Issue 744
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Federal Election Coverage
Richmond ALP Buy Green PreferencesBy Michael McDonaldIn return for Greens Jan Barham's preferences in Richmond, Labor has agreed to a range of environmental protection measures for the north coast. Working in conjunction with the NSW state government, federal Labor will protect the Whian Whian and Wollumbin forests from logging, buy the ABC lands at Broken Head, buy the Detala land at Paterson Hill, enact a moratorium on the so-called 'green power' station proposals, and bring together the three levels of government in a coastal erosion working group. Shadow environment minister Senator Nick Bolkus announced Labor's end of the deal to The Echo last Monday. Sen Bolkus said they were 'core' promises. He said Labor had been lobbied heavily by the North East Forest Alliance and Cr Barham, and Labor candidate Jenny McAllister had worked with the NSW Premier's office to stitch up the deal. He said the ABC land would cost about $4 million, with a covenant being placed over it to 'maintain its natural state' if it is on-sold. Sen Bolkus said there would be no adverse effect on long-term wood supply contracts. 'We'll provide resources of alternative material or offer compensation [to the timber industry],' he said. In a joint statement, opposition leader Kim Beazley and Sen Bolkus said, 'We believe further protection of Whian Whian and Wollumbin State Forests is achievable within the scope of the existing Regional Forest Agreement.' For her part Cr Barham said, 'The Greens have secured a moratorium on native forest timber use for power generation and an inquiry to consider the impacts. An inquiry should have taken place prior to the renewable energy legislation. The protection of Whian Whian and Wollumbin forests is a major victory to all who recognise the flawed process that allowed the areas to be determined for logging. 'The Greens have delivered key environmental outcomes for the seat of Richmond and have shown that the support for our policies gives us the influence with the major parties to negotiate real wins for the community.' Nationals candidate Larry Anthony reacted angrily to the deal, urging local residents to 'ignore the party bosses following deals in Sydney between Green, Democrat and Labor powerbrokers'. 'I am disappointed with these decisions which have nothing to do with my 'green' performance and everything to do with a grubby deal between party bosses in Sydney,' Mr Anthony said. 'I have worked hard on environmental issues in this area, notably with increased Natural Heritage Trust funding to community environment groups, and attempts to find solutions for environmentally sensitive areas like Paterson Hill in Byron Bay, and Wollumbin and Whian Whian forests. 'The good news is that Democrat and Green voters can ignore the party bosses and give me their number two vote if they so choose.' In other news, HEMP Party candidate Dean Jefferys delivered his protest by cardboard helicopter about the recent raid by 28 police officers on his party's HQ at Nimbin to the Byron Bay police station last Friday. The party has complained to the Australian Electoral Commission and the NSW Civil Liberties Council. Mr Jefferys said, 'Humanity will look back at this stage in human history like we look back at the witch hunt days of the dark ages and wonder why so much energy, money and human resources went into trying to get people to stop using plants and herbs.' In the senate, apart from the usual parties, candidates with some connection to the north coast include Denise Greenaway (Ocean Shores Community association and Highway Action Coalition) who is running on the Reform The Legal System ticket; Dr Helen Caldicott, just endorsed by Dr David Suzuki, of the Our Common Future Party; and HEMP Party campaigner Michael Balderstone. Resources
Labor promises $50m jobs program for region
A Labor government would declare the North Coast a 'regional enterprise zone' offering the region $15 million in grants, plus $35 in concessional infrastructure loans. ALP spokesperson for regional services Senator Sue MacKay announced the plan on a visit to Lismore last Friday. The proposal follows a similar strategy to the Coalition's 'Sustainable Regions' program, which promised $12 million for the shires of Tweed, Byron, Ballina, Lismore and Kyogle to tackle unemployment. Labor's figures include that $12 million. Labor candidate for Page Terry Flanagan said the package was designed to tackle local unemployment, which is double the national average. The ALP's enterprise zone extends the area to benefit to include all of the Page electorate, including Richmond Valley and Grafton councils. It takes three current government programs, including the Regional Assistance Program, and puts the money 'into one bucket' according to Senator McKay for communities to use in local infrastructure projects. The grants will be available for local businesses and councils for job creation projects. The $35 million is for low-interest, no-interest and deferred repayment loans to provide capital for local infrastructure projects, including roads. Senator McKay said it was up to the community to decide how best to spend the funding. 'We're not about telling the community what we think this money should be used for,' she said. 