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…