Author: admin

  • Row erupts over vote count

     

    “That the two-party preferred total displayed on the AEC’s website is meaningless can be seen if you tally the members elected in these 142 electorates. You get Coalition 72, Labor 70. Missing are four Independents, a Green, a WA National and two Labor MPs.”

    He says the reality of forming a government depends ultimately on the numbers in the House.

    “The first preference or 2-party preferred vote might provide a talking point but both are constitutionally irrelevant to the formation of government.”

    Independent MP Tony Windsor says the two-party preferred vote is not the key factor for him as he decides how to use the balance of power.

    He and the two other incumbents, Bob Katter and Rob Oakeshott, still have “two or three days” of information gathering, he says. They will also meet with senior public servants, heads of departments and lobby groups.

    “The main thing I’ll be looking for is in relation to stability of governance for the next three years, and that’s going to be fairly difficult to find with very tight numbers. That’s the main objective in this,” Mr Windsor said.

    Labor and the Coalition are trying to convince the independents that they will be able to offer stable government.

    Labor frontbencher Craig Emerson says his party can give that guarantee because its rules prevent MPs from crossing the floor, while Liberals are free to dissent.

    Dr Emerson says Mr Abbott would not have the numbers in his own party to keep his promise to reopen the offshore processing centre at Nauru.

    Meanwhile Hobart-based independent MP Andrew Wilkie says the two-party vote count is not relevant to him.

    The AEC says the final vote totals are not expected until Friday.

    Ms Gillard will be fronting the National Press Club in Canberra today to present her case for leading the nation.

    Tags: government-and-politics, elections, political-parties, labor-party, liberal-party, greens, federal-elections, australia

  • Wilkie wants pulp mill approval shelved

     

    Mr Wilkie has previously said he would support a mill that was genuinely pollution-free and water and energy efficient.

    His list also includes calls for the re-alignment of the controversial Brighton Bypass north of Hobart, to protect the 42,000-year-old Jordan River levee site.

    Mr Wilkie is expected to make up his mind about which party to support by the middle of the week.

    Tags: business-economics-and-finance, industry, environment, environmental-management, government-and-politics, elections, timber, environmental-impact, federal-elections, australia, tas, launceston-7250

    First posted 1 hour 36 minutes ago

  • Important gains likely for the Kimberley, but serious threats intensify

    This contradicts Mr Barnett’s own public statement that it would be “pointless” to pursue compulsory acquisition because: 

    “The chief proponent Woodside and other operators [Shell, BP, BHP and Chevron] are unlikely to maintain interest in the project without the agreement of the traditional owners. We would be applying it to a piece of land that would never be used.” (WA Business News, Dec 2008).

    We’ll have to wait and see what these companies do if the Premier does go down this path!

    Back to the better news

    Following intense campaigning, the WA government has been under pressure to improve protection of the Kimberley and address the many serious threats to the region’s environment.

    Now it appears some of these concerns are finally being addressed, with the Premier’s announcement possibly including:

    • The new ‘Camden Sound Marine Park’ – focused on parts of the Kimberley Humpback Whale nursery;
    • A new marine protected area over parts of Roebuck Bay near Broome;
    • A new conservation reserve over parts of the north Kimberley, including marine areas, which incorporates and ‘connects up’ multiple land tenures;
    • Around $9 million in funding for management;
    • Welcome changes to the WA Conservation and Land Management (CALM) Act to allow for greater Indigenous involvement in conservation and management in the Kimberley.

    While these measures would have merit, in each case and as a total package they fall short of what is needed and what has previously been recommended by scientists and conservation groups.

    As always, any measures to improve conservation outcomes in the Kimberley need to have the support and involvement of the region’s Traditional Owners – and this can be achieved by, for example, greater use of ‘Indigenous Protected Areas’ and expanded Indigenous Rangers programs.

    Just another policitial ‘offset’

    The Premier looks as stubbornly determined as ever to pursue the massive polluting LNG industrial site and port at James Price Point near Broome – using the above environmental announcements as an attempted “offset” for his damaging industrialisation agenda.

    And now there are several new destructive proposals for the Kimberley, such as open cut coal mining in the Fitzroy River valley south of Derby and copper mining near the famous Horizontal Falls north of Derby.

    Our political and corporate leaders seem not to understand or appreciate just how special and unique the Kimberley is. Keeping it that way is not only important environmentally, but provides the basis for the region’s future economic prosperity.  As usual, it’s up to us to tell them what they just don’t get!

    What you can do!

    When the Premier makes his announcement on conservation measures there is likely to be a period for public comment. Be prepared to tell Premier Barnett that ignoring large parts of the Kimberley earmarked for damaging development is not good enough! The whole Kimberley needs better protection and management, not just  the areas industry doesn’t want. 

