Shell for sale: Geelong refinery to be sold

Vanguard May 2013 p.12
Alex M.

The Shell Geelong refinery is to be sold. The announcement was made on 4 April by a company representative and duly reported in the Geelong Advertiser, the local Murdoch owned newspaper.

The company wants to complete the sale of the refinery by the end of 2014. It seems likely that the refinery will not find a buyer and will be used instead as a storage facility for product refined in Shell’s more modern refinery at Pulau Bukom in Singapore. The refining process is more profitable in the newer more efficient refineries that multinationals like Shell have established in South-East Asia and India.

Estimates put potential direct job losses at the refinery at the 450 mark, coupled with the possibility of indirect job losses occurring amongst suppliers and contractors.

Job losses and Geelong seem to go hand in glove, especially in the manufacturing sector. The Geelong region has witnessed the decline of manufacturing since the 1970s, a process which appears to have picked up in pace in the last few years.

Ford and Alcoa, both major local employers in the past have scaled back their operations to such an extent that they employ relatively few workers now. In addition, the QANTAS maintenance base at nearby Avalon is in the process of cutting jobs; an announcement to that effect occurred in November last year.

Shell’s intent to sell the Geelong refinery looks set to continue the trend of job cuts and the decline of the manufacturing base that once was the economic heart of the city and region.

The decline of oil refining in Australia

The potential winding down of the Shell refinery in Geelong is not unique. There have been no new refineries built in Australia for decades, and there has been no recent serious investment made to upgrade existing refineries.

Writing last year in The Conversation, Griffith University researcher Vlado Vivoda pointed out the deficiencies in Australian based petrochemical production: “As well as being comparatively small, Australia’s oil refineries are old, with the last refinery built in 1965. Consequently, they require large investment for upgrade in line with evolving environmental standards.”

At present there are only four refineries in operation in Australia and these are: Shell Geelong, BP Kwinana in WA, BP Bulwer Island in Queensland and Exxon Mobil in Altona, Victoria. Compare this with 2003 when there were eight refineries. Since then some refineries have been closed and others converted to import and storage facilities.

The chief reason given by the multinational corporations for the winding down of oil refining in this country is costs. They cite such things as the small capacity of Australian based operations, which struggle to compete with the oversupply produced by the multinationals’ plants in South-East Asia and India.

Also cited are the higher wages paid to refinery workers here and the escalating costs associated with the transportation of crude oil to Australia, amongst other things. All these factors, they claim, have driven down margins. The real reason for the winding down of Australian production is profitability. Multinationals have shifted production to mega-refineries based overseas because they are driven to maximise profits.

What is also clear is that Commonwealth Ministers responsible for Resources such as the last Resources Minister, Martin Ferguson, have been content to let the decline in Australian based petrochemical production happen.

The decision taken by Shell to cease refining at its Clyde facility in Sydney in 2012 was waved away as a ‘commercial matter’ by Ferguson. There is a real concern that the reduction of Australian based production of petroleum and oil based products poses a real threat to our energy security.

The decline of Australian manufacturing, the decline of resource security and the decline of Australian independence

Despite the unconcern shown by former Minister Ferguson about the dwindling of refining capacity in this country, others view it with alarm. Vlado Vivoda’s piece quotes the former Managing Director of Caltex Australia, Des King to the effect that  “[r]etaining a substantial oil refining capability is essential to Australia’s energy security”. As Vivoda points out: “ … a major disruption to Australia’s oil refining industry would have major consequences not only for the industry but also on society and the economy as a whole.

Accordingly, the government and the industry are not adequately prepared to respond to or recover from major disaster or disruption. A substantial reduction in Australia’s refining capacity will cause a major shift in Australia’s liquid fuels supply chain and may have significant security implications if supply disruptions arise.”

There is no real impetus to address matters such as energy security and the decline of manufacturing in this country, because governments at every level know that capitalist class interests are sacrosanct.

The only real way to ensure that the decline of Australian manufacturing is reversed, and energy security is maintained is for the Australian working people to take matters into their own hands.

Australian independence must be fought for and socialism built. A first step on this path could be the nationalising of the Australian oil industry.    

Much ado about nothing

Vanguard April 2013 p. 1
by Bill F.

What can the Australian people make of the recent farce played out over the re-election of Julia Gillard as leader of the parliamentary Labor Party?

On one level, many people were surprised that, contrary to the media hype and the inflated expectations of some nervous back-benchers, Kevin Rudd didn’t nominate.

