On a day when speculation ran rife that WA had lost the nation’s biggest resource development project, the Inpex Liquefied Natural Gas project in the Kimberley valued at $25 billion, Alan Carpenter announced yesterday he would be closing the bars at Parliament House.
That announcement, aimed at wedging Colin Barnett over his predecessor Troy Buswell, was pretty typical of how this election has gone in the first two weeks and might explain why at the halfway mark of the campaign Labor finds itself in a tight contest against a crisis-ridden Opposition that only settled on a leader the day before the election was called.
Barnett may be obsessed with Brian Burke, but the Labor campaign is a little too fond of the Buswell jokes they had prepared to let them go this quickly. There are many valid points to be made about Buswell’s continued political success, in particular the effect it’s had, and will continue to have, on women in the Liberal Party, which translates to the women whom they seek to govern. But stunts like this impress nobody, and they belittle the real issues that Buswell’s behaviour brings to light. The problem with Buswell, and the boys’ clubs on both sides, is not that there are bars in parliament house.
There’s an even bigger problem with this kind of stunt, though, which is that it helps paint Carps as arrogant, but arrogant in the service of very little except his ego. “No-one else would have dared to try this,” he would have thought to himself, though it probably wouldn’t have occurred to him to wonder why that was. As Barnett pointed out, it’s the Speaker’s job to make these kinds of decisions. Quite aside from the issue of whether a Premier should be involving himself in such trivial matters, it doesn’t help his standing within his party to be attempting to take on yet another power that isn’t his.
Outside of legal restrictions and standing orders, the only standards for MPs are those that their constituents set for them. The issue isn’t whether they share a bottle of wine during a meeting, it’s whether they make the right decision. It’s not about drinking during work hours, as if they’re operating heavy machinery; work hours for an MP are a fluid thing. Is networking a work requirement or a social opportunity? It’s both.
The problems this is supposed to be a fix for are serious. The treatment of women, the seriousness with which political decisions are made, the amount of work done by our politicians, a lack of transparency and democracy in decision-making… State politics is certainly in need of a lot of work. But this is just a way to hide some of the symptoms. It will do nothing to make MPs take their responsibilities more seriously. It won’t prevent a single meeting with a lobbyist. It won’t stop women being excluded from the exercise of real power(if anything, it could reduce the ability for women to be included, if it forces people to meet and network elsewhere), and it won’t stop them being objectified and harassed .
Election campaigns are mostly for those who haven’t paid attention for the rest of the term. Stunts can be useful; they’re certainly understandable. But it’s best to consider the long-term implications before pulling them out.
I’m amazed Labor is talking about anything other than Barnett’s new pipeline. Even if it was fully costed and a good idea, surely the canal fiasco would tarnish it in the minds of voters. What is Barnett’s obsession with long round things snaking across the landscape?
B. Lyle - from your link it looks like an idea worth considering. Should we plan to have everyone live in Perth, or push infrastructure out into places where it would be good to encourage growth?
Anna - I hadn’t seen the “the truth about Troy” but it’s not surprising, the ALP has always been much more ruthless at the dirty side of politics. Of course it’s authorised by Bill Johnston who I believe is standing in a safe seat, and is the husband of an ALP upper house member. How do people feel about husband and wife teams in parliament? I don’t like it.
Agree about these stupid minor issues - banning smoking on the beach? local government and the police immediately say that they won’t be enforcing it; banning probationery drivers from driving high-powered cars? the experts say it won’t make any difference etc etc.
But now they pick a bigger issue - legislating against uranium mining - and stuff that up too. Not only did they recently vote against a Greens Bill to do that, but, even for someone like me who is against nuclear power for now, it seems a bad message to send to business - the leases on the potential sites have been changing hands for hundreds of millions of dollars. It doesn’t create a good environment for investment if governments are prepared to make such hasty backflip decisions in an election campaign.
The pipeline will be an extension of the Dampier to Bunbury pipeline, which provides about 1000km to choose from if there is some intrinsic value in having industry somewhere other than Perth. Why not choose Dampier as the place where we’re going to encourage growth and avoid the pipeline completely, if it’s true that it’s already at capacity and will need to be upgraded if it’s going to supply Albany?
It would also avoid the problems of encouraging industrial growth in an area that is already a battleground between industry, environmentalist and tourism lobby groups.
Also, I question Barnett’s suggestion that using a pipe to move gas to Albany will be more environmentally friendly, as i find it hard to believe truck exhausts will emit more than a fraction of the carbon output involved in manufacturing, transporting, and assembling several hundred kilometres of pipeline.
That highway kills hundreds of people every year. The less trucks on it the better.
I personally knew 6 people who have been killed by road trains on Albany Highway.
In the period between 1995 and 2004, there were between 163 and 236 deaths a year across the entire state, so to say that that piece of road kills hundreds of people a year is careless, at best.
A closer look at the stats on road deaths in rural areas shows us that
In other words, most rural deaths don’t involve road trains, and if you really want to reduce the number of deaths you should remove all the trees from the south-west. At least you’ll have an ally in the logging industry.
