Selwyn Johnston… Independent Advocate

What a relief the policy (promises) launch speeches for the Liberals and Labor, and both from Brisbane, are finally over. It’s questionable that anyone is listening any more and for what it is worth the polls has Labor winning hands down. From these polls John Howard’s claim to be underdog is probably likely while Kevin Rudd’s claim that he has yet to succeed in climbing K2 or Mt. Everest has just a little less likelihood. In short both are claiming underdog status.

The election campaign so far has consisted of nothing more than a “me too” debate. One announces a policy and the other matches it. The only real interest has come from Peter Garrett who has stated words to the effect that Labor ‘promises’ are just that, ‘promises’ and that it will be quite a different story when they get there.

Mark Latham suggests that Kevin Rudd will have less chance of standing up for Australians than John Howard, and will be just a weaker version of conservative. Just to balance the equation John Howard and his team have swung from promoting the strong growing economy to advising caution on what could be an ever more unstable economic situation in the near future.

And so it goes on.

In Leichhardt, the Liberals have promised $52 million for a Dental Hospital at the James Cook University Cairns Campus and, Labor have matched it. The same for highways, hospitals and, just about anything else the major parties are jostling to ‘buy’ votes from.

But what guarantee does the public have that any of these ‘promises’ will be implemented. Once either of the major parties is elected they will claim the “mandate” [a very obscure word right now] and will go their merry way a la Peter Garrett style and well, as for the public, too bad. You will be treated to a similar fiasco in another three years.

There is of course one thing you could do. You could Vote 1 for Selwyn Johnston. By giving your primary vote to Selwyn you will be guaranteed that whoever gains the balance of power will not be allowed to forget what they have promised.

Click here for MORE… LEICHHARDT - ‘HOW to VOTE’ - INFORMATION

……………………………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

Few Australian voters would realise that as they slip their completed ballot form into the ballot box on 24 November 2007 that they will in fact be making taxpayer-funded donation, (from consolidated revenue) to the party or person of their choice to the value of just over $2.10. [210.027c] per vote!

This taxpayer-funded electoral payment system was commenced in 1983 at the rate of 60 cents for a House of Representatives vote and 30 cents for a Senate vote. Over the years those figure have been indexed to its current value and the Senate is now on a par basis with the House. The system was originally introduced for three main purposes.

Firstly, it sought to introduce some equity into the communities ability to nominate privately or as minor parties in Federal elections with some hope of matching the funding, and so the publicity of the major parties. Secondly, it was considered that it would reduce private donations and so leave politicians better able to make the proper decisions for the public and their electorates without any perceived or real obligation outstanding. Finally, it was considered that it would reduce the costs of running elections in that the parties and particularly the major parties would be more frugal, with election spending being reduced for everyone.

None of those ends have been achieved and the system has deteriorated further as at the last Federal Election and as is presently being evidenced. Some $42 million dollars of taxpayers money was dispersed at the last Federal Election mainly to the two major parties [$21 millions to the Liberals, $17 million to the Labor Party] and with Independents and the minor parties collecting only some $4 million of the total.

It could now be reasonably said that the public funding of elections has failed on all three counts.

Firstly, as can be seen from the figures here, the two major parties have collected the lion’s share of the monies and this has tended to entrench the two-party system. Perhaps with the recent “me too” syndrome it’s worse than we think and has actually degenerated into a one party system. In any event it has failed to more equitably distribute the funds for election purposes.

In fact, it has encouraged party membership to decline since there is now such a large and guaranteed funding base that it is no longer necessary to have a large financial membership base, which could at times be awkward. This has had the additional detrimental effect of removing the party from a large internal political policy base to the point where what the people are to get [i.e. the policy] is not determined by a large and diverse party base but rather by party boffins using social engineering and design techniques. Which in a way probably explains a lot of the “me too ism” which is now so prevalent.

Secondly, the public funding of elections has had absolutely no effect on the enthusiasm with which party donations are sought. Both major parties are out there collecting cash and kind to levels never before seen. To further facilitate this situation the level of disclosure for private funding has been raised to $10,500 from its previous level of $1500.

Thirdly, the scheme has failed miserably to reduce the costs of elections. Turning on the TV, not only during this formal pre-election period but also for months before revealed a plethora of political adds, and some pseudo “Government” adds which were all worth a fortune. Since the start of the formal election campaign the intensity, and no doubt the cost has picked up enormously.

So when you go to vote on 24 November, remember that you are at the same time making a donation, generally a political party whether you are completely happy with them or not.

Perhaps it’s time to pause, and consider,  “… do either of these political parties represent me, or ultimately, do they really represent the entities that has made the largest or perhaps the most consistent private financial donations?”

It’s a fair question. After all, your compulsory donation of $2.10 per vote is automatic when you vote, but their donations are results orientated and those results, in most instances, may not be in your best interests.