Instead, he appeared to stake out a patch of moral high ground by ‘sticking to his word’ not to challenge a sitting Prime Minister – in contrast to Gillard’s coup against him, and in contrast to her ‘broken promise’ on the carbon tax. This almost certainly guarantees he will continue to be a thorn in her side for a while yet.

On another level, we need to remember that, like the election of the Pope, the numbers game in the Labor Party is conducted by factional power-brokers behind closed doors. Caucus is only a rubber stamp that endorses decisions made elsewhere.

Our guess is that a deal was done. Gillard gets a crack at the federal election, Swan gets to deliver his budget, and Rudd takes over if it doesn’t work out. Face is saved, and an appearance created that the Labor Party stands (somewhat) united behind its leader going into the election!

Out of touch

Regardless of from whatever level we look at it, the whole parliamentary theatre is totally divorced from the lives of Australian working people.

Policy differences between the Coalition and the Labor Party are minimal. Both support the system of monopoly capitalism and pander to big business. Both espouse privatisation and the IMF ‘free trade’ agenda that has decimated Australian manufacturing jobs.

Both are subservient to the interests of US imperialism and its domination of Australian foreign policy. Both collude with the expansion of US military forces in the Asia-Pacific region, and would willingly drag Australia into new American wars. They compete to sell themselves as loyal lap-dogs.

Workers left behind

While they shadow-box and point-score in parliament, public schools and hospitals are starved for funds, social services are pruned back, pensions fail to keep pace with the rising costs of living, and job security and working conditions deteriorate for millions of Australian workers.

There’s no money for these things, they say, we have to balance the budget.

Yet the big banks and the mining magnates are rolling in massive wealth, and big business executives get huge salaries and million dollar bonuses just for turning up.

The big promises of taxing mining profits and rolling back climate warming through a carbon tax have turned out to be fizzers. The Gonski report on school funding gathers dust.

It’s no wonder that many workers have turned away from the Labor Party. In reality it is the Labor Party leadership which has turned its back on the workers, dropping its pretence of representing working people and taking up the ruling class terminology of ‘aspirational families” etc.

It’s no wonder these days that many people are cynical about parliament altogether and only show enthusiasm for voting ‘bastards’ out with no great enthusiasm for the replacement lot. Only a handful of Greens and independents occasionally take a stand in the interests of the working people, but whatever facts they present are drowned out by the monopoly media bias that reduces all politics to Liberal vs. Labor.

National independence

Australia needs a new politics of fundamental change to improve the lives of the people. This is not possible as long as the nation’s key industries and resources are owned or controlled by foreign monopolies and investors, as long as profits are sucked away overseas, as long as interest on foreign loans goes the same way.

Nationalisation of key industries, such as gas, water, electricity, telecommunications, banking and mineral resources would put them to work for the benefit of the Australian people, not for profiteers on the other side of the world.

Instead of a ‘talking shop’ parliament divorced from the people, a genuinely independent Australian republic would have a system of government based on participatory democracy, where the people are not only extensively consulted, but actually have a role in implementing and enforcing the agreed policies.

Our task and challenge is to mobilise the working people around this vision of a better future, because we’ll never get it through the revolving doors of parliament.

Notice - Many thanks

Vanguard April 2013 p. 2

The editors wish to thank all those comrades and friends who have renewed their subscriptions over the past few months. In addition, we have received a number of donations, all of which are greatly appreciated and will be put to good use.

Finance is critical to our ability to produce a revolutionary newspaper in the face of rising costs, and we urge all those who can afford to contribute to chip in.

Climate warning threatens marine life

Vanguard April 2013 p. 2
Bill F.

 

A lesser talked about consequence of global climate warming is the disastrous effect this will have on marine life and the fish stocks that millions of people depend on for food.

Some scientists are saying that the warming of the oceans could threaten mass extinctions similar to those that occurred during the Jurassic Period more than 140 million years ago.

According to Professor Richard Twitchett of Plymouth University, “Global warming might well lead to the extinction of some marine species”, as this is what has been consistently demonstrated by the fossil record. As ocean temperatures rose, oxygen levels fell, and this resulted in species seeking colder waters and the extinction of some species altogether.     

Monash University ecophysiologist Professor John Beardall is not so certain about extinctions, but is concerned about the effect on fish stocks. “Certainly marine ecosystems are under threat and increasing temperatures will result in less productive waters, especially in tropical and sub-tropical systems. So-called ‘dead zones’ are proliferating; especially where there is much nutrient run-off into near-shore environments… there are multiple examples in today’s oceans where oxygen depletion significantly affects marine life.”