Even if it was trucks killing motorists, I’m sure trucks carrying gas only make up a small proportion of the total road-trains in the south west area, so a pipeline would make no significant difference to the amount of traffic.
What you should be supporting in a massive high speed railway project through the southwest. That would be awesome for weekends if they let passengers on, but I’m not convinced the government will spring for it.
I hope this isn’t too off topic, but I noticed they clipped the ‘Colin Barnett getting his sums wrong’ ad so you no longer hear so much of the reporters in the background, which I think is a shame. The outrage and frustration of the woman shouting ‘No they don’t!’ as Colin blandly insists the sums add up is hilarious.
As someone who has a partner whom I met through my work, it bothers me that people find this a problem. It isn’t the same a parent/child MPs. Politics means long hours, passion for ideas and policies, so it’s hardly surprising that people involved in it are attracted to similar people.
Nepotism is certainly a bad thing, but relationships like husband/wife, parent/child, factional warlord/branch stacker can be signs of it, but they aren’t proof. If a person’s qualified in their own right then that should be what matters.
Good move to shut the bar in the parliament. They are there to legislate not drink. If they want a drink wait til later or go over the road. You can’t work and drink.
From Pollbludger.
It’s 2005 all over again
http://www.pollbludger.com/?p=927&cp=1#comment-181688
I find it amazing that both parties are not focussing on future issues for WA that deal with the boom. These include skill shortages, how to overcome shortages of teachers and nurses, regional WA councils in crisis because they cant afford to pay staff to keep communities going, climate change and an innovative response, a lack of interesting places to go to counter dullsville in Perth and in regional WA and opening up trading hours. The Treasurer counts his money (we have plenty of it) and we have infrastructure being built but there is little else in terms of ideas to make WA a more attractive place to live. Its like we have two conservative parties with neither able to come up with world beating ideas or sufficient courage to lead. There is plenty of innovation in government policy overseas, we just need to copy some of their policies (i.e. trialling electric cars, solar panels for Parliament house, cheap artists accommodation in Perth and other regional centres to bring in some life, relaxed trading hours to reduce traffic congestion, information technology funding to local innovative companies to reduce bottlenecks in decision making in government).
On the husband and wife matter, Lil Ravlich and Eric Ripper mightn’t be married, but a domestic and professional team they are.
And just like that, Carps has sent out a release and announced he’s pulled the Truth About Troy site- probably guaranteeing the second night of news coverage about a stock-standard campaign smear website, and reminding punters Troy Buswell exists.
Or am I too cynical about this and the website was genuinely the creation of a rogue element (and authorised by Bill Johnston)
And here is the ABC TV News item in question. But really what a beatup, I don’t seem to recall the federal libs pulling similar websites on Latham & Rudd.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2008/08/28/2349589.htm
Anna wrote: “As someone who has a partner whom I met through my work, it bothers me that people find this a problem… Politics means long hours, passion for ideas and policies, so it’s hardly surprising that people involved in it are attracted to similar people… If a person’s qualified in their own right then that should be what matters.”
Passion for ideas?! An idea couldn’t get through the egos.
Disagree about the husband/wife thing in parliament. Maybe Eric met Lil, and Sally met Jon in parliament, but Kate should keep Bill out. Bill is known to the politically-interested through his TV appearances, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who doesn’t grimace with distaste at the mention of his name. Would he stand any chance of being pre-selected if he wasn’t a party/union hack? Surely not. Did Shelley Archer get pre-selected on merit? How about Helen Bullock?
Isn’t the reason the ALP picked up Kingsley in 2005 that Cheryl Edwardes thought she could install her husband there when she retired. People don’t like that stuff for a good reason - it’s unlikely the relative is being chosen on merit.
Maybe not, Russell, but it has nothing to do with marriage, is my point. Being married to someone may give each of you a better opportunity of working together, but so does friendship, factional allegiance, working together, whatever. It’s called networking. As if pretty much everyone who makes it into Parliament isn’t doing that.
I also don’t see how it’s strange that people find a connection with those who share their ambition and passion.
“Passion for ideas?! An idea couldn’t get through the egos.”
There’s cynical, then there’s ridiculous.
Anna,
What’s your take on the Buswell website ? Offensive, or a Storm in a D cup ?
And how ironic is this now?
Garrett changes tune on uranium
SMH - August 28, 2008 - 7:56PM
Peter Garrett used to rock out to anti-nuclear tunes.
Now the federal environment minister has changed his tune, approving a major expansion of Australia’s smallest uranium mine.
The Midnight Oil frontman protested against the nuclear industry in the song “Maralinga”.
“In the wind the ashes fly, the poison crown, the charcoal ground,” he sang.
It seems his dancing days are behind him.
On Thursday, he announced he had given the go-ahead to the major expansion of South Australia’s Beverley mine, the smallest of Australia’s three uranium mines.
The mine, located near the Flinders Ranges 600km from Adelaide, produces 1,500 tonnes of “yellowcake” - uranium oxide - a year.