    • Stay informed – join our Facebook page and bookmark our website for regular updates on how you can get involved in our Save the Kimberley Campaign;
    • Find out more about the announcement and the questions we need to ask to assess how effective the proposed changes are for the Kimberley;
    • Get involved in community consultation after the Premier’s announcement.

    We will be in touch with more information as it is announced, and with ideas about more things we can all do to help protect our amazing Kimberley.

    Yours, for nature,
    Jenita Enevoldsen

    on behalf of The Wilderness Society, WA.

     

  • First gas rig headed for NSW coast

     

    This followed an outcry from local councils and residents about a site 25 kilometres off Forresters Beach near Terrigal that was initially slated as Advent’s target and may have played a role in helping the candidates win their seats.

    The office of the federal Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, confirmed that Advent’s previous application for drilling approval was withdrawn.

    However, Mr Breeze said that the site off Forresters Beach was one of four which it was considering in the area and it has now moved its focus over the horizon to the New Seaclem-1 site, which is not visible from the shore.

    The company intends to tow the Ocean Patriot rig from Victoria so it can test the New Seaclem-1 site for the presence of gas 826 metres below the sea floor, Mr Breeze said.

    This would take about 20 days, during which sensors on the drill would send information to a computer aboard the rig and then the hole would be plugged, he said.

    ”You put cement casing into it and you seal it off and have a three foot [0.9 metre] cement plug just under the sea floor,” he said.

    If the exploratory drill is successful, extracting the gas would entail putting a platform out of sight on the sea floor and burying a pipe which would convey it into the existing Newcastle-Sydney gas pipeline ashore, he said.

    The offshore Sydney basin covering 8200 square kilometres could possibly contain almost as much gas as the massive Bass Strait fields, but it has not been explored more extensively because it was so close to a plentiful supply of coal, he said.

    Now that concerns about carbon emissions have come to the fore, there is more interest in gas, a cleaner energy source which as a fuel replacement for coal in power stations could help Australia meet its Kyoto protocol objectives, he said.

    The NSW Minister for Mineral Resources, Paul McLeay, confirmed that this would be the first exploration drilling well ever off the state’s coast if it proceeds.

    The Department of Industry and Investment is awaiting revised application documents from Advent Energy, including a modified environment plan and well design plans, he said.

    Gosford City Council a month ago passed a motion strongly objecting to the company’s plans, saying there had been no social, economic or environmental impact assessment. ”A large proportion of my community rely on the beaches for tourism,” said the mayor, Chris Holstein.

    ”If anything was to impact on our beaches, it would have a major impact not only on the environment, but economically.”

    Wyong Council has also raised issues about possible pollution, the effects on fish and migrating whales and how any subsea rupture would be handled.

    ”We are not against gas. We think it’s a wonderful thing. But we want to be sure the seabed is not disturbed,” said the mayor of Wyong, Bob Graham.

    However, there is a further catch.The federal environment department has no new application for gas drilling off the NSW coast before it, according to Mr Garrett’s spokesman.

    Any proposal likely to have a significant impact on an area protected by environmental law needed approval to go ahead, he said.

    Mr Breeze said his company would fulfil all the requirements of federal government departments.

  • Greens reaped rewards of emissions backflip: poll

     

    The Climate Institute’s John Connor says it is hard evidence the backflip cost Labor the seat of Melbourne.

    “[Australians] don’t want to be insulted,” he said.

    “They know that pollution is causing climate change and it’s getting worse. They know they want to move from a pollutant-dependent economy and they’re ready for some of the reforms.

    “It’s got to be carefully done but it’s a mistake to avoid it at all costs.”

    He says the poll sends a strong message to Labor.

    “It’s got to lift its game, otherwise it will suffer in the polls as it did in some of these marginal seats but it’s also the problem for the Coalition,” he said.

    “They’ve got to move on as modern conservatives are in the UK, who are actually taking action on pollution and climate change.”

    Tags: environment, climate-change, government-and-politics, elections, political-parties, labor-party, greens, federal-elections, australia, vic, melbourne-3000

    First posted 3 hours 15 minutes ago

  • Unwritten conventions of government

     

    Q: Can we go straight to another election

    No. The parliament must meet. The only way we can go straight to another election would be for the parliament to meet and be so deadlocked that no full-time government could be formed.

    For instance, an election in Newfoundland in 1908 produced a dead heat. No party could form government without appointing one of their own as Speaker, which would have caused the government to lose its majority in Parliament. It seems extremely unlikely this election will produce such confusion.

    The convention that the Parliament must meet was confirmed by the 1989 Tasmanian election.