'What we're after is projects that assist economic development and job creation. This is an interventionist strategy that says there are areas with double digit unemployment that stand out and need a hand up, not a hand out and this is what enterprise zones are about.' Rejecting suggestions that the program would create an extra layer of bureaucracy to administer it, Senator McKay said that between local government, business enterprise centres and regional development organizations 'there are enough players out there already to get together and work out what they want'. The Coalition's regional services minister Senator Ian McDonald claimed the ALP program would threaten applications for projects in Lismore, Dunoon, Evans Head and Lismore under the current Regional Solutions program. Senator McKay said Labor will honour all commitments made to communities by the Coalition. 'There's a big scare campaign running around saying we're abolishing regional solutions, we are not. We're actually putting all the money in one pot,' she said. Labor says and additional funding will come from a $740 million repayment to the commonwealth from the Snowy hydro scheme next year and would not be a cost against the budget. Simon Thomsen
Nationals Match Flood Levee FundsThe battle for votes in Lismore has seen the Coalition pledge $4 million for the construction of the Lismore flood levee if re-elected. Nationals candidate Ian Causley said the commitment is in addition to a promise on Wednesday of $500,000 for the project under the Regional Flood Mitigation Program - bringing the Coalition's total offer to $5.2 million. The Government had already provided $700,000 towards the recently completed South Lismore earth levee. Mr Causley said the one-off $4 million allocation would come from an existing Federal Government program, the Flood Recovery Fund, which was being used to compensate victims of the February and March flooding. 'The applications haven't been enough to take it all, so there was some money left in the fund,' Mr Causley said. However, the contribution of Lismore ratepayers remains uncertain. While Labor pledged to change the funding formula to 2:2:1, saving ratepayers an estimated $1.76 million, the Coalition says the 1:1:1 formula will stay. But because the money comes from a different 'bucket' to the flood mitigation program, the funding formula seems to be thrown out the window. The NSW Government says it will honour its initial $4 million commitment to the levee, irrespective of Coalition promises. This potentially means $5.2 million from the Coalition, plus $4.7 million from the NSW government, leaving Lismore council picking up the balance of the estimated $13 cost. However, fast-tracking the project may see ratepayers saving more than $1.5 million in costs. 'The formula will remain at 1:1:1, but it doesn't mean Lismore Council will have to pay one third,' Mr Causley said The announcement was welcomed by Lismore mayor Bob Gates. 'We now have a situation where both the Coalition and Labor have agreed to contribute extra funds to build the levee,' Cr Gates said. 'The Coalition's extra $4 million is not tied to the 1:1:1 formula. As such it's a one-off payment which does not increase the burden on council by requiring it to find matching funding. 'The bottom line is that no matter who wins government on Saturday, the people of Lismore can expect to reap the benefit of a new flood levee.' Labor candidate Terry Flanagan described the Coalition's announcement as 'an unparalleled act of political cynicism' two days before the election. 'I suppose imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but here is a man who has had five years to deliver this for Lismore with no result,' Mr Flanagan said. 'Suddenly after I announce a fully-funded commitment of $5 million, Mr Causley finds some money under a rock.' Simon Thomsen
Last Say for Candidates
Around 200 people came to city hall to hear 11 of the 12 candidates offer their vision for the electorate and the nation. Independent Tom Cooper won over the crowd, starting off with a joke that he was an independent because he was 'born on the 4th of July - Independence Day', then railing against popular evils like National competition policy. 'The major parties are for the people putting massive donations into them - big business and the multinationals,' he said, receiving strong applause. The audience questions ranged from funding for the ABC to children for same sex couples, boat people and boarder protection, food irradiation and the Nimbin doctor crisis. After two hours, they voted with their feet, as many walked out before the meeting was declared over by Mayor Bob Gates. Council asked the candidates a range of questions on issues effecting the city and villages. The responses of the candidates are published in a policy survey on pages 17 and 18 in this edition. Making your Preferences CountRecent autobiographer and veteran political commentator Mungo MacCallum explains the federal voting system. There are few certainties about Australian politics, but here is one of them: after the coming election, when all the votes have been counted and all the protests heard, the prime minister will be either John Howard or Kim Beazley. It will not be Natasha Stott-Despoja, Bob Brown, Pauline Hanson or Nicolas de Bray Faulkner. All of these may have a role to play in determining the result, but none of them will form a government.
