This morning, Queensland's new Premier, Annastacia Palaszczuk, was sworn in. With the announcement yesterday that the counting of votes was finally over, the tally was formally declared by the Electoral Commission, and Palaszczuk was asked by the Governor of Queensland to take the reins. 'Premier Palaszczuk' should at least please lovers of alliteration.
Palaszczuk heads a minority government: Labor have 44 seats, and can only reach the magic 45 with the help of Independent Peter Wellington, an arrangement that is in place. Just as good was the news that the Electoral Commission was not going to refer the result in Ferny Grove to the Court of Disputed Returns, as a result of legal advice it had received in 'regard to the final count in Ferny Grove, the winning margin, the number of votes for the [bankrupt] PUP candidate and the distribution of preferences'*.
With the new government come high hopes… and predictable fears. Few Labor policies were outlined in any detail prior to the election, which means a lot of voters are taking the new leaders on trust. The absence of 'big-ticket promises' will hopefully insure against the usual carping about back-flips and broken promises, but there are enormous questions marks over future infrastructure projects, for example, and their link to the health of the economy, jobs creation and business confidence.
Annastacia Palaszczuk has spoken of being humbled by Queensland's choice. The one big promise she has made is to continue to listen. Consensus and unity and integrity and openness are what the people want, it would appear, from their enormous rejection of an arrogant former government that responded to their donors' needs rather than their electorate's.
I hope for the repeal of much of the Newman government's undemocratic, blinkered, self-interested and environmentally damaging legislation. I know the Great Barrier Reef is temporarily in safer hands. But I would like to hear a debate that I fear few politicians dare even mention, let alone initiate. And that is the one about an alternative economic future, one not focused on growth as inevitably desirable and perpetual. Instead of debating whether or not Queensland should reinstate a second chamber or elect its leaders for fixed four-year terms, maybe we should revive the idea of abolishing state governments altogether, to do away with duplication and save billions of dollars. Maybe we should set think tanks to work on the thorny issue of using less than one planet's resources to furnish our luxurious lifestyles; because, believe me, if you own two cars, two dogs and a leafblower, you are not doing it tough.
Shock, horror, Judith: get back in your box.
* http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/feb/14/annastacia-palaszczuk-sworn-in-as-queensland-premier
February 14, 2015
February 7, 2015
The Court of Disputed Returns
A week later, Queensland appears no nearer to knowing who will form a government.
The counting process seems to be interminably slow. Postal votes do not have to be in until next Tuesday. Surely an earlier cut-off would have been helpful? Can more counters not be drafted in temporarily?
The number of seats in doubt continues to change, from five to four to six to three to four: http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/seats-in-doubt/. A couple are predicted to be firmed up over this weekend, but the tail-end Charlies are more likely by the middle to end of next week.
Then there is the enormous spanner of Ferny Grove. During the week this residential suburb in northwest Brisbane looked like a Labor gain, and this morning the website above has it listed as a 'safe Labor gain', with almost 91 per cent of votes counted. But the Palmer United Party candidate, Mark Taverner, is an undischarged bankrupt and was therefore not eligible to be a candidate. Clive Palmer claims Mr Taverner signed a form declaring himself fit to stand, but it's no matter now because the damage has been done and the uncertainty has been prolonged. Who uncovered Taverner is what I'd like to know? The story was first published in News Corps' foremost Queensland dirt rag.
What is the significance of this development? Will the courts overturn the Ferny Grove result and order a by-election, thus leaving Queensland governance floundering for months? According to the ABC's political commentator Antony Green, the answer to that is no. A Court of Disputed Returns case can only be made after the Ferny Grove result is announced. And a case can only be made on the grounds that the votes cast for Mr Taverner had an impact on the result. It is preferences that will be key here. An objector (the LNP candidate?) will have seven days to lodge their case, which may take months to be heard. In the meantime, the declared candidate will have all the rights of an elected Member of Parliament.
It is – as you might expect – much more complicated than this, so I recommend you read Green's blog at (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antony
green/2015/02/the-impact-of-ferny-grove-on-forming-government-in-queensland.html), for more detail, especially about precedents.
I still have questions though. Since we know what we know about Mark Taverner, can the Electoral Commission Queensland conclude after its own investigation that PUP's votes did not influence the result? Is the ECQ bound to take some kind of action, even if no one objects? Is anyone other than the LNP going to take this matter to the Court of Disputed Returns? I'm willing to bet PUP can't be made to pay instead of Queensland taxpayers.
No one seems particularly perturbed about the delay in the resumption of State Government. The only complaint I have heard is from a lady who was 'cranky' at the prospect of a by-election in Ferny Grove. Day-to-day life has continued: no services have ground to a halt; public servants have been paid. I do wonder, however, what those who had been preparing for the 'leasing' of Queensland's public assets have spent their time doing this last week.
The LNP are busy choosing a more electable leader*, and I assume the ALP are deciding who will do what if they are confirmed as the governing party, and what their policies are on a host of subjects not mentioned in the election campaign (infrastructure funding to name but one).
