Preference fixing for the South Australian election
The Editor The Advertiser from Dennis Matthews, 2 March 14 John Patterson has the right idea (The Advertiser, 1/3/14), there is a lack of transparency in what happens to our vote in the Legislative Council.
However it is not as simple as requiring the minor parties and independents to let us know how their preferences are distributed. This is already done and the information can be found on the South Australian Electoral Commission’s website.
The problem is that some candidates participate in a preference fixing cartel, the members of which agree to give preferences to each other. On their own, none of the cartel members are likely to get a seat, but together they are assured of enough votes for at least one member of the cartel to get a seat.
You would think that preference fixing would be illegal, but it is not, and recent changes to the Electoral Act have not solved the problem but instead gave the Liberal-Labor duopoly an equally anti-competitive advantage in the House of Assembly.
Abbott govt ignores Chief Scientist, takes advice from climate denier
Tony Abbott’s scientific and business advisers at odds over climate change, Guardian 28 Feb 14, Chief scientist says it is not an illusion while head of PM’s business advisory group refers to ‘groupthink’ Tony Abbott’s top scientific and business advisers are at odds over the science of climate change with the chief scientist, Ian Chubb, strongly rejecting assertions that climate science is a “delusion” or a result of “groupthink”.
Chubb said the scientific evidence for human-induced global warming was so overwhelming that those who reject it are usually forced to “impugn the messenger” with “stupid expressions like ‘groupthink’” or “silly” arguments that global warming is a “delusion”.
Among those who have used the phrase “groupthink” in relation to the debate about climate science are the head of the prime minister’s business advisory group, Maurice Newman, and the man chosen by the prime minister to head the review of the renewable energy target, businessman Dick Warburton. Two months ago Newman wrote a newspaper article describing climate science as a “scientific delusion”.
Chubb, who as chief scientist is supposed to provide high-level independent advice to the prime minister and other ministers, was speaking at the launch of the final report on Australia’s greenhouse gas reduction efforts by the independent climate change authority, a body the Abbott government is seeking to abolish.
“Climate science is one of the most heavily scrutinised areas of science I have ever experienced,” said Chubb.
“The overwhelming bulk of it has stood the test of that scrutiny … I find a lot of the science compelling.”…
The chairman of the climate change authority, Bernie Fraser, a former governor of the Reserve Bank, said he agreed with Chubb’s assessment of the compelling nature of climate science and said he thought those who did not accept it were either “mavericks at the fringes” or “those who speak in the short-term interests of industry”.
And Fraser also took issue with the “uncivilised” nature of Australia’s climate debate, including “the wild assertions blaming every lost job on the carbon tax … assertions not based on any objective consideration of the evidence”. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/27/abbotts-advisers-at-odds-climate-change
Bizarre election in South Australia, rigged by Liberal-Labor duopoly
Dennis Matthews, 27 Feb 14, Thanks to dangerously defective changes to the Electoral Act rushed through the South Australian Parliament at the last minute by the Liberal-Labor duopoly, organized harvesting of preferences in the 2014 Legislative Council elections appears to be in full swing.
This “gaming” of the system produces unpredictable preference flows such as those that gave bizarre results in the recent Senate elections.
It is highly likely that gaming will result in the balance of power being held by a party that the vast majority of voters had no intention of electing to the Legislative Council.
Thanks to the Liberal-Labor duopoly, governing South Australia could soon become more difficult.
Support Independents in South Australian election
The Editor. The Advertiser from Dennis Matthews, 25 Feb 14 Now that the positions on the Legislative Council ballot paper have been chosen by lottery people are starting to become aware of something very odd.
Apparently by chance, all the independents are listed at the end of the ballot paper. This is not bad luck but a deliberate act of the Liberal-Labor duopoly.
This discriminatory act , like the large increases in nomination fees and large increases in nominators required for each independent nominee, appears designed to marginalize independents.
However the duopoly may have done the voters a favour because it is now easier to find the independents amongst the 25 groups listed from A to Y on the ballot paper. The independents are those listed at the end of the ballot paper from O to Y.
If you feel that the Liberal-Labor duopoly have abused their power through undemocratic changes, at very short notice, to the Electoral Act then you can show your disgust by voting for one of the independents listed in the columns O to Y.
Now that the positions on the Legislative Council ballot paper have been chosen by lottery people are starting to become aware of something very odd.
Apparently by chance, all the independents are listed at the end of the ballot paper. This is not bad luck but a deliberate act of the Liberal-Labor duopoly.