So in casting your vote, especially for the House of Representatives, it is wise to bear this basic choice in mind. This, of course, does not mean that you have to give your primary vote to either John Howard's candidates - Larry Anthony in Richmond, or Ian Causley in Page, or to Kim Beazley's candidates - Jenny McAllister (Richmond) or Terry Flanagan (Page); far from it. Just as you can emphasise your loathing of particular parties or candidates by putting them last, you can reward your favourites by putting them first. But it does mean that the order in which you place Anthony/Causley and McAllister/Flanagan is of paramount importance. If you put Anthony/Causley ahead of McAllister/Flanagan, you are in practice voting for a Howard government. If you give McAllister/Flanagan precedence you are voting for Beazley. It is as simple as that, and it is also unavoidable. In state elections it is possible to make your choice and leave other squares on the ballot paper blank; but in federal elections like the one on Saturday this option does not apply. The system is compulsory preferential. You must number every square in your order of preference. If you don't, your ballot will not count; your vote will not be registered. Most, if not all, of the various candidates will have their own how-to-vote cards, which will be pressed upon you when you arrive at the polling booth. These indicate where the candidates would like you to put your preferences, but you don't have to follow them; the final choice is up to you. As long as you number every square your vote is valid. The hard fact remains, however, that in the wash-up you will end up with either a Coalition government led by Howard or a Labor government led by Beazley. Those are your only options when voting for the House of Representatives. But you also have to cast a vote for half the senate, and here the choice is a bit wider. Because only half the senators are actually up for election on Saturday - the other 38 still have half for their six year terms ahead of them - and because of the mathematics of the proportional system, which applies in the Senate (though not in the House of Representatives) neither the coalition nor Labor can gain an outright majority after the coming election; minor parties and/or independents will hold what is called the balance of power. In NSW the six retiring senators consist of two Libs, two Labor, one Nat and one Democrat. The system makes it a very safe bet that the two Libs and the two Labs will get back, but the last two positions are more doubtful. Thus your vote for a minor candidate can actually make a difference. For the dauntingly large senate ballot paper there are two ways of voting. One is the same as for the Reps: number every candidate below the line - and we do mean every candidate - in order of preference. The other is to look above the line, at the top of the paper; all parties and most independents will be grouped under a single square. To vote for that party place the number 1 in the square beside it, and leave all - and we do mean all - the other squares blank. Your primary vote will then be for that party's number one candidate and your preferences will be distributed according to the party's how-to-vote card, which will be on display somewhere in the booth. If you mess it up on the first try, don't be embarrassed; take your spoilt ballot paper back to the registrars and demand a new one. Repeat until satisfied. You may then retire to the pub with the satisfaction of a citizen who has fulfilled a not terribly onerous democratic duty, and one which entitles you to whinge like buggery about the incoming government you have helped to install, one way or another. Of course, if you really find the line up on offer too distasteful to contemplate, you can always write 'none of the above' or something stronger across the ballot paper. But we hope you won't. Your vote will be invalid Democracy is a fragile artefact, and it only works if people participate. And if the results it brings are frequently disappointing, the alternatives are really too awful to contemplate.
Senate Vote Becomes a Three Horse RaceLismore's answer to Anthony Green - with a touch of the Johnny Taps - is election analyst Graham 'crunch that number' Askey. He managed to pick the winners on the NSW 'tablecloth' ballot paper in 1998. He says look carefully at the preferences for the Senate before placing a '1' At nearly a metre wide by 200m deep, the NSW Senate ballot paper is not quite the 'tablecloth' of NSW Upper House fame - more like a towel-roll. With 23 parties, plus a short list of ungrouped candidates, your electoral punter has a Melbourne Cup field to choose from. But unlike the Cup, it's a sure thing that only three runners will figure in the finish: the Coalition, the Labor Party and the Democrats. Even though One Nation, the Greens, Fred Nile, Unity and the Hemp Party might be up there at the top of the straight, they will inevitably drop out and their preferences will be distributed to one of the front runners. A lot of voters would like to make a statement about some issue they think is important, but they will need to keep in mind just where their vote will eventually end up. If you are a pot-smoking, beer-drinking angler who has had a rough trot in the Family Court, there is a party for you in the ballot, but just which one you choose should take into account their preference flow. The following is a complete list of where 'above the line' preferences will go. The Labor Party fares worst, by picking up just two and a half preferences: the Lower Excise Fuel and Beer Party, the Socialist Alliance (group U), and half of Australians Against Further Immigration, who have split their ticket with the Coalition. The Coalition does better, by snaring six and a half preferences: they get Helen Caldicott's Our Common Future party; Fred Nile; One Nation (fairly directly); the Fishing Party; Non-custodial Parents; and Advance Australia (via One Nation first) plus the other half of the AAFI. The Democrats seem to have done the best, with 11 small parties preferring them: Unity; Citizens' Electoral Council; Progressive Labor Party; Help End Marijuana Prohibition; Peter Breen - Reform the Legal System; Great Australians (Group L); The Communists (Group N); Nuclear Disarmament Party; No GST; Republican Party of Australia; The Greens. In nearly every case, the Democrats will come first through the Greens. But these are all small parties, which will only add up to at best about six per cent of the vote. So who will be the six senators returned from NSW? In 1998, it was three ALP, two Coalition and one Democrat; but this time, even if there is no swing to their primary vote, the Coalition will definitely win three seats. The difference this time is that One Nation's vote will be distributed, and they all go first to the Coalition. This leaves the Democrats and the ALP fighting it out for the sixth and last spot. You would think that with all their preferences the Democrats will just need to hold their 1998 primary vote to retain their seat. But there may be a twist at the finish. One Nation has preferenced the Labor Party after the Coalition and before the Democrats. This means that if the Coalition can achieve three quotas before One Nation drops out, the ALP will collect One Nation's vote. It's ironic: Labor's best chance to get three senators will be for the Coalition and One Nation to do well. And that is what I think will happen!
|
|
|
|
Labor candidate for Page Terry Flanagan and regional services spokesperson Senator Sue McKay in Lismore last week. 
Page candidate Angela Griffiths (centre), representing the Citizens Electoral Council, explained her party's policies with the aid of a map - while Terry Flanagan checks notes, Arthur Felsch ponders, Judy Canales entertains her grand-daughter and Allan Jeffreys listens - during Monday night's meet the candidates evening organised by Lismore City Council.