The Independent member for Nicklin (in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland), Peter Wellington, has already decided that he will support Annastacia Palaszczuk. I believe the Katter boys (two Katter's Australian Party MPs already confirmed) are more likely to decide in favour of the LNP, but have deferred their decision until the final tally of seats is known. All in all, only an idiot would try to work their way through all the computations at this stage.
Am I the only person who is fretting about the possibility, if a by-election is called in Ferny Grove, of a most disturbing scenario playing out. With Campbell Newman gone and asset sales a dead issue, the LNP must assume they could win the seat next time around.
So we beat on, boats against the current… (let's hope not) borne back ceaselessly into the past†.
* It was announced at about 2 pm this afternoon that Lawrence Springborg is the new LNP leader, with John-Paul Langbroek as his deputy
† With apologies to F Scott Fitzgerald
The counting process seems to be interminably slow. Postal votes do not have to be in until next Tuesday. Surely an earlier cut-off would have been helpful? Can more counters not be drafted in temporarily?
The number of seats in doubt continues to change, from five to four to six to three to four: http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/seats-in-doubt/. A couple are predicted to be firmed up over this weekend, but the tail-end Charlies are more likely by the middle to end of next week.
Then there is the enormous spanner of Ferny Grove. During the week this residential suburb in northwest Brisbane looked like a Labor gain, and this morning the website above has it listed as a 'safe Labor gain', with almost 91 per cent of votes counted. But the Palmer United Party candidate, Mark Taverner, is an undischarged bankrupt and was therefore not eligible to be a candidate. Clive Palmer claims Mr Taverner signed a form declaring himself fit to stand, but it's no matter now because the damage has been done and the uncertainty has been prolonged. Who uncovered Taverner is what I'd like to know? The story was first published in News Corps' foremost Queensland dirt rag.
What is the significance of this development? Will the courts overturn the Ferny Grove result and order a by-election, thus leaving Queensland governance floundering for months? According to the ABC's political commentator Antony Green, the answer to that is no. A Court of Disputed Returns case can only be made after the Ferny Grove result is announced. And a case can only be made on the grounds that the votes cast for Mr Taverner had an impact on the result. It is preferences that will be key here. An objector (the LNP candidate?) will have seven days to lodge their case, which may take months to be heard. In the meantime, the declared candidate will have all the rights of an elected Member of Parliament.
It is – as you might expect – much more complicated than this, so I recommend you read Green's blog at (http://blogs.abc.net.au/antony
green/2015/02/the-impact-of-ferny-grove-on-forming-government-in-queensland.html), for more detail, especially about precedents.
I still have questions though. Since we know what we know about Mark Taverner, can the Electoral Commission Queensland conclude after its own investigation that PUP's votes did not influence the result? Is the ECQ bound to take some kind of action, even if no one objects? Is anyone other than the LNP going to take this matter to the Court of Disputed Returns? I'm willing to bet PUP can't be made to pay instead of Queensland taxpayers.
No one seems particularly perturbed about the delay in the resumption of State Government. The only complaint I have heard is from a lady who was 'cranky' at the prospect of a by-election in Ferny Grove. Day-to-day life has continued: no services have ground to a halt; public servants have been paid. I do wonder, however, what those who had been preparing for the 'leasing' of Queensland's public assets have spent their time doing this last week.
The LNP are busy choosing a more electable leader*, and I assume the ALP are deciding who will do what if they are confirmed as the governing party, and what their policies are on a host of subjects not mentioned in the election campaign (infrastructure funding to name but one).
The Independent member for Nicklin (in the Sunshine Coast Hinterland), Peter Wellington, has already decided that he will support Annastacia Palaszczuk. I believe the Katter boys (two Katter's Australian Party MPs already confirmed) are more likely to decide in favour of the LNP, but have deferred their decision until the final tally of seats is known. All in all, only an idiot would try to work their way through all the computations at this stage.
Am I the only person who is fretting about the possibility, if a by-election is called in Ferny Grove, of a most disturbing scenario playing out. With Campbell Newman gone and asset sales a dead issue, the LNP must assume they could win the seat next time around.
So we beat on, boats against the current… (let's hope not) borne back ceaselessly into the past†.
* It was announced at about 2 pm this afternoon that Lawrence Springborg is the new LNP leader, with John-Paul Langbroek as his deputy
† With apologies to F Scott Fitzgerald
February 1, 2015
Good morning, Queensland!
Two years and ten months ago, the morning following the 2012 Queensland state election, I wrote this: http://heyjudeinbrisbane.
blogspot.com.au/2012/03/queensland-state-election-morning-after.html. The people of Queensland had just swept away Labor and installed an LNP government with so large a majority (78 seats out of 89) that, in the absence of a second chamber, it was going to be able to pass whatever legislation it chose. Labor had just seven seats. I felt despondent, with good cause.
