The elusive coexistence definition

It is the most overused word in all matters related to coal seam gas in Queensland. The word “coexistence” is being used increasingly by industry and government with regard to the interaction between resource activities and agriculture.

In the legislation that gave the Gasfield Commission its powers it was stated that the purpose of this new statutory body was to facilitate sustainable coexistence. However there was no definition provided of what sustainable coexistence is and I’m unaware of the Gasfield Commission developing any satisfactory definition since.

Cartoon sourced [here] 

In recent months the Qld government has with considerable haste offered for public comment draft amendments to a whole series of different planning policies. A common thread was that the needs of increased resource activity and agriculture were all made possible by coexistence. Again coexistence was not defined.

Also a common thread in these amendments was that there was no provision for the potential for co-existence to not be possible, merely that the development of coexistence criteria will somehow enable coexistence to occur. By not making the allowance for the situation where co-existence is not achievable, the provision is made for resource activities to be able to proceed in all areas.

The reality is that coexistence arrangements are opening doors for exploration and resource extraction. Landowners have never felt any comfort that any such arrangement would allow for full farming production and efficiency. The use of this term provides no legal or compensable protection for landowners

Coexistence infers some kind of mutually beneficially arrangement.  However, farmers are not experiencing the joy of a mutually beneficial arrangement, rather they are facing stress, heartache, loss of time, loss of amenity, impacts on land, business, lifestyle, and fear for the future of underground water impacts, from an industry thrust upon them.

Currently coexistence could be defined as primary producers finding a way to adapt their businesses to accommodate the CSG activities.

Joanne Grainger, Queensland Farmers Federation President wrote in the QFF weekly column in the 19^th September 2013 issue of the Queensland Country Life newspaper

“ QFF agrees that all regulatory frameworks should provide as much certainty as possible to all stakeholders but does not agree with the concept that the outcome of planning and assessment processes should automatically be various forms of coexistence.

The principle does not apply to planning processes in urban areas, where land use conflicts are avoided by separating incompatible land uses, and should not apply to rural areas.

An important principle to follow is that coexistence should be mutually beneficial to all parties and that where this is not the case, it should be pursued.

In fact the outcome in many intensive farming areas should be that in certain areas of agricultural production there are no prospects of coexistence and these areas should be off-limits to any resource activity.”

Photo sourced The Australian

 

The areas that there are no prospects of coexistence and should be off limits to resource activity are:

·         CSG wells, roadways, pipeline and other associated infrastructure on alluvial flood plains that are cropped.

·         where irrigation entitlements to aquifers have been reduced and will be reduced in future often resulting in loss of crops, the notion that resources companies can have unimpeded access to that water is abhorrent

·         where underground water supply for livestock will be lost to CSG activity and there is no viable alternative supply of an equal standard

·         where the quality of the water will be affected by CSG activity

·         high density well heads especially in areas where broadacre cropping and large scale machinery are the lynchpin of efficiency, having to reduce either or both of these will cause a permanent decrease in efficiency

So how should coexistence be defined?  Surely coexistence is either a beneficial or stable interaction between resource proponents and the current land and agricultural resource users. And surely it should be recognised that sometimes coexistence just isn’t possible.

Political climate change

by Viv Forbes

Cartoonist Mark Knights

 

Climate Alarmists Rebuffed in Australian Election.

There was good news and bad news in the election. 

The good news was that the Labor/Green/Independent coalition that had led Australia into the unwinnable war on carbon was decisively rejected. The Labor vote fell to its lowest level for a century, the Green vote fell 3% and the independents who helped create and support this destructive green coalition are no longer in Parliament.

 

The other feature of this campaign was the high public interest in the election and the big dissatisfaction with all major parties. Lots of small single-issue parties were formed and contested the election. Most of these small parties were also opposed to the carbon tax.

And a few of them were smart enough to maintain strict discipline among themselves on how preference votes were directed, ensuring that some of them were elected to the Senate. 