I have stated on numerous occasions, I strongly object to taxpayer money being used to fund political elections and, upon a successful 2007 Leichhardt Independent campaign, I will present a ‘Private Members Bill’ to repeal this despicable misappropriation of taxpayer funds.

……………………………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

At present in South East Queensland thirteen (13) Mayors, including the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, are taking on the Bligh State Labor Government over the price the State Government will pay when it assumes control over ratepayer-owned water supplies.

At present the State Government, while claiming to have not yet fixed a price, seems to be happy talking around the $2 billion mark while the combined Councils seem to be saying that $6 billion is more like a the figure Councils would consider. It seems a foregone conclusion that the State Government will take the water… the only question is the price.

Just why the State Government is taking the water is probably the question that the Mayors and their Councils should be asking. Many Councils presently make a small profit on their water operations and if it is taken over by the State Government this profit that some of the Councils make from the sale of water will have to come from another source. That is Council rates or some other charges will have to go up.

Perhaps the most pertinent question that should be asked is just why does the State Government want to acquire the water assets from Queensland Local Governments? After all the Local Governments have made not a bad fist of running their water businesses, which is more than can be said for the State Government that has simply failed to provide the infrastructure necessary to keep the population supplied with potable drinking water. In fact the infrastructure achievements of the Goss, Beattie and Bligh Labor State Governments could only be described as an embarrassment.

Getting to the hub of the matter, the State Government doesn’t want the water as it’s own asset, it wants to acquire it so it can be “bundled” and sold off to private enterprise.

Once again they will be heroes for a day spending the money they get from the sale but you can be assured that it will not go into another essential asset. What happens then is that the population has no recourse regarding either the cost or availability of water. It will be no good going to the Government to complain because not only will the Government have divested the asset but hidden in the small print of the contract of sale will be an obscure clause that says that anything the government does to adversely affect the profits of the acquiring company will be fully commensurable by the Government.

Have a look at some of the tunnel contracts in New South Wales signed by the Carr Labor Government if you have any doubts in this regard.

Of course, any subsequent government will be contractually bound and unless there is a time limit, which would be a 30-year minimum, then we are locked in forever. History shows that most of this type of sale is snapped up by multinational companies as they have both the funding and the experience to gain the tenders. They are generally competitive because they can take a loss for a few years and the profits are sent overseas, at a concessional taxation rate, which means it’s difficult for local companies to compete in any case. And that’s just for starters.

The word is don’t relax simply because this is going on in Southern Queensland. You can rest assured that this type of business is coming to a water supply near you. Anything in the “wet tropics” is particularly at risk and locally in the Cairns area, Nullinga Dam on the Walsh River, Copperload and Tinaroo Dams are all good little potential money spinners, just waiting for some cashed up multinational to make an offer to some incompetent Government that is a little financially stressed at the time.

Few people would know, but recently Australia prematurely lost a truly great Australian with the passing of Peter Andren. Peter was an honest, well-respected and experienced person who also happened to be the Independent Member for the New South Wales Federal Electorate of Calare.

Even fewer people will remember that the Howard Government put through legislation to sell the Snowy Mountains Scheme. It almost flew through the House of Representatives with only Peter Andren (Independent Member for Calare) and Tony Windsor, [Independent Member for New England] opposing it.

But the sale never went ahead and this was only as a result of representations made to the Prime Minister by those two dissenting Independent Members. Consequently the legislation was never acted on and the Snowy Mountains Scheme remains in the hands of the Australian people.

If our Governments can successfully hold and operate the Snowy Mountains Scheme, the implementation of a National Water Grid must be Australia’s next great infrastructure project.

……………………………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

State legislation, which empowers Local Governments to add the insidious cocktail of chemical poisons commonly known as FLUORIDE into the public drinking water supplies, is Constitutionally illegal and, such legislation MUST be repealed… under Commonwealth LAW.

This fluoride chemical cocktail consists of:

• Fluorosilicic Acid (H2SiF6)
• Sodium Fluoride (NaF)
• Sodium Fluorosilicate (Na2SiF6)

I have made reference to section 51, xx111A, of the Australian Constitution on numerous occasions in regard to fluoridation by civil conscription, and, I hasten to add, that this section along with sections 100 and 128 will be among the first causalities of the Australian Constitution should the republicans get their way to re-write our world acclaimed Constitution.

For the record, section 109 of the Constitution clearly provides that if a valid Commonwealth law is inconsistent with a law of a State Parliament, the Commonwealth law operates and the State law is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.

You can be assured, upon my successful 2007 Leichhardt Independent campaign, I WILL introduce a ‘Private Members Bill’ into the House of Representatives, calling for immediate Commonwealth intervention against the States to repeal illegal and invalid State fluoridation Laws.