What a contrast with today. This time it's the Liberal National Party's turn to be booted out: and Premier Campbell Newman lost his seat of Ashgrove.
LNP supporters handing out voting cards at Bulimba State School yesterday – where I was distributing leaflets on behalf of Clean Air Queensland – were strangely subdued, I thought. Perhaps they already had an inkling from canvassing. I mean nobody believes the polls, do they? During the week they had been either putting the parties neck and neck or the LNP edging ahead.
I asked the Labor team in Bulimba whether they were cautiously optimistic. They were upbeat, but, like the rest of us, didn't dare hope that there could be anything better than the LNP still in power but with a vastly reduced majority.
As the evening progressed, it became obvious that the LNP were in trouble. They were not going to have enough seats to form a government, but Labor might. On Sunday, we still don't know. Labor have 43 seats, to the LNP's 40: they need 45 to form a government. There are two Katter's Australian Party MPs and one Independent, and three seats too close to call.
This was an election that offered voters clear choices: assets to be leased or kept in government hands; big-bucks spending promises or a modest, economic plan; politicians mired in controversy or a seemingly honest and genuine alternative; Campbell Newman or a very different leader.
We should know precisely how Queensland will enter its new political era by the middle of the week.
Update: on Monday morning it is looking more likely there will be a hung parliament. Labor have 43 seats and the LNP 40, with three results unclear. Labor is likely to add one more, not two*. The Katter Party and the Independent MP Peter Wellington have indicated their willingness to talk about a deal with Labor.
Update 2: on Tuesday morning the election result is less certain and further off, with six seats in doubt*. Some seats must have been called to one party or another when there was still a sizeable chunk of votes to count. There is even talk today of Pauline Hanson taking Lockyer, which would add interest to a minority government mix. Early/absent/declaration votes are counted after those from the polling booths, and sometimes favour the incumbent MP. Close final numbers may necessitate recounts, which will further delay the final result of the Queensland election 2015.
* http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/seats-in-doubt/
This post was last edited on 4 February 2015
blogspot.com.au/2012/03/queensland-state-election-morning-after.html. The people of Queensland had just swept away Labor and installed an LNP government with so large a majority (78 seats out of 89) that, in the absence of a second chamber, it was going to be able to pass whatever legislation it chose. Labor had just seven seats. I felt despondent, with good cause.
What a contrast with today. This time it's the Liberal National Party's turn to be booted out: and Premier Campbell Newman lost his seat of Ashgrove.
LNP supporters handing out voting cards at Bulimba State School yesterday – where I was distributing leaflets on behalf of Clean Air Queensland – were strangely subdued, I thought. Perhaps they already had an inkling from canvassing. I mean nobody believes the polls, do they? During the week they had been either putting the parties neck and neck or the LNP edging ahead.
I asked the Labor team in Bulimba whether they were cautiously optimistic. They were upbeat, but, like the rest of us, didn't dare hope that there could be anything better than the LNP still in power but with a vastly reduced majority.
As the evening progressed, it became obvious that the LNP were in trouble. They were not going to have enough seats to form a government, but Labor might. On Sunday, we still don't know. Labor have 43 seats, to the LNP's 40: they need 45 to form a government. There are two Katter's Australian Party MPs and one Independent, and three seats too close to call.
This was an election that offered voters clear choices: assets to be leased or kept in government hands; big-bucks spending promises or a modest, economic plan; politicians mired in controversy or a seemingly honest and genuine alternative; Campbell Newman or a very different leader.
We should know precisely how Queensland will enter its new political era by the middle of the week.
Update: on Monday morning it is looking more likely there will be a hung parliament. Labor have 43 seats and the LNP 40, with three results unclear. Labor is likely to add one more, not two*. The Katter Party and the Independent MP Peter Wellington have indicated their willingness to talk about a deal with Labor.
Update 2: on Tuesday morning the election result is less certain and further off, with six seats in doubt*. Some seats must have been called to one party or another when there was still a sizeable chunk of votes to count. There is even talk today of Pauline Hanson taking Lockyer, which would add interest to a minority government mix. Early/absent/declaration votes are counted after those from the polling booths, and sometimes favour the incumbent MP. Close final numbers may necessitate recounts, which will further delay the final result of the Queensland election 2015.
* http://www.abc.net.au/news/qld-election-2015/results/seats-in-doubt/
This post was last edited on 4 February 2015
January 30, 2015
Election '15: the elephant in the room
That a changing climate will affect all aspects of life is not in doubt: precisely when the most serious consequences of our failure to limit carbon emissions will have an impact is still open to debate. We are seeing changes now, all over the planet. Gen Y's children will experience greater challenges, and their children will have good cause to blame their great grandparents for inaction, I suspect.
There is no big issue in the Queensland election that will not be profoundly affected by climate change, but did you hear the words during any debate or phone-in? I have listened to the ABC extensively since 12 January, on both television and radio; I have been busy on Facebook and Twitter; and I have attended an election forum and an election campaign launch. I have read journos' and lobbyists' lists of key election topics. I have, however, heard hardly any serious discussion about how on earth the political parties are going to deal with climate change.