There was one bad note in the election. Two prominent new small parties, the Palmer United Party (PUP) and the Katter Australia Party (KAP) foolishly directed significant preferences to the ALP and/or Greens ahead of the Liberal/Nationals. This was done partly out of spite, but mainly in a big gamble that did not always pay off.

 

Bob Katter’s largely conservative supporters reacted badly to him “assisting the enemy” and his primary vote fell dramatically. His hold on his own electorate has become marginal. Clive Palmer’s pact with the Greens got less publicity before the election and he did surprisingly well all over Australia. He probably got one Senator elected because of his shady deal with the green devils, but then in another state a Green Senator will probably be elected on Palmer preferences. So we may be stuck for six years with at least one Green senator who should not have been elected. 

Another feature of the election was the minimal support for the anti-coal-seam-gas party.

 

Now we need to make sure the new government dismantles the whole climate industry

 

*************

How to Untangle the Climate Bureaucracy: Last In, First Out 

Abolishing the Climate Commission is a good start. However there are still seven climate agencies and 33 climate schemes in seven different departments yet to be rooted out. 

What is the best way to unwind this huge un-necessary bureaucratic empire?  

Use the old union maxim – last in, first out. Whatever parliament created in one silly summer afternoon can be unmade just as quickly. 

Don’t merge, don’t reorganise, don’t rebrand – ABOLISH. 

And do it quickly before more damage is done to our economy, our energy supplies and our environment. 

 

And don’t worry about the climate. It will go on doing what it has always done - it will change

 

 

**************

Abolish the Unreliable Energy Targets 

Killing the carbon tax is not enough to restore sanity to Australia’s energy policies - the Renewable Energy Targets must also be abolished. 

No matter what laws are passed in Parliament, wind/solar power can never supply reliable economical grid power - their fundamental flaws are too numerous. 

Their low energy density means that large areas of land must be blighted to collect a significant quantity of power. 

Moreover, their intermittent supply pattern means that they cannot maintain a predictable electricity supply. 

And even if some magic cheap storage system is invented, the expensive wind/solar generating facilities will remain under-utilised for more than 60% of the time, and up to 30% of any energy stored will be lost in transfers.

Finally, without storage, green power needs full backup from reliable generation plants (which must also operate intermittently). 

Germany is proving that an advanced society cannot survive on wind/solar energy, even with support from French nuclear power, Swedish hydro-power, Russian gas and Polish coal. 

For too long, green dreamers have forced their daft ideas on Australia’s power supply network. We need to employ real power engineers and grown-up energy technology.   

The Renewable Energy Targets should be renamed “Unreliable Energy Targets” and abolished immediately. 

.



PRA: Case Study, Changes for expediency

Case study Xstrata Wandoan coal mine lease application; Queensland Coordinator-General, November 2010, reclassification of land types for the advantage of the mining company.

Prepared by Property Rights Australia

Image sourced from Xstrata EIS. The mining lease area covered approximately 30,000 ha with 70 land titles belonging to 42 owners. Each little pink square represents a farming family to be removed, which they nearly all were, for the mine to proceed.  


Agricultural land in Queensland has been classified using the simple classification system called Good Quality Agricultural Land (GQAL)[i] of A, B, C and D class soils.
Class A is top cropping country
Class B is land suitable for cropping and grazing
Class C is grazing only; unsuitable for cropping;
and D is unsuitable for agriculture or reserved for environmental purposes.

This land classification system was developed from decades of work by soil scientists who were unimpeded from any other agenda other than good science. QGAL is clearly defined; it has been used as standard in resolving matters in the courts. It has stood the test of time. 

Property Rights Australia (PRA) is very concerned where policy, legislation, planning schemes and ministerial decisions have been implemented without giving priority to good soil science.  

A very blatant example in recent years is where the Coordinator-General’s department in November 2010 reclassified lands in the Xstrata Wandoan coal mine lease application from A & B to C for the advantage of the mining company. This project was subsequently granted conditional environmental approval in March 2011.

