 15 July 1982. p. 22. Retrieved 11 July 2020 – via National Library of Australia.
  21. ^ "No-dams committee expects action". The Canberra Times. Vol. 57, no. 17, 236. Australian Capital Territory, Australia. 6 December 1982. p. 1. Retrieved 11 July 2020 – via National Library of Australia.
  22. ^ 3CR; McIntyre, Iain (2018). "Treesits, lock-ons and barricades: Environmental blockading in the 1980s". Commons Social Change Library.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  23. ^ Pictures Collection: Peter Dombrovskis Wilderness Images, National Library of Australia. "The photograph made the Franklin River a household word, and became an icon of the environmentalist cause."
  24. ^ ""Let the Franklin Flow" at APRA search engine". Australasian Performing Right Association (APRA). Retrieved 19 August 2010.
  25. ^ a b Let the Franklin flow [music] / by Gordon Franklin and the Wilderness Ensemble ; music and lyrics by F. River. National Library of Australia. 1983. Retrieved 19 August 2010. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)
  26. ^ Hogan, David; Kimball, Duncan (2002). "All Fired Up: Lost Treasures of Australian Music – Various artists". Milesago: Australasian Music and Popular Culture 1964–1975. Ice Productions. Retrieved 19 August 2010.
  27. ^ Let the Franklin Flow (label on 7" vinyl). Gordon Franklin and the Wilderness Ensemble. Melbourne: WEA. 1983. 7-259941 MX207915.{{cite AV media notes}}: CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes) (link)
  28. ^ Havlicek, Irma (2010). "Senator Bob Brown, Leader of the Greens : The 80s Are Back". Powerhouse Museum. Retrieved 19 August 2010.
  29. ^ "Environmental Law Australia | Tasmanian Dam Case". envlaw.com.au. Retrieved 13 February 2017.
  30. ^ Second 'spy' mission to Tasmania, 8 April 1983, Air Power Development Centre,Department of Defence
  31. ^ Lowe, Doug; Brown, Bob; Gray, Robin; Holgate, Harry; others (27 June 2003). "We look back at one of Tasmania's most defining periods in history, the Franklin dam dispute". Stateline (Interview: Transcript). Interviewed by Maura Angle. Tasmania: ABC TV. Retrieved 11 July 2015.
  32. ^ Papers on Parliament 1989 Archived 1 October 2009 at the Wayback Machine "In preparing the Commonwealth's case for the inevitable High Court challenge by Tasmania, Evans earned the popular title of 'Biggles' for arranging to have Royal Australian Air Force planes fly 'spy flights' over the dam site to collect court evidence." (p27)
  33. ^ Commonwealth v Tasmania (1983) 46 ALR 625 at 733 and 734.
  34. ^ Grabosky, Peter N. (1989). "Chapter 17: Vandalism of the Lea Tree". Wayward governance : illegality and its control in the public sector. Australian Institute of Criminology. pp. 255–263. ISBN 0-642-14605-5. Archived from the original on 11 April 2013.

Further reading

  • Buckman, Greg. Tasmania's Wilderness Battles: A History, Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 2008. ISBN 978-1-74175-464-3
  • Connolly, Bob. and Robin Anderson (1981)The fight for the Franklin: the story of Australia's last wild river. North Ryde, N.S.W. : Cassell Australia. ISBN 0-72691-413-4
  • Gee, H and Fenton, J. (Eds) (1978) The South West Book - A Tasmanian Wilderness Hawthorn, Vic. : Australian Conservation Foundation, 1978. ISBN 0-85802-054-8 (Paperback)
  • Green, Roger (1984) Battle for the Franklin : conversations with the combatants in the struggle for South West Tasmania photographs by Geoffrey Lea. Sydney : Fontana and the Australian Conservation Foundation, 1981 [i.e. 1984] ISBN 0-00636-715-1 (pbk.) Introduction dated October 1983.
  • Kellow, Aynsley J. (1996) Transforming power : the politics of electricity planning. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University ISBN 0-52147-697-6 (pbk.)
  • Law, Geoff Law, Geoff; Brown, Bob; Australian Greens (2008), The river runs free : exploring & defending Tasmania's wilderness, Penguin Group Australia, ISBN 978-0-670-07245-3
  • Lines, William J. (2006) Patriots : defending Australia's natural heritage. St. Lucia, Qld. : University of Queensland Press. ISBN 0-70223-554-7
  • Neilson, D. (1975) South West Tasmania - A land of the Wild. Adelaide. Rigby. ISBN 0-85179-874-8
  • Thompson, Peter.(1981) Power in Tasmania. Hawthorn, Vic. : Australian Conservation Foundation. ISBN 085802067X (pbk.)
  • Thompson, Peter. (1984) Bob Brown of the Franklin River. Sydney : George Allen & Unwin, ISBN 086861596X (pbk.)
  • Wilderness Society (1983) The Franklin Blockade. Hobart : Wilderness Society, ISBN 0-90841-211-8

External links

This page was last edited on 2 March 2024, at 20:40
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.