I find that extraordinary.
It was briefly a debating point when Tony Abbott resisted leaders' requests for climate change to be on the G20 agenda in Brisbane last November. President Obama even spoke about its importance the day before the conference. (The nerve of the man; telling Queenslanders what to do.) But it faded from the spotlight just as suddenly, as Australians once again buried their heads in the sands of their glorious beaches and never gave their impending and major lifestyle changes a second thought.
So, back to the election.
If you're concerned about the state's economy and believe that its mineral wealth must be exploited and exported to raise revenue to pay off debt and increase wealth, consider this: there may currently be a huge demand for coal from China, but the Chinese government has ambitious plans for renewable and nuclear energy programmes. The world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters, the US and China, have overcome the geopolitical gridlock about who is responsible for a warming world and who is going to do most to fix it. China may need to import coal for a while, but it has responded well to the global climate crisis. A carbon trading system is expected by 2016. Australia's Galilee Basin coal mines, should they become a reality, may soon be stranded assets as coal and gas prices fall. Not to mention the vast quantities of water that mines use, which will exacerbate the precarious business of farming the land even more so as the climate becomes more extreme.
When looking at the pros and cons of further resource development – principally coal and coal seam gas – consider the loss of even more strategic cropping land, such as in the Darling Downs west of Brisbane, and what that will mean for food production (for home consumption or for export) as lower yields become more likely in the hotter, drier, stormier conditions on a continent that may experience even higher temperatures than other regions on earth*.
If you are worried about the state of the Great Barrier Reef, consider that, among several problems contributing to the death of corals, a warming ocean is going to require a greater effort than finding an alternative location for dredge spoil or killing off considerable numbers of star fish. In addition, corals don't like silt, and more extreme weather events in a warmer world will not only bring much more sediment down in rivers, but also churn up the shallows.
Precisely how many jobs will eventuate in the resources sector over the next decade is a hotly debated topic. Many jobs have already been lost in the solar industry as a result of the Federal government's reluctance to commit to the existing Renewable Energy Target. In Queensland, the LNP have done their best to thwart the people's desire for solar panels on their roofs. Despite slashing the feed-in tariff and threatening to remove subsidies for installation, half a million Queenslanders have gone and done it anyway. The creation of new jobs in the renewable energy industry would be considerable if it were encouraged. Community energy projects and shared schemes have enormous potential**, as does the establishment of a smart grid to enable alternative energy to be integrated for wider distribution. In farming communities, already struggling with prolonged drought and threats to their water resources, community energy projects provide alternative employment to mines that may never materialise.
Which brings us to privatisation of assets. In LNP world, loadsa money will be made by persuading private business to take on ageing, fossil-fuel-based energy generation and distribution for the duration of 99-year leases. Private companies are motivated by making profit for their stakeholders primarily, not the health of the environment or the future of the planet. How willing will they be to invest in making coal cleaner or capturing carbon? How keen will the network companies be to accommodate renewable energy generated by little people? When necessity of action replaces profit as number one priority in the coming decades, how will they fare? And will you want utility industries in private hands when handling extreme weather events and displaced people becomes commonplace?
When it comes to the cost of living, electricity prices are often close to the top of the list. Politicians of all colours prioritise the lowering, or at least the capping of electricity prices. Renewables are the key to lower prices in the longer term. People's motivation to switch to solar may as yet be mostly economic, but it's a step in the right direction towards the only option in a climatically challenged society.
So, climate change is the silent big issue in this election campaign. Hardly anyone dares speak its name. Because most voters don't want to know, and most pollies don't know what to do. Australia is increasingly out in the cold as big economies commit to climate action programmes. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris at the end of this year will be upon us before we know it. Assuming Abbott survives his unpopular period and is still PM, is he going to rise to the occasion and embrace the reality of this ominously warming planet?
Last April, I went to ask my MP, Aaron Dillaway, the LNP member for Bulimba, why climate change wasn't on a list of topics for discussion distributed throughout the constituency. He assumed I meant 'the environment', and started talking about beautifying Bulimba by planting trees. Back on topic, he struggled with the meaning of anthropogenic. I hope he's done some research since, but I doubt it. Not that it matters much, because I suspect he'll be out a job by Sunday. I hope so.
To be ill-informed about such an important and potentially catastrophic threat is indefensible.
* http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/climate-change-will-hit-australia-harder-than-rest-of-world-study-shows
** http://www.fundcommunityenergy.org/about
There is no big issue in the Queensland election that will not be profoundly affected by climate change, but did you hear the words during any debate or phone-in? I have listened to the ABC extensively since 12 January, on both television and radio; I have been busy on Facebook and Twitter; and I have attended an election forum and an election campaign launch. I have read journos' and lobbyists' lists of key election topics. I have, however, heard hardly any serious discussion about how on earth the political parties are going to deal with climate change.
I find that extraordinary.