This discriminatory act , like the large increases in nomination fees and large increases in nominators required for each independent nominee, appears designed to marginalize independents.
However the duopoly may have done the voters a favour because it is now easier to find the independents amongst the 25 groups listed from A to Y on the ballot paper. The independents are those listed at the end of the ballot paper from O to Y.
If you feel that the Liberal-Labor duopoly have abused their power through undemocratic changes, at very short notice, to the Electoral Act then you can show your disgust by voting for one of the independents listed in the columns O to Y.
Labor-Liberal skullduggery in coming South Australian election
To The Editor The Advertiser, 25 Feb 14
from Dennis Matthews
Nominations for the March 15 state elections have now closed and the magnitude of the Labor-Liberal skullduggery are now clearer.
The recent changes to the Electoral Act have failed to do anything about voting problems in the Legislative Council. The voting paper will still be very large, comprising some 25 columns. If you want to vote below the line you will have to correctly number some 63 boxes.
There are 20 micro parties or groups of independents totaling some 40 candidates, many of whom will be involved in preference deals that have outcomes that even experienced political commentators will be unable to decipher. Most of these candidates will lose their $3000 deposit, netting the state government a handy $120,000.
Meanwhile in the House of Assembly, for which the voting paper was straightforward, democracy has been dealt a serious blow. Thanks to the exorbitant nomination deposit the number of micro parties and non-sitting independents has been decimated.
Abbott’e review panel is stacked against renewable energy !
Renewable Energy Target Review Panel – Further Doubts http://www.energymatters.com.au/index.php?main_page=news_article&article_id=4191 25 Feb 14, The Federal Government promised an open and transparent RET review – but to some it’s appearing as a rigged game from the get-go.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports former Caltex chairman and climate change sceptic Dick Warburton, who is leading the panel, has declined to comment on whether he or his family hold any interests in fossil-fuel companies that might benefit from a reduction in the Renewable Energy Target.
It’s also been revealed that while Environment Minister Greg Hunt said all panel members had completed private interests declarations, “as is required to identify potential conflicts of interest,” Shirley In’t Veld, said she had not been asked to make such a disclosure.
Professor Ross Garnaut, economist and former advisor to the Labor Government, believes the Climate Change Authority should be carrying out the Review. According to RenewEconomy, Professor Garnaut believes the current panel is “comprised of people who have neither the independent status, nor the professional capacity of the executive in the CCA”.
Greens Leader Senator Christine Milne has labelled the Review a “hatchet job” and an “anti-renewable energy review”. Others have expressed similar sentiments.
The Small-scale Renewable Energy Scheme (SRES), a component of the RET, will have zero net cost impact on household power bills. Even so, the continuation of the program after the Review is anything but assured given the circumstances under which the Review is occurring; including recurring negative signals from Prime Minister Abbott.
The Review is already having somewhat of a dampening effect on Australia’s renewable energy industry, with some large scale projects being put on hold until the results are in and actions decided.
If the RET is abolished, up to 6,750 solar PV jobs could be lost and foregone nationally in under 5 years says the Australian Solar Council. If the RET remains unchanged, approximately 30,000 more jobs in the renewables sector will be created and another $18.7 billion in investment will occur.
Conflict of interest in Abbott’s panel to review Renewable Energy Target ?
Mr Warburton declined to say whether he or his family held any interest in fossil-fuel companies that might benefit from a reduction in the renewable energy target.
The Abbott government’s handling of the RET review may come under Senate Estimates scrutiny on Monday
‘
‘I have zero confidence in the independence or rigour of this anti-renewable energy review,” Greens leader Senator Christine Milne said. ”It is no more than a hatchet job on the RET by a team of people notorious for their opposition to strong action on global warming or the roll-out of renewables.”
Disclosure doubts cloud renewable energy target panellists, February 24, 2014 – Peter Hannam Environment Editor, The Sydney Morning Herald Doubts have arisen over potential conflicts of interests of a controversial panel appointed by the Abbott government to review the Renewable Energy Target after contradictory statements about the process used to select its members.
The appointment last week of former Caltex chairman and prominent climate change sceptic Dick Warburton to head the panel had already ignited fears in the renewable energy sector that the government intends to slash the target of sourcing at least 20 per cent of electricity from clean energy sources by 2020. Continue reading
Draconian changes to South Australia’s Electoral Act
To The Editor The Advertiser, by Dennis Mathews, 21 Feb 14
The Duopoly Election Bullies stand to gain from their draconian changes to the Electoral Act not only by excluding competition (The Advertiser,21/2/14) but whoever gets into government will get the revenue from candidates who lost their $3000 deposit.