Marine biologist Pamela Allen, from the Australian Marine Conservation Society, points to changes already taking place. “Global climate change will have a vast impact on marine life. This is not hypothetical – negative effects are coming to light every day… The effects on coral reefs are evident – warmer waters resulting from climate change are causing bleaching events on a massive scale.”

Furthermore, as climate warming causes oceans to acidify, the carbonate shells of species such as shellfish and corals become thinner. Warming oceans, combined with overfishing, lead to jellyfish blooms so large that fish populations cannot compete.

By way of example, she refers to the Antarctic krill which feeds on algae and sits at the bottom of the marine food chain. “As oceans warm and sea ice continues to melt, krill will lose this important food source and potentially decline,” Ms Allen says. “The effects of this decline could affect every fish, whale and seabird in the Antarctic. Coral reef declines will have a massive impact on all species that use reefs for shelter, food and breeding grounds.”

Global crisis of greed

Climate warming is a global crisis that threatens humanity.

At the centre of this crisis is the system of capitalism in its final, decadent stage of imperialism. It has poisoned the land, air and seas, disrupted weather patterns, created deserts, destroyed river systems and aquifers, and brought war and famine to millions – all in the cause of parasitic profits and the greedy few.

Certainly people everywhere should campaign and fight to force the polluting monopolies to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They should demand the establishment of conservation zones and marine parks to protect endangered species and food resources.

Ultimately, the best way to preserve humanity and open up a bright future is to bring about a modern extinction – the end of global capitalism.

Role of capitalist media monopolies untouched by "reforms"

Vanguard April 2013

The media monopolies raised a great hue and cry about supposed restrictions on their freedom contained in media reform legislation proposed by Communications Minister Senator Conroy.
 

The pack was led by Murdoch’s local lap dog and News Ltd boss Kim Williams.  He accused the government of being “the first outside of wartime to attack freedom of speech”, saying that it will lead to “government-sanctioned journalism”.

 

This was all rubbish of course, so much so that some members of the pack broke loose, chased their own self-interest tails, and barked up another tree.

 

Nine Entertainment Chief Executive David Gyngell and Ten Network Chairman Lachlan Murdoch, for example, were pleased with those parts of the reform package that would advantage their companies. 

 

A 50% rebate on commercial networks’ licence fees would be made permanent, saving them about $180m this year.   Despite all the usual guff in capitalist circles about the benefits of competition policy, there would be no fourth commercial network.  The ceiling on audience reach, which prevents media takeovers that would take a network’s audience beyond 75% of the target, was to be referred to a parliamentary committee and was likely to be abolished.

 

The fly that crawled up Williams’ nose was a proposed new “Public Interest Media Advocate” to regulate standards developed by the media industry through bodies such as its Australian Press Council.

 

If this was a handcuff on the freedom of the press, then it was a handcuff made of butterflies’ wings.

 

It would not have touched the essentials of the role undertaken by the capitalist media which consists firstly, of delivering all of us as media consumers to the monopolies through exposure to advertising; and secondly, to ensure that the ruling ideas of society are the ideas of the ruling class.

 

In all the shambles of trying to get the media package passed by parliament – and failing – the “debate” was never allowed to touch on the fundamental issue that freedom of the press is a class question.  The capitalist media monopolies deny freedom to express opinions in their press to opponents of the capitalist domination of Australia.

 

In complete opposition to all that the capitalist press stands for is the Communist paper Vanguard which this year celebrates 50 years of publication.

Where the capitalist media refuses to acknowledge the workers, except in universally negative  terms, Vanguard seeks to bring their immediate and long-term interests and concerns to the fore.

 

Where the capitalist media refuses to report on this or that struggle of the people, Vanguard seeks to highlight the activities of the people for fundamental change.

 

Where the capitalist media refuses to permit discussion of certain subjects, or discussion from certain viewpoints, Vanguard seeks to break through the boundaries of bourgeois discourse and keep discussion alive with proletarian content.

 

Vanguard seeks to maintain the closest ties with the militant and advanced sections of the working class, drawing its material from their contributions, rather than from a staff of paid experts.

 

Vanguard seeks to deliver a consistent Marxist-Leninist analysis of all questions of the theory and tactics of class struggle, and to link the experiences of workers in Australia to those of our comrades around the globe.

 

To seek to do these things is not necessarily to actually do them.  This paper has many shortcomings.

 

Delivering the workers up to the big monopolies is not one of them.