It was briefly a debating point when Tony Abbott resisted leaders' requests for climate change to be on the G20 agenda in Brisbane last November. President Obama even spoke about its importance the day before the conference. (The nerve of the man; telling Queenslanders what to do.) But it faded from the spotlight just as suddenly, as Australians once again buried their heads in the sands of their glorious beaches and never gave their impending and major lifestyle changes a second thought.
So, back to the election.
If you're concerned about the state's economy and believe that its mineral wealth must be exploited and exported to raise revenue to pay off debt and increase wealth, consider this: there may currently be a huge demand for coal from China, but the Chinese government has ambitious plans for renewable and nuclear energy programmes. The world's two largest greenhouse gas emitters, the US and China, have overcome the geopolitical gridlock about who is responsible for a warming world and who is going to do most to fix it. China may need to import coal for a while, but it has responded well to the global climate crisis. A carbon trading system is expected by 2016. Australia's Galilee Basin coal mines, should they become a reality, may soon be stranded assets as coal and gas prices fall. Not to mention the vast quantities of water that mines use, which will exacerbate the precarious business of farming the land even more so as the climate becomes more extreme.
When looking at the pros and cons of further resource development – principally coal and coal seam gas – consider the loss of even more strategic cropping land, such as in the Darling Downs west of Brisbane, and what that will mean for food production (for home consumption or for export) as lower yields become more likely in the hotter, drier, stormier conditions on a continent that may experience even higher temperatures than other regions on earth*.
If you are worried about the state of the Great Barrier Reef, consider that, among several problems contributing to the death of corals, a warming ocean is going to require a greater effort than finding an alternative location for dredge spoil or killing off considerable numbers of star fish. In addition, corals don't like silt, and more extreme weather events in a warmer world will not only bring much more sediment down in rivers, but also churn up the shallows.
Precisely how many jobs will eventuate in the resources sector over the next decade is a hotly debated topic. Many jobs have already been lost in the solar industry as a result of the Federal government's reluctance to commit to the existing Renewable Energy Target. In Queensland, the LNP have done their best to thwart the people's desire for solar panels on their roofs. Despite slashing the feed-in tariff and threatening to remove subsidies for installation, half a million Queenslanders have gone and done it anyway. The creation of new jobs in the renewable energy industry would be considerable if it were encouraged. Community energy projects and shared schemes have enormous potential**, as does the establishment of a smart grid to enable alternative energy to be integrated for wider distribution. In farming communities, already struggling with prolonged drought and threats to their water resources, community energy projects provide alternative employment to mines that may never materialise.
Which brings us to privatisation of assets. In LNP world, loadsa money will be made by persuading private business to take on ageing, fossil-fuel-based energy generation and distribution for the duration of 99-year leases. Private companies are motivated by making profit for their stakeholders primarily, not the health of the environment or the future of the planet. How willing will they be to invest in making coal cleaner or capturing carbon? How keen will the network companies be to accommodate renewable energy generated by little people? When necessity of action replaces profit as number one priority in the coming decades, how will they fare? And will you want utility industries in private hands when handling extreme weather events and displaced people becomes commonplace?
When it comes to the cost of living, electricity prices are often close to the top of the list. Politicians of all colours prioritise the lowering, or at least the capping of electricity prices. Renewables are the key to lower prices in the longer term. People's motivation to switch to solar may as yet be mostly economic, but it's a step in the right direction towards the only option in a climatically challenged society.
So, climate change is the silent big issue in this election campaign. Hardly anyone dares speak its name. Because most voters don't want to know, and most pollies don't know what to do. Australia is increasingly out in the cold as big economies commit to climate action programmes. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris at the end of this year will be upon us before we know it. Assuming Abbott survives his unpopular period and is still PM, is he going to rise to the occasion and embrace the reality of this ominously warming planet?
Last April, I went to ask my MP, Aaron Dillaway, the LNP member for Bulimba, why climate change wasn't on a list of topics for discussion distributed throughout the constituency. He assumed I meant 'the environment', and started talking about beautifying Bulimba by planting trees. Back on topic, he struggled with the meaning of anthropogenic. I hope he's done some research since, but I doubt it. Not that it matters much, because I suspect he'll be out a job by Sunday. I hope so.
To be ill-informed about such an important and potentially catastrophic threat is indefensible.
* http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/26/climate-change-will-hit-australia-harder-than-rest-of-world-study-shows
** http://www.fundcommunityenergy.org/about
January 28, 2015
Election '15: integrity and trust
Half way through the final week of Queensland's state election campaign, it occurs to me that perhaps I should have tackled this subject before now. After all, it has been a matter of political debate increasingly throughout the LNP's term of office. Honesty, transparency, misuse of power, accountability: such words and phrases have been recycled many times in expressions of complaint and cynicism; disappointment and disillusionment.
Some voters seem to be able to juxtapose a dislike of Campbell Newman with the belief that he is a strong leader – to use his favourite word. The political history of the last three years in Queensland reeks of so many dodgy deals as to be almost suffocating, but a significant number of voters rank apparent economic performance above all else, it would seem.