 

It is important to review what occurred at that time not only to be vigilant in ensuring it doesn't happen again but also to facilitate improved outcomes in future policy and legislation. Throughout 2013 the Qld government has been making changes to many planning laws, the latest being the Darling Downs Regional Plan which makes mention of the Xstrata Wandoan coal mine project on page 17.[ii] 

With any mining or petroleum lease application, a resource company is required to produce an environmental impact statement (EIS)[iii] where a consultancy firm is hired to write a document (best measured in kilograms rather than pages) to shed the best possible light on the project proceeding. The Xstrata Wandoan coal mine addressed quality of soils in the lease application in volume 1, chapter 9.3.6 and land suitability and agricultural lands in chapter 9.3.7.[iv]  

Despite including the pre-existing GQAL mapping as Figure 9-11-V1.3, the EIS provides inconsistent mapping of soil quality in Figure 9-9-V1.3. The EIS states that this second map uses the classification system of Land Suitability Classification for Cropping and Grazing in the Semi-arid Sub-tropics of Queensland (Department of Mines and Energy, 1995). The result is that under GQAL the land was considered to be either, Class A, top cropping country or B, land suitable for cropping and grazing and in the classification system favoured by Xstrata the very same land overnight became either

• Class 3 – suitable land with moderate limitations; land which is moderately suited to a proposed use but which requires significant inputs to ensure sustainable use; or
• Class 4 – marginal land with severe limitations which make it doubtful whether the inputs required to achieve and maintain production outweigh the benefits in the long term.  

The accuracy of the information and the methodology used to reach the conclusions in the relevant chapters within the EIS is questionable and was challenged by those with local knowledge. In response to these submissions the Supplementary EIS (SEIS)[v] spent many pages justifying the obvious anomalies without varying its conclusions. 

The most disappointing aspect about Xstrata Wandoan coal mining lease application was not the information paid for by Xstrata and prepared by consultants but the almost unreserved acceptance of this material in the Coordinator-General’s evaluation report on the EIS.[vi]

In Chapter 5.2.1 - Good quality agricultural land, strategic cropping land and rehabilitation, the Coordinator-General makes the following statements 

The EIS outlined that, under Section 2 and Attachment 2 of the associated SPP 1/92 Planning Guidelines: The Identification of Good Quality Agricultural Land (Department of Primary Industries and Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning Queensland 1993), Class A, B and C agricultural land in the former

Taroom Shire does comprise GQAL [emphasis added] 

The Taroom Shire Planning Scheme classified the MLA areas as GQAL—Classes A, B and C. The land suitability assessment undertaken in the EIS and SEIS, however, concluded that Class 3 and Class 4 land suitability—which approximates to GQAL Agricultural Land Class C—occurred on the MLA areas. Therefore, indications are that the MLA areas are unlikely to be classified as strategic cropping land.  

It beggars belief that the Coordinator-General could accept without question the downgrading of this land classification by the party with an economic interest in having it downgraded, without considering the possible cost to Queensland agriculture and the past production history of that land. 

PRA strongly believes land classifications must be based on established science and the production history of that land. No benefit to the immediate community or the citizens of Queensland can be identified in altering soil classifications for the expediency of the resource sector, as in the Xstrata Wandoan coal mine where A and B GQAL was changed to C class. Nor should it be the case where a process could be influenced so as C and D class land could be changed to A and B to stop a resource project.

 

---

[i] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/policy/plng-guide-identif-ag-land.pdf

 

[ii] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/plan/darling-downs/draft-darling-downs-regional-plan.pdf

 

[iii] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/assessments-and-approvals/environmental-impact-statement-eis.html

 

[iv] http://www.wandoancoal.com.au/EN/PublicationsandMedia/Pages/VolumeOneEIS.aspx

 

[v] http://www.wandoancoal.com.au/EN/PublicationsandMedia/Pages/VolumeOne.aspx

 

[vi] http://www.dsdip.qld.gov.au/resources/project/wandoan-coal-project/coordinator-general-report.pdf

 

 

 

 

Author calls for Royal Commission into 'political capture by mining'

By John Mikkelsen

(First published at On Line Opinion at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15482&page=1 )

Mining captures politics. Governments change, but the politics and administrative procedures surrounding mining and resource developments don't.