Australian Conservation Foundation campaigner David Noonan said the mine could now spread its acid and radioactive pollution over 100 square kilometres.
“The pumping of acid into the soil and aquifers will leave behind acid and radioactive wastes in some of the aquifers within the mine lease for many years,” Mr Noonan said.
“It’s actually causing greater environmental impact over a larger area.”
Mr Noonan said the mine worked by pumping sulfuric acid underground, which dissolved the uranium. The solution was then pumped back to the surface.
Mr Garrett’s decision to extend the mine’s lease will not see it produce more uranium but Mr Noonan said a larger area would become polluted by the mine.
The expansion would also allow the mine to stay in production for longer, he said.
Greens senator Scott Ludlam slammed the expansion.
“It is incredibly disappointing to see Peter Garrett of all people allowing such a thing to take place, given the current state of water in Australia and in South Australia in particular,” Senator Ludlam said.
“It should be completely unacceptable in this day and age.”
But Mr Garrett said the environmental impacts had been thoroughly considered.
He had sought advice from scientists from the CSIRO, Geosciences Australia and the government’s Chief Scientist.
“I am satisfied that the tough conditions attached to this approval will ensure the highest standards of environmental management by the mine operator,” Mr Garrett said.
“My decision demonstrates the government’s commitment to ensuring world’s best practice environmental standards for uranium mining in this country.”
Mr Garrett said mine operator Heathgate Resources would have to implement a rigorous monitoring program to show it was meeting environmental targets.
He had paid particular attention to protecting the quality of groundwater.
“The way in which Heathgate Resources manages mining fluids and the disposal of liquid wastes has been confirmed by the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia as world’s best practice and endorsed by the Chief Scientist,” Mr Garrett said.
The South Australian government had agreed on the environmental conditions attached to the mine’s expansion, he said.
The Australian Uranium Association welcomed Mr Garrett’s decision and said it had been based on a robust scientific assessment.
The association said it was pleasing the scientists had confirmed that Heathgate’s practices were world’s best practice.
Wayne G. Thompson (Independent)
Carine 2008 State Election
A link would have sufficed, Wayne.
I am surprised you weren’t more interested in writing about how uranium mining issues affect your own electorate and state. Since you weren’t and from the content of the article, can we assume the Greens will be 2nd preference on your how to vote cards?
FWIW, I don’t find it particularly ironic - Lem’s His Master’s Voice is a good read for some ethical discussion on why Peter Garrett may have chosen to take the job offered.
“Maybe not, Russell, but it has nothing to do with marriage, is my point.”
It does have to do with marriage and any other family relationships. Yes, of course there can be all sorts of alliances, connections and networks, but we draw the line at the most obvious: family relationships. It’s a matter of propriety, if nothing else.
Does that mean a person is always excluded from working in a public sector area in which a family member has already established themselves? Not necessarily, but the aspirant should have already qualified themselves, independently, obviously, and hopefully in a different field. And Bill Johnston hasn’t. He’s just an ALP insider and married to a sitting member.
I guess that was the most negative thing for Hillary Clinton to overcome - the perception that her nomination was wrapped up because of the powerful Clinton family connections in the party. Similarly, I think the public perception of the Bill Johnston pre-selection, will be that the ALP is showing total contempt for the electorate. It hardly helps the ALP, or politics.
And of course most politicians are egomaniacs concerned for their own advantage - stuff their own party, never mind the electorate. Watcher in Mt Lawley @ 10 complains that our pollies can’t even copy good ideas. Anna, would you like to list the good, original policy ideas this government has come up with?
Nick,
Actually Liberal is my second preference on my How to Vote Ticket.
A Vote for the Greens is a vote for Labor so they are No. 6 and No. 7 respectively. You may have missed my reasoning re how ironic this is.
I am all for Uranium Mining in Western Australia as long as Worlds Best Practice measures are adapted - which they clearly have been for Heathgate’s (General Atomics) mine expansion at Beverly 4 Mile, Arcaroola/Lake Frome region in South Australia. It’s ironic in the sense that Carpenter has stated for the record in the last few days that if elected, he will legislate to ban any form of Uranium Mining in WA - Full Stop! Yet his Federal counterpart, Peter Garrett has just used his powers to approve a major expansion to an existing ’small’ Uranium Mine in South Australia. Different messages are being sent to the electorate here by Labor WA and Labor Australia. Supply contracts are signed with China and India - I do not see the point of WA missing out when we are sitting on massive reserves - especially after the recent Gas fiasco showed us just how vulnerable and limited the State is to the current power sources available. Its a much more mature electorate on the Uranium subject now - the old scare tactics just won’t cut it any more IMO, and Garretts decision could prove to be a decisive turning point in this election. Watch this space etc.
Wayne Thompson
Carine Independent Candidate, Election 2008 WA.
Nah, I got your irony loud and clear. You must have missed mine.
Different or conflicting messages? SA government wants the mining and its expansion - the Federal government approved it. WA government apparently does not.
“Garretts decision could prove to be a decisive turning point in this election. Watch this space etc.”
You’re right, and I will.