Although details emerged long after the event, sand-mining company Sibelco funded Newman's campaign in Ashgrove in Brisbane in 2012, to the tune of $90,000. Later they were rewarded with a 16-year extension of their right to dig up Moreton Bay's beautiful North Stradbroke Island, until 2035, and against the wishes of local people.
But worse, much worse than this, in many people's eyes, have been Newman's lies about the third stage of New Hope's Acland coal mine in the Darling Downs. He had promised this would not go ahead. I remember reading about his announcement, in disbelief. I always doubted his weasel words. Principally because New Hope is one of the LNP's biggest donors*, and they must expect to get something for their money. And sure enough, as people hurried off on their christmas holidays, on the evening of 19 December, Jeff Seeney quietly announced that the Co-ordinator General had approved the mine's further expansion.
These deeds make Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk appear almost squeaky clean. The LNP have not managed to dig up any dirt, and I'm sure it's not for want of trying. Newman's childish, straw-clutching throwaway line during last Friday's leaders' debate, that Labor may have been funded by the dreaded bikies, was as laughable as it was outrageous. He went on to place the onus of proof on the Labor leader to show that they had not been. I don't think so. Does he recall the principle of the accused being innocent until proven guilty?
Missing from the election campaign has been any reference to the philosophy of either of the main parties. Fundamental principles or underlying beliefs are never mentioned, or rarely; instead, lightweight policy announcements and incentives are peddled constantly. Four-pillar economy; cutting green tape; anti-association laws; asset leasing… these are slogans or sound bites, not components of a political raison d'être. When was the last time you heard mention of terms such as representative democracy, progressivism, capitalism, fair trade, social justice, labour rights, market economy, state interventionism, social partnership… The devil is in the detail, which you never hear about either. Landowners learn of the erosion of their rights to prevent miners spoiling their land and water once amendments have been passed at five minutes to midnight.
In September last year, Tony Fitzgerald, who was a judge for 30 years and headed up the state's famous corruption enquiry in the 1980s, encouraged Queenslanders to vote for neither of the main parties** in this election.
In the absence of a commitment by the party currently in charge of the State, perhaps you should fall back on an old technique. Ask yourself whether or not you would buy a second-hand car from Campbell Newman, Jeff Seeney et al.
* http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-09/acland-coal-mine-liberal-party-donations/5440184
** http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/tony-fitzgerald-urges-queenslanders-not-to-vote-for-either-major-party?CMP=share_btn_fb
† see who they were at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-state-election-2015/prominent-australians-open-letter-to-political-parties-20150121-12v9z4.html
Some voters seem to be able to juxtapose a dislike of Campbell Newman with the belief that he is a strong leader – to use his favourite word. The political history of the last three years in Queensland reeks of so many dodgy deals as to be almost suffocating, but a significant number of voters rank apparent economic performance above all else, it would seem.
Although details emerged long after the event, sand-mining company Sibelco funded Newman's campaign in Ashgrove in Brisbane in 2012, to the tune of $90,000. Later they were rewarded with a 16-year extension of their right to dig up Moreton Bay's beautiful North Stradbroke Island, until 2035, and against the wishes of local people.
But worse, much worse than this, in many people's eyes, have been Newman's lies about the third stage of New Hope's Acland coal mine in the Darling Downs. He had promised this would not go ahead. I remember reading about his announcement, in disbelief. I always doubted his weasel words. Principally because New Hope is one of the LNP's biggest donors*, and they must expect to get something for their money. And sure enough, as people hurried off on their christmas holidays, on the evening of 19 December, Jeff Seeney quietly announced that the Co-ordinator General had approved the mine's further expansion.
These deeds make Labor leader Annastacia Palaszczuk appear almost squeaky clean. The LNP have not managed to dig up any dirt, and I'm sure it's not for want of trying. Newman's childish, straw-clutching throwaway line during last Friday's leaders' debate, that Labor may have been funded by the dreaded bikies, was as laughable as it was outrageous. He went on to place the onus of proof on the Labor leader to show that they had not been. I don't think so. Does he recall the principle of the accused being innocent until proven guilty?
Missing from the election campaign has been any reference to the philosophy of either of the main parties. Fundamental principles or underlying beliefs are never mentioned, or rarely; instead, lightweight policy announcements and incentives are peddled constantly. Four-pillar economy; cutting green tape; anti-association laws; asset leasing… these are slogans or sound bites, not components of a political raison d'être. When was the last time you heard mention of terms such as representative democracy, progressivism, capitalism, fair trade, social justice, labour rights, market economy, state interventionism, social partnership… The devil is in the detail, which you never hear about either. Landowners learn of the erosion of their rights to prevent miners spoiling their land and water once amendments have been passed at five minutes to midnight.
In September last year, Tony Fitzgerald, who was a judge for 30 years and headed up the state's famous corruption enquiry in the 1980s, encouraged Queenslanders to vote for neither of the main parties** in this election.