Australian artists fight to protect and increase Australian content on digital TV

Vanguard April 2013 p. 3
Max O.

 

Currently Australian artists are struggling to protect Australia's cultural independence and oppose increased foreign penetration of the nation's television programming. They are learning the bitter lesson that art and culture are not free from politics and the country's prevailing capitalist economic base. Australia's dependent capitalist economy is at the beck and call of imperialist interference, which shapes the nation's economy and culture to pursue capital accumulation and ideological hegemony.

 As Mao explained in his famous, 'Yenan Forum on Literature and Art' speech: "In the world today all culture, all literature and art belong to definite classes and are geared to definite political lines. There is in fact no such thing as art for art's sake, art that stands above classes, art that is detached from or independent of politics."

 The commercial TV networks are about to abandon and reduce the screening of Australian cultural content across the myriad of digital television channels that they run.

 The  Australian Directors Guild, Australian Writers’ Guild, the Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance and the Screen Producers Association of Australia united to launch the “Australian Screens, Australian Stories” campaign in February. As the Federal government drafts new legislation which comprises sweeping and regressive changes to local content sub-quotas for Australian TV drama, children's and documentary programming, Australian artists aim to fight and protect local TV programming across free-to-air and digital channels.

 The proposed legislation, for multi-channels (eg the Seven network’s 7Mate and 7Two) to broadcast minimum hours of Australian content per year, in reality is a con by Senator Stephen Conroy. In actual fact it will not increase the amount of new Australian stories broadcast on our free-to-air television stations. The digital TV multi-channels will meet this requirement by airing endless news, sport, reality programs and repeats of old sitcoms.

Conroy, who is Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in his media release late last year undertook to:

• Introduce a multi-channel Australian content requirement for each commercial television broadcaster of 730 hours in 2013, increasing to 1095 hours in 2014 and to 1460 hours in 2015. This includes an incentive for first-release drama by allowing an hour of first release drama premiered on a digital multichannel to count for two hours under the transmission hours requirement for multi-channels.
• Retain the current 55% transmission quota for the commercial television broadcasters’ primary channels, but introduce greater flexibility into the current arrangements for sub-quotas.

The above will be presented as legislation to the parliament in March and will require the commercial networks to screen at least 12% (2015 hours) Australian content between 6am and midnight across their digital channels by 2015. Conroy has also offered to the commercial networks a 50% licence rebate for 2012 that would be extended to the end of 2013 and be made permanent at 4.5% of revenue without conditions.

Australian Directors Guild argued that: “This is approximately half the amount of Australian content they currently show on their multi-channels. Critically, there is no requirement to screen any first-run content so the quota can be filled by repeats of programs from the main channel.”

Conroy has been accused of not giving the industry a preview of the draft legislation and being light on detail. Australian Writers’ Guild is concerned that, “The proposed changes will not result in any increase in the vulnerable program genres that tell original Australian stories — locally made drama, narrative comedy, children’s programs and documentaries”.

Actors Equity point out that, “These quotas were actually recommended by the government’s own convergence review, which revealed a huge increase in foreign TV programs since the introduction of the multi-channels. The cost should be borne by the commercial networks — which is not a lot to ask given the government is handing them a permanent cut in licence fees and a commitment not to allow a fourth free-to-air network.”

Consequently these arts industry organisations have launched the national campaign, “Australian Screens, Australian Stories” to ensure that Australian stories are told on TV and reflect and maintain the Australia's national identity, character and diversity.

 They are calling on Australians to sign an online petition in support of meaningful local content regulation, and urge people to sign and mail postcards to their local MP.

 The petition is at http://www.communityrun.org/p/australianstories.

The postcard is at http://awg.com.au/images/pdfs/OZContentDLFinalDigital.pdf

It is important that this campaign reach as many Australians as possible, so that they become aware of what is happening in the TV sector. Politicians need to feel the heat from outraged Australians and Conroy's machinations especially need to be thoroughly exposed.

Australia's cultural forums: whether they be TV channels, theatres, books/e-books, film, music industry etc belong to and should serve the people!

Sydney's West waits its chance

Vanguard April 2013 p. 4
David B.

Murdoch’s Telegraph and The Australian scream it from their headlines.

 Alan Jones, Steve Price and Ray Hadley scream it over the airwaves.

“Sydney’s Western Suburbs hate Labor!”

 Hate the sight of them. Hate the sound of them. Hate the very thought of them.

It’s almost in the air we breathe.