That's the smoking gun claim by the author of a controversial new book just distributed to every Queensland State Parliamentarian.

While focussing on the Sunshine State, Road to Exploitation by Alec Lucke, has a broader message for all resource-rich states and territories, as well as the newly elected Coalition Federal Government.

Shock findings of the ICAC mining inquiry, which recommended criminal charges against former NSW Labor ministers Eddie Obede and Ian Macdonald, probably contributed to Labor's decisive defeat. But that could be the tip of an iceberg of shady deals transcending state borders.

Disgraced former Queensland Labor Minister Gordon Nuttall is currently serving two seven year sentences after losing an appeal following his conviction on a total 36 counts of receiving secret commissions worth almost $360,000 from coal mining executives Harold Shand and the late Ken Talbot between 2002 and 2005. But was he a scapegoat, as he claimed?

Earlier this year, Queensland Premier Campbell Newman supported calls by Lock the Gate Alliance's Drew Hutton for a Crime and Misconduct Commission investigation into serious allegations by former public servants that they had been pressured by the former Bligh administration to approve environmental impact statements for two massive coal seam gas projects in the Surat Basin without adequate time to study the implications.

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire, and Lucke has gone a step further by calling for a Royal Commission into "political capture by mining".

 

Road to Exploitation follows years of pains-taking research by the long-term environmental activist and former Mt Larcom farmer. The rural community is on the outskirts of the expanding industrial hub of Gladstone, home to more than $100 billion in new resource projects. These include a new coal terminal project on Wiggins Island, three liquified natural gas plants under construction on Curtis Island and a fourth just approved by the Newman State Government.

The book, encompassing administrative procedures from the Bjelke-Petersen era through to today, is being distributed in parliament by Gladstone Independent, Liz Cunningham.

It has already penetrated some international markets and Lucke wants each of the 89 State MP's to read it.

He says an examination of the judicial structure and restoration of a properly constituted Upper House in Queensland is also needed, to restore political accountability. 



 

"The distribution of Road to Exploitation to Queensland parliamentarians is my personal contribution to this debate," Lucke says.

"The book authenticates not only landholders' concerns about unacceptable impacts upon their strategic cropping land and aquifers by coal and coal seam gas (CSG), but also concerns about damage to Gladstone Harbour's ecology.

"The contents justify the title, and demonstrate this principle: Capture executive government in Queensland and the regulatory and administrative processes are captured as well".
 

Lucke, who is now living in northern NSW, says he wants politicians to be confronted by examples of "sweetheart deals' entered into by the Queensland Cabinet over the years.

"The legacy described is a direct consequence of generations of brutal and reckless indifference by politicians.

"My accompanying message to them is, 'Please read with an open mind and then act according to your conscience.'

"Backbenchers need to understand and be properly informed that in Queensland, Executive Government has unbridled powers. Cabinet in multiple instances, operated in a vacuum without proper environmental assessment or consideration of risk analysis, with terrible consequences," Lucke says.

The book serves as both an historical record and a 'precautionary manual'. In addition to the current environmental concerns, it delves back to Mt Larcom district's pioneering era, the later development of limestone mining at the East End Mine in the 1970's and the formation of the East End Mine Action Group of which Lucke is a long-term member..

"The East End Mine / Regulating Agencies dispute continues with the interests of the Gladstone industrial model and a mine privately owned by the world's largest cement company placed ahead of other stakeholders, the district's progress and the environment," Lucke claims.

(The claim relating to the Gladstone industrial model seems to be borne out by a 'freeze' on development in the small Mt Larcom township because it is near the Gladstone State Development Area, set aside for major industrial expansion).

Mrs Cunningham told state parliament that issues covered by the book relate to the viability of farming pursuits and affects on farming families from mining projects.

"It highlights, too, the interaction between rural and urban Queensland, the interaction between business people and these farming communities.

"I would certainly recommend Members spend more than a few minutes reading this book".

Amen to that. While all resource companies and politicians can't be tarred with the same brush, his claims are serious enough to warrant some consideration.