In practical terms, power has been substantially transferred to a small, cynical, political class, mostly professional politicians who represent, and act as directed by, one of the two major political parties which [sic] have entrenched themselves and their standards in the political system and collectively dominate political discussion and control the political process.He added that both parties use election wins to reward sectional interests, financial supporters and 'ambitious camp-followers'. And he went on:
Political reform is… a task for the community. If Queenslanders want a free, fair, tolerant society, good governance and honest public administration, a sufficient number of voters must make it clear that they will decline to vote for any party which [sic] does not first satisfy them that it will exercise power only for the public benefit.About two weeks ago The Australian Institute wrote an open letter to all party leaders, asking for their commitment to Fitzgerald's principles of accountability:
1 Govern for the peace, welfare and good government of the State;The letter was signed by 'prominent Australians'† and sent to Queensland Labor, Bob Katter's Australia Party, the Palmer United Party, the Liberal National Party and the Queensland Greens. All but the LNP responded and agreed to commit to the principles if they are elected.
2 Make all decisions and take all actions, including public appointments, in the public interest without regard to personal, party political or other immaterial considerations;
3 Treat all people equally without permitting any person or corporation special access or influence; and
4 Promptly and accurately inform the public of its reasons for all significant or potentially controversial decisions and actions.
In the absence of a commitment by the party currently in charge of the State, perhaps you should fall back on an old technique. Ask yourself whether or not you would buy a second-hand car from Campbell Newman, Jeff Seeney et al.
* http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-09/acland-coal-mine-liberal-party-donations/5440184
** http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/11/tony-fitzgerald-urges-queenslanders-not-to-vote-for-either-major-party?CMP=share_btn_fb
† see who they were at http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-state-election-2015/prominent-australians-open-letter-to-political-parties-20150121-12v9z4.html
January 25, 2015
Election '15: costs of living
Australia is an expensive country; not many people would argue with that. We noticed it from the day we arrived – just over five years ago – and we're still noticing it. Last weekend, two simple, over-the-counter, tickly-cough and sore-throat remedies cost $30.
I have kept two lists since our arrival: one of items that are appreciably less expensive, and the other of those that cost considerably more than I'd been used to. The former is a short list, and includes prawns, light bulbs, accountants' fees and fuel; the latter is extensive and ranges from insurance (car, house contents, you name it) to hotel accommodation, eating out, wine, electricity, mobile phone tariffs, internet, new cars, car registration, bank charges, repairs (shoes, for example), medical costs (dentistry especially), window cleaning, hairdressing and cosmetics, flowers, entrance fees to tourist attractions, books… even tattoos!
In the last week, two items in the press confirmed what we all know. Australia is well up the top ten of most expensive countries.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-15/australian-housing-near-most-expensive-but-forecast-to-rise/6018696?section=business
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/map-expensive-countries_n_6510018.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
In addition to high retail prices, there are hidden service charges everywhere. When we moved into our first rental property, we couldn't pay our rent directly to the rental agency. Instead, we had to pay a middle man who then paid the agency. That privilege was going to cost us $2.50 a month. We refused the 'service', and the agency eventually agreed to let us pay them direct.
And then there's settling the bill up front. You're already paying through the nose for even modest accommodation in a popular destination, and then you have to pay in full as long as a month in advance. If you're renting a holiday house, there'll be a deposit to pay against damage. One condition of a booking I have in a month's time is that I send screenshot of the transaction, and another is that the deposit appear in the owner's bank account before I attempt to pick up the key.
If you have to make a claim on your car insurance, you have to pay hundreds of dollars of excess right at the start, before they'll instigate a claim, and you'll never know the actual costs of the repair.
The biggest item in the cost of living that worries most Australians is the price of electricity. Abbott's abolition of the carbon price didn't bring people's bills down like they'd been promised. In Queensland that's because the network companies over-invested in improving poles and wires. In itself, that was good, but energy companies overestimated their income at a time when power consumption was falling. More people were installing solar (nearly 400,000 homes in QLD now) and cutting their usage because of high prices. The high prices are not because of solar subsidies: this is LNP misinformation.
Electricity could be much cheaper if right-wing governments embraced renewables. There is masses of scope for solar take-up as the technology (including storage batteries) comes down in price. Large-scale solar farm projects have been scrapped rather than encouraged. The LNP is blinded by its love for fossil fuels (and mining donations) to the enormous scope of the Sunshine State.
There are lots of ways that I can see that people could cut their household budget. But I see little evidence yet of lifestyles being modified in order to reduce massive consumption. There has to be a will for there to be a way.
I have kept two lists since our arrival: one of items that are appreciably less expensive, and the other of those that cost considerably more than I'd been used to. The former is a short list, and includes prawns, light bulbs, accountants' fees and fuel; the latter is extensive and ranges from insurance (car, house contents, you name it) to hotel accommodation, eating out, wine, electricity, mobile phone tariffs, internet, new cars, car registration, bank charges, repairs (shoes, for example), medical costs (dentistry especially), window cleaning, hairdressing and cosmetics, flowers, entrance fees to tourist attractions, books… even tattoos!
