Julia Gillard please protect the places we love

Open letter to Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia

Dear Prime Minister, Environmental laws safeguard our way of life. They protect our land and wildlife, and ensure that our air and water are not polluted by destructive development.

I am deeply concerned that under pressure from industry, federal and state governments have recently announced an aggressive plan to wind back critical environmental protection laws that protect our land, water and wildlife.

History has shown us that the Federal government has a critical role in protecting matters of national environmental significance, which it must not abdicate.

Short-sighted development proposals, supported by the states, have threatened Australia’s natural heritage many times in the past. The federal government has had to step in to prevent irreversible harm to our iconic landscapes and wildlife.

A healthy environment is essential to the Australian way of life. Due to unrestrained development our environmental assets are in a state of decline, we need stronger environmental laws not weaker ones.

I call on you to reject the proposals laid out in the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agenda that would fast-track the transfer of federal approval powers to state governments, wind back the Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act and allow states and territories to fast-track major development projects.

Peter Campbell

Links

• Take Action | Protect Our Laws Sign petition and send letter to Julia Gillard

Rudd on the rampage and its all about him

Honesty in politics is a rare thing.  We don't get to hear about what happens in Cabinet, the Labor Caucus or the Liberal-National Party Room, or the Greens Party Room for that matter.

So it is refreshing that we are now hearing some honest and candidate stories from several Labor MPs and Ministers about what life was really like under Kevin Rudd when he was Prime Minister.

These include:

• Nicola Roxon, Attorney-General "said working with Mr Rudd as Prime Minister could be “a complete joke” [link]
• Craig Emerson, Minister for Trade  "There has been attack on the Prime Minister going back to the last election. There was destabilisation and leaking then; it's been going on since." "Well these things matter, don't they? I mean, whether you run an organised or a dysfunctional government." [link] [link]
• Wayne Swan, Treasurer.  "However for too long, Kevin Rudd has been putting his own self-interest ahead of the interests of the broader Labor movement and the country as a whole, and that needs to stop" "  "He sought to tear down the 2010 campaign, deliberately risking an Abbott Prime Ministership, and now he undermines the Government at every turn."  [link] [link]
• Julia Gillard, Prime Minister. "She said that while Mr Rudd had been an excellent campaigner in 2007, the government had descended into paralysis because of his “chaotic” and dysfunctional” work patterns." [link]
• Stephen Conroy, Communications Minister On poker machine reform: "Well let's be very clear about this. What's been revealed last night on television and over the weekend with Andrew Wilkie is a complete and utter fraud by Kevin Rudd." " He has been pretending that he supported the pre-commitment technology, pretending he supported reform in this area, but his key numbers man just happened to have two meetings and tell Clubs Australia that he would kill it."  [link]
• Stephen Smith, Defence Minister  "I'm articulating it to you from my perspective, and my perspective is that by the time we came to the end of Kevin's term as prime minister, the cabinet, the caucus, the overwhelming majority of the cabinet and caucus had lost confidence in the ability to work through difficult policy or political issues with him."  [link] [link]

On the other side, supporters of Kevin Rudd include:

• Kim Carr, Manufacturing Minister, who was demoted in a Cabinet reshuffle in December, says Mr Rudd is the victim of a "campaign of vilification" by senior members of the Government.  "It's my opinion that the man has a great breadth of vision and a commitment to the future of this country that stands us in good stead."  [link]
• Chris Bowen, Immigration Minister "There's no doubt there's a lot of support in the community for Mr Rudd" [link]
• Martin Ferguson, Resources Minister "Kevin Rudd is best placed to take on Tony Abbott and potentially best position us to win the next election,"   [link] [link] 
• Alan Griffin MP, "I think that should there be a change of leadership what we need to do is get over it and start working together. And that's what the people want, that's what the party wants and that's what we should be doing."  [link]
• Daryl Cheeseman, MP.  "Kevin Rudd is the most popular politician in Australia as opinion polls show. "Kevin is the right person to lead Australia. "I like Julia Gillard, I have a lot of respect for her, but that's the reality. It's important I reflect the views of my community." [link]
• Doug Cameron, Senator "We have to make sure that we stop running these character attacks on Kevin Rudd,'' ''Because it's unfair, it's unprincipled and its not deserved.'' [link]
• Maxine McKew, former MP for Bennelong, "Kevin Rudd is best placed to beat Tony Abbott," "He delivered a 23-seat majority and I think that should be noted," she said. "His appeal is broad and the breadth of his victory in 2007 shouldn't be overlooked." [link]
• Anthony Albanese "called Gillard and informed her I would be voting for Rudd and resigned as leader of the house" [link]