If this system had been in place for the 2010 election the increased revenue would have been $268,000.
The changes to the Electoral Act were supposedly to prevent voters from having to fill out a very large voting paper for the Legislative Council and to prevent “gaming” through organized and complicated preference deals. The latter meant that voters had no idea where their preferences were going.
In actual fact the changes have affected both the Legislative Council and the House of Representatives, gaming will still occur in the 2014 election, and we may still get a very long voting paper for the Legislative Council.
Ironically we may end up with electing to the Legislative Council a candidate who lost their $3000 deposit because they didn’t get 4% of the primary vote.
Institute of Public Affairs dictates environment policy to Tony Abbott
War on the environment a distraction from climate change policy, The Conversation, David Holmes, 11Feb14 “……The radical conservatism of the Coalition seems to be drawn from the same platform as the Institute for Public Affairs (IPA), which has entreated Abbott to ‘Be Like Gough’.
In a document posted on its website, the IPA declares open season on just about every publicly interested authority and organisation in Australia for which climate change ranks at the very top. Of 75 recommendations, climate change figures in four of the first six. These include:
- Repeal the carbon tax, and don’t replace it.
- Abolish the Department of Climate Change
- Abolish the Clean Energy Fund
- Repeal the renewable energy target
With recent talk that Abbott is about to appoint IPA ‘anti-renewable zealot’ Alan Moran to a new independent panel to review the Renewable Energy Target, it looks likely that all four of these recommendations will be ticked off nicely.
Nowhere on the planet is there a region that is going to feel the effects of climate change on its population than Australia, with heat-stressed soils, heatwaves, firestorms, flooding and cyclones. And yet, we have a government doing its level best to maximise measures that will only exacerbate global warming.http://theconversation.com/war-on-the-environment-a-distraction-from-climate-change-policy-22983
Adelaide Citizens Demand Business South Australia Cease Nuclear Promotion Fraud
8 Feb 14 A group of concerned citizens today issued a firm rejection of industry lobby group Business SA’s recent “demands (for) a nuclear industry in South Australia”.
The group’s spokes-person, mathematician Brett Stokes, has personally demanded that Business SA and AdelaideNow cease Nuclear Advocacy Fraud.
Stokes says “the economics are bogus – the ludicrous totally false claim of abundant cheap energy deserves condemnation as a malevolent fraud”.
Stokes cites the huge costs of construction and operational failures such as Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Stokes also notes that nuclear power reactors require huge amounts of cooling water and only operate 90% of the time at best.
New Nuclear technology not really an option for Australia
The Australian government is under pressure from the USA nuclear lobby, and a bunch of entrepreneurial Australian types, to buy the (as yet only on paper) Small Modular Nuclear Reactors, based on Thorium as fuel.
Sure, let’s debate nuclear power – just don’t call it “low-emission” , The Conversation , Mark Diesendorf, Associate Professor and Deputy Director, Institute of Environmental Studies, UNSW at University of New South Wales 6 Feb 14,
“……..The technology trap Could new types of nuclear power station solve the problem?“Fast breeder reactors” produce more nuclear fuel than they use and so would theoretically have much lower life-cycle CO2emissions than existing “burner” reactors. But in practice breeders are even more complex, dangerous and expensive than burners. As a result they have been stuck at the demonstration stage for decades and even some nuclear proponents admit that breeders are unlikely to be commercialized for at least another two decades, if ever.
The government’s issues paper mentions the possibility of nuclear reactors based on the thorium fuel cycle, but these are also more complex than uranium-based nuclear energy and there are no commercial systems operating as yet.
Advocates of another possible option, nuclear fusion on Earth, recognize that it unlikely to become a commercial reality for at least three decades, if ever.
To sum up, based on existing commercial technology, nuclear energy is not a solution to the global climate crisis, because it will soon become too emissions-intensive. It is also not a short-term solution, because it is a very slow technology to plan and construct. It is dangerous and very expensive.