In the last week, two items in the press confirmed what we all know. Australia is well up the top ten of most expensive countries.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-15/australian-housing-near-most-expensive-but-forecast-to-rise/6018696?section=business
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/21/map-expensive-countries_n_6510018.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
In addition to high retail prices, there are hidden service charges everywhere. When we moved into our first rental property, we couldn't pay our rent directly to the rental agency. Instead, we had to pay a middle man who then paid the agency. That privilege was going to cost us $2.50 a month. We refused the 'service', and the agency eventually agreed to let us pay them direct.
And then there's settling the bill up front. You're already paying through the nose for even modest accommodation in a popular destination, and then you have to pay in full as long as a month in advance. If you're renting a holiday house, there'll be a deposit to pay against damage. One condition of a booking I have in a month's time is that I send screenshot of the transaction, and another is that the deposit appear in the owner's bank account before I attempt to pick up the key.
If you have to make a claim on your car insurance, you have to pay hundreds of dollars of excess right at the start, before they'll instigate a claim, and you'll never know the actual costs of the repair.
The biggest item in the cost of living that worries most Australians is the price of electricity. Abbott's abolition of the carbon price didn't bring people's bills down like they'd been promised. In Queensland that's because the network companies over-invested in improving poles and wires. In itself, that was good, but energy companies overestimated their income at a time when power consumption was falling. More people were installing solar (nearly 400,000 homes in QLD now) and cutting their usage because of high prices. The high prices are not because of solar subsidies: this is LNP misinformation.
Electricity could be much cheaper if right-wing governments embraced renewables. There is masses of scope for solar take-up as the technology (including storage batteries) comes down in price. Large-scale solar farm projects have been scrapped rather than encouraged. The LNP is blinded by its love for fossil fuels (and mining donations) to the enormous scope of the Sunshine State.
There are lots of ways that I can see that people could cut their household budget. But I see little evidence yet of lifestyles being modified in order to reduce massive consumption. There has to be a will for there to be a way.
January 23, 2015
Vote for the Reef
The LNP's video was received with sneers and jeers and lots of laughs. Their arrogance in not turning up for a debate on the most important environmental issue for many voters deserved such derision.
The Marine Conservation Society has six Reef commitments they are looking to the politicians to make, and that they suggest voters bring to the attention of candidates.
• Ban industrial dumping in order to minimise dredging
• Protect wetlands, the Reef's natural filters and nurseries
• Stop farming runoff pollution
• Protect rivers, bushland catchments, water resources and community rights
• Restore habitats, fish stocks and other marine animals
• Generation of more energy from renewables to check climate change
The Environmental Defenders Office – defunded completely by the Newman government and the Feds between them – are campaigning to have that funding restored. They, too, have an environmentally focused agenda of seven key changes they would like to see made. They link the Reef to the protection of other natural resources and add wider issues of citizens rights and the democratic process.
First look at their list of detrimental effects on the environment caused by certain pieces of legislation at http://www.edoqld.org.au/
assaults-on-qld/. More details of the seven key changes can be found at edoqld.nationbuilder.com. There's a petition to the pollies you can sign, as well.
Queensland Conservation is another organisation that lists all
the damage done to the environment in an 'election brochure' at http://qldconservation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/
qc_election_brochure-4.pdf. The Great Barrier Reef is at the top of their agenda, with climate change right behind it. Then comes uranium mining; public rights to appeal; protection of the Cape York Peninsula; the management of water resources; subsidies to fossil fuel industries and the monitoring of them; land clearance; and national parks.
I would add to all these lists, or perhaps attached to 'national parks', the problem of declared protected areas of high conservation value, such as nature refuges, being at risk of destruction from mining. Prime agricultural land also needs effective protection from mining encroachment, not merely glib talk about economic 'pillars'.
There are common themes between environmental organisations, but what leaps out is the broad range of subjects of concern gathered under the Environment umbrella. If you share those concerns, take them to as many candidates as you can in your constituency – on the corners; at election forums. Ask them where they stand and exactly what their policies are.
Saving the Reef has emerged as a big issue in this state election, but there are a whole host of other environmental matters that need their profiles raising. If you want to vote for the Reef, you're unlikely to choose the LNP I would have thought. If you don't believe Labor are promising enough, but neither do you think the Greens will be elected, then you have to choose your preferences carefully, and not vote for one only.
There are clear choices at this election between the main two parties on some of the key issues. That gives you a greater opportunity to achieve what you want, as long as you get the numbers right.
Update: I have just found this piece, which is the best summary of the problems for the Reef, with stats, and suggestions for the next government, whatever their colour. Read it and share.
http://theconversation.com/six-things-queenslands-next-government-must-do-to-save-the-great-barrier-reef-36258
This post was last edited on 24 January 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