 

UPDATE #1

Road to Exploitation by Alec Lucke  can be ordered by going to the following link at Amazon

.

 

Arctic Ice Confounds Costly Computers

by Viv Forbes

Six years ago, the British BBC reported dolefully that climate models predicted the disappearance of Arctic Sea ice by 2013. This was supported by Al Gore, Australia’s ABC and all the usual alarmists.
 

Image sourced from [here]
 

Unfortunately for them, Arctic ice now stretches in a continuous sheet from Canada to Russia and twenty yachts that planned to publicise this year’s ice-free Arctic are now stuck in the ice.

 

Arctic ice comes and goes, continually confounding costly computer models.

 

Gillard’s carbon tax, Rudd’s emissions trading scheme, Abbott’s direct climate action and the Greens’ energy targets will have no effect on it.

 

 

Image source from [here]

 

For those who would like to read more: 

The original BBC scare-mongering:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm 

Recent report on how the Arctic ice cap has grown 60% in a year:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2415191/Global-cooling-Arctic-ice-caps-grows-60-global-warming-predictions.html 

And the Northern Hemisphere snow cover. No alarming losses here:

http://www.climate4you.com/SnowCover.htm#Northern%20hemisphere%20weekly%20snow%20cover%20since%201966

 

**********

 

Jennifer Marohasy also has a post about the artic sea ice area

Arctic Sea Ice Back

 

Perhaps it isn't the area but the thickness. From Bishop Hill

Long-term trends in sea ice

 

If you really want a lot of reading Anthony Watts keeps a detail record complete with data and all those graphs that everyone seems to like.
Sea Ice Page 

 

.

BOB KATTER is DELUSIONAL!!!!

Well poor old Bob is blaming LNP advertising for the severe loss of his support base!!!!.

He is so delusional that he cannot see that his support base left him after the last Federal election - for many - those of us who are a bit quicker on the uptake left him years ago.

He thinks they left him after LNP's advertising during the campaign and is trying to blame that for his dismal result in 2013.

That is how out of touch with the electorate Bob Katter is and what I have been saying for some time on this and other forums. 

Now people on another forum of which I was a member previously may realise I was not talking through my hat (or they may have thought worse things - lol).

Anyway this picture of Bob is on the front page of the "Tablelander" this morning.  I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. 

This is the real Bob Katter.  :-) :-)

In case you think I am enjoying this result, you sure are not wrong!! 

Post politics jokes and elclectic thoughts

The federal election is now over, it's time to lighten up a bit. This is a post for you to place jokes and eclectic thoughts. It's open to all subjects, not just politics. In fact the less politics the better.


We haven't had a post like since JESTS JOKES AND JOLLITY by JAN (nothing serious allowed) and Jan's one rule was to comment nothing that will make us frown.






To start off I'm copying this comment by Peter from the Open Thread.
Some little gems that I came across.

We hang petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.
~Aesop, Greek slave & fable author

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber.
~Plato, ancient Greek Philosopher

Politicians are the same all over.
They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river.
~Nikita Khrushchev, Russian Soviet politician

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it.
~Quoted in 'Clarence Darrow for the Defense' by Irving Stone.

Politicians are people who when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnel.
~John Quinton, American actor/writer

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other.
~Oscar Ameringer, "the Mark Twain of American Socialism."

I offered my opponents a deal:
"if they stop telling lies about me, I’ll stop telling the truth about them"
~Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952..

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country.
~Texas Guinan. 19th century American businessman

I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be
left to the politicians.
~Charles de Gaulle, French general & politician

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city…
it might be better to change the locks.
~Doug Larson (English middle-distance runner who won gold medals at the 1924
Olympic Games in Paris, 1902-1981)

Alternative to The Precautionary Principle?

by Don Aitkin

 

First published at Online Opinion, cross post via  license under a Creative Commons License

 

 



I've written about the Precautionary Principle before. With that title it was adopted at the 1992 Rio conference on climate, and it has been used a great deal by proponents of the need to 'combat climate change' internationally. Built into it is Pascal's Wager about the correctness of believing in God, and it has analogies in the medical precept 'first do no harm'. I didn't like it when I first came across it, partly because it was dressed up as a 'principle' and partly because of the capital letters, which suggested importance and longevity.