So why bother? There is already a better alternative to fossil fuels: the efficient use of renewable energy.http://theconversation.com/sure-lets-debate-nuclear-power-just-dont-call-it-low-emission-21566
GOVERNMENT IGNORES UN RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ASSESS FULL COSTS OF URANIUM MINING
“…..…Recommendation For Assessment Of Environmental And Societal Costs Of Uranium Mining Hansard Page: 13 Question Date: 18 November 2013 Senator Ludlam asked:
Senator LUDLAM: It probably makes more sense to have your answer in front of me, rather than this back-and-forth across the table. What steps have been taken by the Commonwealth, or any agencies, or indeed your agency, to address the UN Secretary-General’s September 2011 recommendation that Australia conduct an in-depth assessment of the net cost impact of mining fissionable materials—that is, uranium—on local communities and ecosystems? It was an SG recommendation of 2011—…..
Mr McAllister: I can look into it, yes.
The hidden benefit of Australia’s carbon tax
Big fall in electricity sector emissions since carbon tax Peter Hannam, 5 Feb 14 ENVIRONMENT EDITOR, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD “……..The premise of the debate about changes in emissions from last year is wrong, said Frank Jotzo, an associate professor at Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy and deputy director, ANU Climate Change Institute.
“What matters is not the comparison with last years’ emissions levels, but with what emissions would be if it was not for the carbon price,” Professor Jotzo said. “Australia’s emissions have been on an increasing trajectory, projections without carbon pricing were for strong increases.”
“Now we’re seeing only very slight increases which is progress,” he said.
While the electricity sector is seeing the largest impact of the carbon prices, the impact is not as big as it would be if businesses believed that the carbon price was here to stay, Professor Jotzo said.
“To stop increasing emissions in transport and extractive industries like LNG would require a carbon price much, much higher than what is currently in place,” he said…….http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/big-fall-in-electricity-sector-emissions-since-carbon-tax-20140205-320a6.html
Australia’s carbon tax has successfully reduced electricity greenhouse gases
Christine Milne – ‘‘Reducing free permits and ending fossil fuel subsidies to coal and gas would help to drive down emissions but the Abbott government is keen to maintain the culture of entitlement in those industries,’’
Big fall in electricity sector emissions since carbon tax Peter Hannam, 5 Feb 14 ENVIRONMENT EDITOR, THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions from the electricity sector are down about 7.6 per cent since the carbon tax was introduced in July 2012, or the equivalent of about14.8 million tonnes. Continue reading
Tony Abbott’s double standards as he supports fossil fuel subsidies
Why does Australian PM Tony Abbott support fossil fuel subsidies? Guardian, Alex White 4 Feb 14 Why does Tony Abbott support $10 billion per year in fossil fuel subsidies but oppose an aid package for food manufacturer SPC-Ardmona?……. the prime minister seems very happy to continue to give taxpayer’s money to fossil fuel companies to the tune of $10 billion per year in subsidies.the prime minister seems very happy to continue to give taxpayer’s money to fossil fuel companies to the tune of $10 billion per year in subsidies.
The fossil fuel subsidy decision is particularly inconsistent with his stance on industry support for SPC-Ardmona and the car industry. This is a prime minister who in December declared an end to corporate welfare.
But he said “we don’t want to see corporate welfare … we don’t believe in corporate welfare”.
“This government will be very loth to consider requests for subsidies, we will be very loth to do for businesses in trouble the sorts of things they should be doing for themselves,” he warned.
Fossil fuels subsidies are the most pernicious and distorting of subsidies. The biggest in Australia is the fuel tax credit scheme, which is worth $2 billion per year to mining companies, the equivalent of each taxpayer in Australia handing over $182 to the mining companies.
The national president of the Mining Union, Tony Maher called out this squandering of public funds in an article for The Drum:……
Despite global warming posing an imminent threat to Australia, and its predominate cause being the burning of fossil fuels, the Australian government is using your tax dollars to literally pay these fossil fuel companies to pollute.
As I’ve noted in the past, Tony Abbott and his government seem intent on turning Australia into a reckless “charco-state” (the coal equivalent of a petro-state).
These fossil fuel subsidies don’t just pay companies to pollute our air, water and atmosphere. They also distort our markets by making fossil fuels, like diesel and gas, artificially cheap. Special tax treatment for big oil, gas and coal projects allows fossil fuel companies to rapidly depreciate their assets, like drilling rigs. This means they get away with paying taxes that other companies are forced to……. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/southern-crossroads/2014/feb/02/fossil-fuel-subsidies-tony-abbott-spc-ardmona-corporate-welfare
1 This month.
20 September –National Day of Action in Melbourne on the International Day of Peace
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
Antinuclear 