Further information is available by clicking onto the following LINK…

FLUORIDE… The Greatest Fraud of the Twentieth Century

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

Every election year we get bombarded with the concept of the “bell weather” electorate and what is happening in those electorates purportedly foretelling the outcome of the elections.

But is there really such a thing as a “bell weather” electorate or is it just a marginal electorate that over the last few elections has just followed the election trend and been of sufficiently small margin as to be affected by it only within the limits of statistical probability.

For sure we have the so-called safe seats, and the marginal seats, and in both of these classes of seats there can be a demographic change, often as a result of a boundary change. Given a general swing these seats could well follow the trend and change or remain the same but does that make them bell weather seats.

Eden Monaro in New South Wales and Brand in Western Australia are quite often described as bell weather seats, but is this really the case. I would have thought that Griffith in Queensland and held by Mr. Rudd and Bennelong in New South Wales held by the Prime Minister were the genuine bell weather seats. Now a change in those seats would affect Governmental change.

The 2007 election has had an enormous pseudo election run up and now a long official campaign. Given these things the bell weather seat could just be one of those things to prevent the public getting bored to death with the two-party system that is thrust upon us.

Perhaps if the media reported on the ability and integrity of the Leichhardt candidates instead of trying to inflict a presidential style election campaign on the voters’, bell weather seats would never have been heard of.

…………………………………………………………………………..

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

At the end of week one (1) of this 2007 Federal election, the mainstream media has again demonstrated its unmitigated biased attitude towards all candidates except those of the major political parties.

On Cairns radio, voters are bombarded with party rhetoric and ‘policies’; the major print media publishes colour photos and editorials of only three aspirants; while television stations transmit images and party ideology of only the same aspirants.

AND, that doesn’t account for the current and vastly increasing political parties massive media campaigns, paid for in part with… taxpayer dollars!

The local media treats Leichhardt electors as ‘mugs’ by not providing a comprehensive coverage of all candidates. Democracy… I think not!

The public is aware of this blatant display of contempt for electors who want to be informed via the media as to their choice of candidates, not simply promoting the major parties who will, after the election, continue to dump hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of these corporate media carpetbaggers.

Freedom of the press… hell no!

More like if you don’t control the strings of the taxpayer purse, you’re non-persona grata!

There is no denying that either Howard or Rudd will be the Prime Minister (PM), both elected within the two-party system I hasten to add, however, it is also a fact that Howard has announced he will retire as PM mid-term, thus bowing to his party’s pressure to allow Costello a ‘fair go’ at being PM. That is, if the coalition is successful.

But what about the Australian electorate… when do they get a ‘fair go’?

Australia’s electors have ‘had a gutful’ of the major parties who promote their electorate ‘puppet’ candidates who get little or no input into the decision making by their chosen party ‘hierarchy’ and the associated ‘back-room boys’.

For real democracy… it’s time to elect a credible Leichhardt Independent at this 2007 federal election!

………………………………………………………………….
To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

This ‘How To Vote Card’ saves you the trouble of sorting through pre election ‘policies’ (promises) all of which are flexible to the point of reversal.

It optimises your chances of decent local representation. Universality is achieved through the use of “Categories” rather than “Candidates” and the Candidates within Categories remains your choice.

FIRST CATEGORY:

Independent Candidates

There should be at least one on every ballot paper. These guys are Local, are responsible for what they do, should only do deals in the interest of the Electorate and if they stuff up they only have themselves to blame. Party solidarity is not an issue or for that matter an excuse. The concept of good governance could be influential here. List Independent candidates in the order of your choice. 

SECOND CATEGORY

Minor Parties

This category includes parties such as the Democrats, the Greens and One Nation to name but a few. These parties are generally “voter reliant” as they rely on their public appeal rather than lobbyists for their continued survival. As major party support is continually trying to kill them there is little love lost in this regard. Select the Secular Minor Parties in the order of your choice.

FINAL CATEGORY

The Major Parties

The Major Parties need no introduction. They are the ones who have been stuffing the country up since Federation. They rely substantially on outside support for both funding and publicity and the public interest seldom slurries their debates or outcomes. Once again you can list the Major Parties in the order of your choice but in this case it will be irrelevant as the Major Parties are so philosophically homogenous that your selections will be futile.

REMEMBER…

Enjoy your voting day, as it may be the joke of the year. Vote once only, that’s enough and, if you see a deceased person voting, please remind that person it’s no longer the done thing!

……………………………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

With Queensland being a pivotal State for the forthcoming Federal Election it’s no surprise that both the Liberal and Labor parties are working the State over, with each party trying to outdo the other’s ‘promises’.

Two examples for the Leichhardt electorate were firstly the walk for the benefit of cancer treatment facilities at the Cairns Base Hospital. The fight for basic funding for the cancer treatment facilities has been going on for years with, to date, the public being the greatest financial contributors. The nominated candidates of both parties, dressed in their party livery, participated in the walk together with an entourage similarly attired.