Kevin Rudd (and Doug Cameron) have claimed that the "faceless men" are after Rudd again, but both are  unwilling to say who they are.  So we have "faceless and nameless men" apparently running the country!

As an aside, it is interesting to note that Kim Carr and Alan Griffin were two of the "faceless men", along with Tim Gartrell, that did the preference deal with Family First that resulted in Steven Fielding being elected to the Senate in 2004 at the expense of the Greens. [link]

Some other interesting commentary has emerged, including:

• We need to talk about Kevin, "Kevin Rudd was ultimately responsible for his own downfall, writes his former speechwriter"
• Resurrection of Saint Kevin "No one does victimhood like Kevin Rudd. Forget the fact he's the bloke who calls the Prime Minister "the bitch" - or worse - behind her back, to senior figures in industry, to newspaper editors and to members of the Press Gallery" 
• Labor’s rotten core needs the leadership implosion " This is a party imploding. The word is used carefully: Labor’s internal weaknesses, its ideological drift, its lack of core values, the devolution of the factions in mechanisms for distributing patronage, its reluctance to publicly argue over important issues — the hollowing out of a once vibrant, reformist institution, is causing Labor to cave in on itself."
• Independent MP Tony Windsor "Should Mr Rudd become prime minister again, it would most likely lead to an early election.  And if Mr Rudd did try to command a majority on the floor of Parliament, he could not rely on Mr Windsor's support. "If the Labor Party suddenly want to change arrangements in the middle of the stream all bets are off," [link]

In conclusion

Julia Gillard as Prime Minister was able to from government after the 2010 federal election with support from three independent MPs and the Greens.  Her government has legislation for several import reforms such as the Clean Energy Bill (with a carbon price), the Mining Tax (albiet compromised) to name a few. 

However, she has been unable to garner much support from the Australian public with her wooden style of speaking and continued utterance of media lines.  She has also avoided direct questions about her exact role in the demotion of Kevin Rudd as PM.  Opinion polls indicate that Gillard is on track to lose the next federal election to Tony Abbott.

It has now become clear that Kevin Rudd has been actively destabilising the Gillard government over several months, so she has not been able to get "clean air" to get her message across and demonstrate leadership.

Gillard and her supporters have portrayed Kevin Rudd as a Prime Minister who was almost impossible to work with.  He lost his mojo and backflipped on important initiatives such as the Mining Tax (Resources Super Profits Tax) and his much vaunted but highly compromised Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

Kevin Rudd and his supporters say that only he has the personal popularity with and support from the Australian public to beat Tony Abbott at the next election.  Polls indicate he has more support from the public than Julia Gillard (and Tony Abbott).  Rudd has also given assurances that he has "learned from his past mistakes" and is a "change person" with respect to his leadership style.

However, Rudd has also just flagged a review of the Clean Energy Bill, even though it has just been through and exhaustive process with the Multi Party Climate Change Committee and will be legislated in July this year. 

So the choice before the Labor Party is a capable PM who has Cabinet and party support, but looks like losing the next election due to her poor public profile, or perhaps winning the election and a return to Kevin Rudd's autocratic leadership.

It is also likely that Rudd will not be able to form a minority government if Labor doesn't win a majority of seats under his leadership (if he gets it).

Rudd might also spit the dummy completely and resign from his seat.  This would force a by election, and possibly then a general election.

If Rudd loses the leadership ballot, as appears likely, all indications are he will continue to destablise the government.

I don't envy them.

It looks like Tony Abbott will sail into office whatever happens now.

Rudd the wrecker will kill action on climate change and forests

Where there is smoke there is fire.