Image sourced [here]


I've come across a most interesting paper by Max More, an English philosopher and futurist, which offers instead a 'proactionary principle'. There's a lot in it, and it's well worth reading. I'll discuss his alternative in a later post, but use this one to show his demolition of the precautionary principle. It is clear and accessible.

'The precautionary principle has at least six major weak spots. It serves us badly by:

assuming worst-case scenarios

distracting attention from established threats to health, especially natural risks

assuming that the effects of regulation and restriction are all positive or neutral, never negative

ignoring potential benefits of technology and inherently favouring nature over humanity

illegitimately shifting the burden of proof and unfavourably positioning the proponent of the activity

conflicting with more balanced, common-law approaches to risk and harm.

First, the precautionary principle always assumes worst-case scenarios. Any release of chemicals into the environment might initiate a chain of events leading to a disaster. Genetically modified organisms might cause unanticipated, serious, and irreversible problems. By imagining the proposed technology or project primarily in a worst-case scenario, while assuming that refraining from action will have no disastrous consequences, the adherents of the principle immediately tilt the playing field in their favour.

Second, the precautionary principle ignores background risk, distracting our attention from established dangers to health. Nature itself brings with it a risk of harms such as infection, hunger, famine, and environmental disruption. We should apply our limited resources first to major risks that we know are real, not merely hypothetical. The more we attend to merely hypothetical threats to health and environment, the less money, time, and effort will remain to deal with substantial health problems that are highly probable or thoroughly established. The principle errs in focusing on future technological harms that might occur, while ignoring natural risks that are actually occurring.

Third, adherents of the precautionary principle assume that proposed regulations and restrictions will cause no harm to health. Yet the very application of the principle itself can endanger our health. Consider, for instance, the consistent correlation between the health of a nation's citizens and their standard of living. Widespread application of the precautionary principle, by hampering economic activity, will tend to reduce living standards and thereby worsen health. In addition, major efforts to eliminate small, speculative risks can unleash far greater and more likely harms.

Fourth, the precautionary principle fails to treat natural and human threats on the same basis. Users of the principle routinely ignore the potential benefits of technology, in effect favouring nature over humanity. The principle does not account for the fact that the risks created by technological stagnation are at least as real as those of technological advancement. As biochemist Bruce Ames of UCLA has demonstrated, almost all of our exposure to dangerous chemicals comes in the form of natural chemicals. Yet fear and attention are primarily directed toward synthetic chemicals. A particular chemical has the same effects regardless of whether its source is natural or synthetic. Despite this, scientifically unsound activists treat human-derived chemicals as guilty until proven innocent, and naturally occurring chemicals as innocent or insignificant.


Fifth, the precautionary principle illegitimately shifts the burden of proof by positioning advocates of proposed activities or new technologies as reckless, in contrast with the 'responsible' advocates of 'precaution'. The content - even the very name - of the precautionary principle positions environmental activists and Luddites as friends and protectors of the common person. The innovators are made to prove safety, having already been portrayed as indifferent to the common good and interested only in profiting.

Image sourced [here]

Having illegitimately shifted the burden of proof, activists can impose their values without troubling themselves with evidence and without taking responsibility for the results of overly-precautious policies. For example, the Environmental Working Group opposed the use of pesticides, speculating about possible carcinogenic effects of trace amounts of their residues. They do not seem to have taken into account the probability that restricting pesticides would increase cancer rates.
Activists get away with the burden of proof trick by managing perceptions of risk instead of examining the real risks. This move is particularly dangerous because we have limited resources to address a multitude of risks. We cannot afford to make decisions driven by manipulated perceptions. It's crucial that we rely on a comprehensive, scientifically grounded perspective when choosing which risks have the strongest claim on our attention.