    The Gray Liberal government lost its majority, and in the days that followed, the opposition Labor Party signed a political accord with the cross bench Greens that delivered a majority to Labor.

    Gray refused to resign from office and campaigned for an early election, engaging high-priced QCs to produce advice suggesting the Parliament did not have to meet and the state should go straight back to the polls. In the end Gray did not offer this advice to the Governor, the new Parliament met and Gray’s government fell on the vote to elect the Speaker.

    Q: If the Opposition can produce an agreement with the Independents, does the Gillard government have to resign?

    No. The convention that a government resigns before the Parliament sits is a modern convention that came about after the development of political parties. In the nineteenth century, changes of government usually took place when the government was defeated on the floor at the first sitting of the new Parliament.

    As of now, Julia Gillard is still Prime Minister and therefore chief adviser to the crown. If the Opposition signed an agreement, it is within the power of Ms Gillard to advise that Tony Abbot be called by the Governor-General to form a government. But in the current circumstances, Ms Gillard is within her rights to advise the Governor General that any agreement by the Opposition be tested on the floor of the House of Representatives to determine who should form government.

    There have been recent instances of this in Australia.

    After the 1968 South Australian election, the Dunstan Labor government finished with 19 seats, the same as the Liberal Country League opposition, the balance of power held by a conservative independent who backed the Opposition in return for being appointed Speaker. Labor had a clear majority of the vote and refused to resign as premier, forcing the vote to the floor of Parliament where his government was defeated.

    As mentioned above, the 1989 Tasmanian election saw Robin Gray’s Liberal government lose its majority. Gray stayed on as premier, only resigning after forcing Labor and the Greens to back their accord on the floor of the House of Assembly.

    At the 2002 South Australia election, the Labor opposition led by Mike Rann fell one seat short of a majority. In the end Rann coaxed conservative independent Peter Lewis to back his government in return for the Speakership. Liberal premier Rob Kerin declined to resign his commission as premier and forced the agreement between Lewis and Labor to be tested on the floor of the House of Assembly before resigning.

    Q: What happens if neither side make an agreement with the cross benches?

    In these circumstances, Ms Gillard can continue on as Prime Minister. It would be up to the Opposition to defeat the government in Parliament if it wanted a change of government or to force an early election.

    If the Gillard government was constantly defeated on the floor of parliament but the Opposition was not in a position to form government, then the House could be viewed as unworkable. Independent Tony Windsor has talked of needing a new election if no agreement for government can be reached. However, to get an early election, Mr Windsor and his cross bench colleagues would have to engage in deliberate tactics to make the House unworkable.

    Q: Would we have an early election if the government fell after a few months?

    Not necessarily. If the Gillard government continued on for a few months and lost the support of the cross-benchers, or lost a seat at a by-election, the Prime Minister could request an early election. However, if an alternative government could be formed in the existing House of Representatives, the Governor-General may decline a request for an early election and appoint a new prime minister.

    This happened in 1941. The Menzies Coalition government was re-elected in September 1940. It lost its majority but continued in government with the support of cross bench independents. Menzies was replaced as prime minister by Country Party leader Artie Fadden in August 1941. In October 1941 Fadden’s government was defeated by the classic no-confidence motion of varying the appropriation bill by one pound. The independents backed Labor’s motion and John Curtin became the new prime minister.

    The most recent example of a mid-term change of government took place in Queensland in 1996 when the Goss Labor government lost its majority at a by-election in the Townsville seat of Mundingburra. Goss resigned and the Coalition was sworn into office under new premier Rob Borbidge.

    Q: Would there be another Senate election?

    No. The Constitution does not explicitly state that another half-Senate election cannot be held, but it is implicit in the fixed term of the Senate that the Senators elected last weekend must take their seats in July next year. There cannot be another half-Senate election until after July 2013.

    I would also think it is implicit in the Constitution that a double dissolution could not be engineered before July next year. Any deadlock between a government and the Senate should be with the new Senate after July next year, not before.

    Anyway, the deadlocked chamber is the House, not the Senate. Any early election will be a House only election, with all the normal election procedures including 33 minimum campaign period.

    The last separate House election was in December 1972 when the Whitlam government was elected. Senate and House election had been out of step through the 1960s and a Senate election was not due at the end of 1972.

    Q: Could any agreement with the independents fix the term of Parliament.

    Yes. The current term could be fixed simply by passing legislation fixing the date of the next House election. The dates of future elections could also be fixed. However, none of these dates could be constitutionally entrenched without a referendum. Legislation fixing an election date could be passed, but it could equally be removed by the passage of repealing legislation.

    Tags: government-and-politics, elections, federal-government, parliament, federal-parliament, federal-elections, australia