It’s a real dilemma for us all let alone a Labor leader trying to woo them to vote for the local hack.

Sydney’s Western Suburbs are the home of Keating’s true believers. They have been loyal for generations. They expected and aspired and to an extent prospered.

Their loyalty and belief has been dashed as the reality of the Obeid’s, the Williamson’s, the MacDonald’s heaped injury and insult on the abuses so many Westies had previously turned a blind eye to.

Used and betrayed

In NSW, Labor stands as little more than a training house for those seeking the life of Riley. Inside it they squabble amongst themselves for each opportunity to feast on the plums of office in a betrayal of those they ask to put them there. Some are not so crass but in the sum this is their way.

The cloak of idealistic endeavour, of serving those suffering hardship and deprivation stands exposed as a sham.

The crisis on the roads, unreliability of the trains, hospital waiting lists, price gouging by state electricity and water instrumentalities, open slather for developers in the suburbs, neglect of government schools, the handovers of public land and taxing local bowling and small clubs out of existence, have all burdened the West.

They know they have been used and betrayed, and as a scorned lover turns blindly vengeful, Westies await their opportunity to give Labor its comeuppance in spades.

 

Impotence in the parliamentary arena

But it’s not so much being spurned, it’s Westies’ impotence in the world of power, where state power and money power meld into a parasitic beast of such potency that the millions in Sydney’s West count for next to naught.
The real issues in Sydney’s West are power and capitalism.

The power of capitalism, and its vile henchmen (and they are mostly men) in the parliamentary arena in all their exposed parasitic greed, disenfranchising the people from their own suburbia.

The complete impotence of the working class in suburbia and society, with Labor hacks using the West as their ticket to the lifestyles of the rich and famous, and their combination with the bankers and mining giants against the mortgage belt, has come to this denouement.

The workers hate their impotence. That is what this is about.

They know in their bones capital rules supreme but they have been told time and again “We’ll look after you” by the now exposed quislings of Labor. 

Capitalist power flaunted

The aspirationals and battlers of the West strive to get some improvements in their lives and for their kids. For ever tiny advance they have achieved, they watch the bankers and mining monopolies enrich themselves at an astounding rate. Big money, the monopolies of every sort, mining companies, real estate developers, financiers, chemical monopolies, transport moguls, supermarket retail conglomerates, and gas companies all run rampant over society and over the West.

The monopolies rub our noses in their exercise of power, their day-to-day control of state power in our communities, our states and territories and the nation.

Bribery and corruption of parliamentary elites is merely a sideshow to the main game of capitalism.

See how quickly all the issues of law, regulation and environmental controls have been cleared from the path of coal-seam gas companies.

Contrast that with endless squabbling, erection of barriers or inaction over fixing the health and education systems or congestion on the cities roads.

Power and impotence is the issue.

Our impotence and their power. 

Workers have real power beyond parliament

According to the “rules” of the capitalist game, there is only one power in Westies’ hands, their vote. And they intend to use it, even if it hurts.

It may not be the right approach. It is certainly not the best approach, but until they know another one it will do for now.

Many know Abbott will hit them. They are not fooled by his gloating observation that the Western suburbs are the “new heartland of the Liberal Party”. They know he’s from the North Shore. A boy from a top private school. A trusted confidante of big business. That’s not news to them. They are not as silly as the shock jocks would have people believe.

But their current focus is on getting back at those who have ignored them in the pursuit of self-interest and power through corruption.

They yearn to exercise the one “power” granted to them by the system and that’s their vote.

Class consciousness in the Western suburbs is a product of spontaneity and is still to be developed into a scientific ideology. The West is cosmopolitan, ethnically, and in its experience. It is aware of itself as a class but not yet aware enough and organized enough to act for itself as a class.

Over time, that higher class consciousness is bound to develop. Capitalism and the class struggle will make such a development inevitable.

The task of Communists is to work patiently amongst the people, starting always from the spontaneous reaction of the people to their own impotence and to the power of the class that rules over them in society.

Rather than obsess about whether or not the Western suburbs vote for Gillard or Abbott, our task is to take the discussion beyond the bounds of parliamentarism, to gradually raise the class consciousness of the Westies and of working people around the nation to the real power they have in workplace and community organization.

It is to win them to confidence in an agenda for fundamental social change that can be kept independent of, and advanced outside of, the parliamentary channels.

There is fertile ground everywhere for comrades who are prepared to go into the community and amongst all with whom they work, who can overcome the “left bloc” and really implement the mass line style of political work.