Sixth, and finally, the precautionary principle conflicts with the more balanced approach to risk and harm derived from common law. Common law holds us liable for injuries we cause, our liability being proportionate with the degree of foreseeable risk. By contrast, the precautionary principle dismisses liability and acts like a preliminary injunction, but without the involvement of a court, without the burden of proof, and without taking responsibility for harm caused by the injunction.'
.

FARMERS NOT HAPPY WITH BOB KATTER.

This ad went into the Northern Miner today.
 

Bob Katter has not served his electorate or farmers well. 

The Katter party has preferenced Labor ahead of others on the Senate paper. 

Why he is denying this is amazing!!!
 

He admits that he is Pro-Union and that they have donated six figure amounts to his campaign (reported in the media months ago).
 

Katter Australia Party has also preferenced Labor in MARGINAL seats of Griffith (Rudd), and Forde (Beattie)  as well as  another five of six definitely and we do not know how many others.  HIs choice will only help Labor.
 

This has lost him to many. 

This ad was produced by some farmers and is really written from the heart.

Pauline Hanson talks of water and Agenda 21

Pauline Hanson and Peter Manuel from FLAG Australia (Incorporated) discuss Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development Bureaucracy that is affecting the food bowl of Australia and in particular South Australia under the NRMA Act 2004.

Peter, on the Food Producers Landowners Action Group (FLAG) site writes:

What an absolute privilege to be on stage with Pauline and hear her speak from the heart about Agenda 21 and the privatisation of our water and the restrictions that are being forced upon us farmers by the environmental movement which make it so difficult to supply this great country with a clean healthy food product.

Pauline came to South Australia after a phone call I made to her a few weeks ago in regards to Natural Resource Management issues that control the way we run our freehold land and the uphill battle we have to grow food.  Pauline did not hesitate and took time out from her very busy campaigning schedule to come and speak and answer any questions thrown at her.

In the short time I had with Pauline it was very obvious that most that has been written about her over the years in regards to being a conspiracy theorist and racist is absolute rubbish.  She is far from a racist, highly intelligent and what you see is what you get.  She certainly wouldn’t do any dirty deals behind closed doors if she was fortunate enough to be elected into Parliament.

Insight into the Real Bob Katter

The front page of the Eacham Times today had the full page covering the Kennedy Electorate LNP Candidate, Noeline Ikin. 

The reporter met up with the LNP candidate at the Ravenshoe Butchery.

The top article that I have posted here relays the words of the Ravenshoe Butchers wife.

The comments by Mrs Jensen is indicative of a lot of once upon a time supporters of Bob Katter (and a growing list of non-supporters over the years).  The whole page was a bit big to copy and paste.

The other letters just about say it all.

 

 

PREVIOUS RELATED DISCUSSION

WHERE ARE KATTER PARTY PREFERENCES GOING?

.

 

Sex Party could help Pauline slip into Senate

My article published at ON LINE Opinion http://onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15425&page=1

By John Mikkelsen

While Labor seems to be sailing to a fate similar to the original Titanic come September 7, a swirling maelstrom of murky Senate preference deals could provide life jackets to a very mixed bag of Senate hopefuls, including Pauline Hanson.

She is just one of the strange bedfellows likely to benefit from a series of incongruous deals stitched up by party leaders at odds with their supporters.

How many rootin', shootin', cowboy hat wearin' real men in the north realize that a vote above the line for their doppelganger hero Bob Katter or his minions will flow to Labor and the Greens?

Will those who vote 1 for Big Clive Palmer or his candidates know that they are also voting for Family First, Labor and the Greens?

And if they think that sex will always beat politics (who could blame them for that?) do they know that a vote above the line for the Sex Party will flow down and possibly slide Pauline Hanson into a NSW Senate seat against the dry odds of a six- time loser?

Sex and Aunty ABC's news and current affairs don't normally go hand in glove, but the unlikely alliance between the Sex Party and Pauline Hanson reared its ugly head in a fiery finger-waving clash between the national broadcaster's election analyst Anthony Green and News Breakfast co-host, Virginia Trioli onThursday morning http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-29/preference-deals-could-benefit-micro-parties-at/4920822

Green pointed out the 'flotsam and jetsam' swirling in the minor party preferences, using the Sex Party as an example. He was adamant its supporters would not be supporters of Hanson or One Nation, but in the event that she managed to pick up at least two percent of the vote, that is where their preferences would be directed, possibly helping her win the seat.