Prior to the commencement of the walk the sitting member, on behalf of the liberal’s new candidate, announced an $8.3 million funding for the Cairns Base Hospital facility. Now while any contribution to these badly needed improvements are most welcome, it’s no wonder the public become a little cynical when a stunt like this is pulled. Unquestionably, it was a rare transparent act, so much so that the public could see right through it.

The second example of election largesse was the announcement by Minister for Transport, Mark Vaile, that two (2) billion ($2,000,000,000) would be expended to mitigate flooding and improve safety on the Bruce Highway between Cairns and Sarina, with some $800 million to upgrade the Cairns/Townsville ‘goat track’.

Mr Vaile said, “In the budget this year we allocated a total envelope of $22.3 billion to land transport infrastructure”.

“What we will be announcing for the Bruce Highway in Queensland today will be new funding out of that envelope of money.”

Precisely what that means is open to interpretation but clearly again we are most grateful for the money even though he admits the money has already been flagged in this year’s budget allocations and the “new money” tag might be a little presumptuous if not an outright lie.

However, the questions that this does raise are firstly, just how genuine is the government with these offers, being as it seems at least for the roads, money is already allocated, and secondly, what does it say about the quality of Leichhardt representation over the last eleven (11) years.

And just how genuine will they be over the next three years given that most of this funding will not be available until 2009… at the earliest!

…………………………………………………………………. 

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

The Howard Government failed in its first attempt to legislation through the Senate to give it unfettered power to remove foreign ships from its offshore seas. The move was inspired by the rash of illegal ‘immigrants’ trying to jump the immigrant waiting line into Australia.

But the question not being asked is; ‘When and how did the Federal Government give this power away in the first place that it had to seek parliamentary power to remove foreign ships from Australian waters’? Have they surrendered our sovereignty through one of those nasty foreign treaties Canberra has been passing into law without asking the people, and are now hung up on their petard?

During war, we would sink any foreign ship with hostile intentions, and before the last war, no foreign ship would dare invade our waters without inviting consequences. Most Australians think their government is sovereign in such matters, but obviously it is not.

Voters are rightly angry, upset and disturbed at the invasion of so-called “boat people” and the complicity of Indonesia and those behind this invasion, but also they have increasingly seen their government as “gutless” by kowtowing to faceless internationalists seeking to dictate Australian national policy. Some of these politicians are proudly internationalist, and have expressed their indifference to national sovereignty before public hearings.

Australia’s national sovereignty has been challenged directly by the planners behind the  “boat people” and John Howard, as national leader, has no other option but to defend our national sovereignty and independence with all the power at his disposal.

Many people have become so accustomed to sell-outs, collapses, and surrenders of our national interests before the god of monopolistic globalism that they have become fed up with politicians and politics, and are delighted that at least one INDEPENDENT candidate is showing some independence and back bone.

It also shows what a forthcoming election threat can do to strengthen backbone and force politicians to listen to the people.

But John Howard still owes electors some answers about OUR Sovereignty.
……………………………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…

With an election looming, the republican forces are again beating their chests in an effort to gather support for a ‘plebiscite’ having failed in their first attempt at Australia becoming a republic in 1999.

“Do you want a republic with an Australian Head of State?”

This appears to be the question coming from the ‘Change for Change’s Sake Brigade’ that will ask, via a ‘plebiscite’, to radically change Australia’s Constitution, and which will ultimately place more power in the hands of politicians.

A majority of Australians believe, without question, ‘it is inevitable Australia will NOT become a republic’ for two (2) primary reasons, as the question poses two separate issues; firstly, “Do you want a republic…” and secondly, “… with an Australian Head of State?”

Why would Australians want to change Australia’s current system of Constitutional Monarchy which was rated number two in the world of nations, by the 2001 United Nations ‘prosperity and peace survey’ of nations, as the best and safest method of government yet devised… to deliver peace, freedom and prosperity?

Why are republicans still flogging the same dead horse over ‘we only want an Australian ‘Head of State’ when in fact, Australia’s Governor-General, who acts in accordance with established and generally rules of practice known as ‘conventions’, carries out the duties of our Constitutional ‘Head of State’, and which has been the tradition of all Australian-born Governor-Generals for almost fifty (50) years?

Republicans, still coming to terms with their failure in ‘referendum’ one, facing dismal failure in ‘plebiscite’ one, are being confronted by people demanding that no more time, effort and taxpayer dollars be wasted on this totally and hopelessly un-necessary example of the “Change for Change’s Sake Brigade” nonsense.

……………………………………………………………………………………

To send your comment on this viewpoint, simply click onto NO/COMMENTS>> at the top right corner of this post…