He conceded she would be swimming against the tide to obtain the necessary numbers with a position on the extreme right of the ballot papers (which some would say was apt), and that a magnifying glass was necessary to read all the names for the myriad of candidates and parties. The system was undemocratic and must be changed, he insisted.

Trioli said he "must have had his Wheet Bix," he was speaking privately and not for the ABC. She claimed voters may be happy to have their preferences allocated in such a way.

Virginia Trioli, on Barnaby Joyce...

The National's Barnaby Joyce would have found the exchange amusing, having been on the receiving end from Miss Trioli in an off-camera moment following an interview several years ago when the journalist pulled a loopy face (apparently) and twirled a finger alongside her head implying Barnaby was short of the full quid.

But the retiring senator who has a shoe in for the House of Reps seat of New England vacated by Labor- supporting independent Tony Windsor, is in agreement with Green about the current preference deals.

In a Canberra Times column titled 'Don't let your Senate fall prey to vultures,'http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/dont-let-your-senate-fall-prey-to--vultures-20130822-2seb6.html#ixzz2cmAYlr4b Joyce writes, "Like native bird populations during a drought, these parties disappear in between elections only to magically appear at an election to funnel votes to the party lucky enough to benefit from back-room preference deals.

"Now, if you would please tell me where your Senate above-the-line preferences go, I will be far more comfortable. But, be honest - you haven't a clue".

He points out the irony of socialists and Greens benefiting from preference deals with Palmer and Katter.

"Indeed, Clive's preferences are a wild ride. In Queensland, if you vote for Clive Palmer, your votes go to Family First, then to the Socialists, then to the Greens, Fishing and Lifestyle, Katter, the LNP, One Nation, Democrats and finally to the Australian Christians, presumably to ask forgiveness…

"The Katter party, which ostensibly is opposed to everything Green, is preferencing the Greens ahead of the Liberals in the ACT, and ahead of Nick Xenophon in South Australia. Bob Katter may be instrumental in helping the Greens keep the balance of power by helping a Green senator to be elected in the ACT.

"Bob has also done a deal with the Labor Party in Queensland. Bob represents a conservative electorate where more than 60 per cent of voters preferred the LNP to Labor at the last election. Bob has been preparing the ground. He needs Labor's preferences, and he needs the money of the trade unions. He has been voting accordingly…."

The ABC points out that the list of Senate Group Voting Tickets shows how preferences are distributed. Group ticket voting works by each group lodging a full ticket of preferences to all candidates on the ballot paper. When a voter selects a party using the group ticket voting square, the vote is deemed to have the full list of preferences lodged by that group.

"More than 95% of voters use the group ticket voting square, effectively meaning that the distribution of preferences in the Senate is determined largely by deals between political parties".

Green and Joyce are right. The present system of preferential voting has been stretched to ridiculous limits and in future it should be changed. Many Australians would be happy with one vote, one value to the party of their choice. Or at least, in taking a leaf from the Queensland State electoral book where preferential voting is optional – vote for your preferred candidate or fill in all the squares, simple as that.

Meanwhile most voters seem to have already made up their mind on how they will cast their primary vote. Last week's final debate between Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott at Rooty Hill in Sydney won't affect the outcome, with some commentators declaring it a dead heat. Some viewers who gave the nod to Abbott are obviously sick of the exaggerated hand gestures and daily verbose speeches which remain a hallmark of the reincarnated Rudd.

Sportsbet has already paid out more than $1.5 million on a Coalition win http://www.sportsbet.com.au/blog/home/sportsbet-pays-out-early-on-coalition-to-win-2013-election#sthash.ViFTLZno.dpuf/

Abbott seems to have settled in cruise control mode and the week ahead is unlikely to deliver a major upset or provide Rudd with a magic Christmas Pudding - GST moment which lost the so-called unloseable election in 1993 for John Hewson.