I have wondering about media reports over the last several months about "Kevin Rudd agitating to be Prime Minister again".  Initially I thought these were a beat up. There seems to nothing some sections of the media like more than political conspiracies and plots to oust political leaders.  It is s a form of virtual blood sport.

With recent reports and comments from Kevin Rudd, and now Daryl Cheeseman (MP for Corangamite) we can see there is some substance to all this speculation.

Rudd wants his old job as Prime Minister back, at any cost.  I think he also wants revenge on those who orchestrated his sacking.

He, assisted by a secret (small?) band of followers, has been systematically undermining Julia Gillard as PM. His "campaign" includes:

• Leaks at strategic times to derail the Gillard Goverment's momentum (including during the last election campaign)
• Making "Presidential" statements and assuming a high profile as Foreign Minister
• Not ruling out contesting for PM if there is a leadership ballot - even though he says he doesn't want on and there won't be one.
• Saying he has "learnt from his mistakes" and is "more humble etc" - when by his current actions clearly this is not true.

So the Labor is in a death spiral.  Gillard cannot lead effectively with all the attention on leadership intrigue. 

Look at the Gonsky report on education - a core issue for Australia.  There has been virtually no coverage of it.  Our public education system is being denied adequate funding and is being run down.  Middle and high income earners are deserting it in droves.  It appears there is more public money going to private and "independent" schools per student than there is going to public schools.  Yet this issue is hardly getting any attention.

I can only speculate on Rudd's motives.  It would seem revenge and ambition are outweighing all other considerations.  If there was a leadership spill and Rudd got to be PM again, all the bad publicity, and his past skeletons in the closet, would mean Labor would lose the election.

Those who think Rudd can be Labor's salvation have short memories. He lost his mojo just before he was deposed. There was the complete stuff up on pink batts - this should have been done by the States, not Peter Garrett. The Australia 2020 talkfest delivered virtually nothing. Then he abandoned his compromised CPRS and adopted Brendan Nelson's policy on climate change! 

Rudd was also operating as a cell within Labor (as Latham did 2004) - this was the real reason he was shafted. However, now some nervous Labor poll-watching MPs think he might win the next election. He won't as he is shitting in his own nest in public. 

The real issue is that 19C (Labor) and 20C (Liberals) institutions are not well equipped to handle the big challenges and transitions we face in 21C as we run out fossil fuel, forests, water and degrade agricultural land. Both parties have their own right and left and are floundering about what to do. Labor has stepped in the right direction under Gillard by supporting a transition to a clean energy economy but they are having trouble selling this (Rudd's antics are not helping) while the Liberals under Abbott have stepped back in time.

If Rudd was more sensible, smart and strategic he would let Gillard lose the next election (as current polls indicate she is on track to do, if you believe them) then sail back in as the "knight in shining armour" with no bad blood and a clean(er) slate.

If Rudd and his followers keep de-stabilising the government, then Gillard will lose the next election.  One of the few things John Howard said that I agree with was "division is death".   While I am not in favour of autocratic rule by an single political party, this axiom is quite true for the game as they play it.

Unfortunately, the consequence of the current Labor-Greens-Indepedant government falling is that Tony Abbott can just sit back, keep pointing out that Labor has lost the plot, is paralysed and can't be trusted, then sail into government.

Once in government he will ditch the price on carbon and just about every other reform and piece of legislation that the current government has achieved.  Abbot would also axe National Disability Insurance, plain packaging for cigarettes, the NBN, education reform, the mining tax (weak though it is).

The Gillard government might just finalise the Intergovernmental Agreement to protection another 400,000 hectares of Tasmania's government.  They might also recognise and act on the opportunity to protect the rest of Australia's native forests subject to logging and reduce Australia's emissions by a further 5%.  An Abbott government would certainly do neither.  

Game on Kevin.  Its a lose-lose scenario.

Peter Slipper "sinks the slipper"

Today was an interesting day in Australian politics.  I was out and about when I noticed some tweets coming through about Harry Jenkins resigning as the Speaker of the House of Representatives in Australia's national parliament.

He made an interesting speech which you can read here:  Harry Jenkins' resignation speech

He started with a heartfelt acknowledgement of the Ngunnawal people as the indigenous traditional owners of the land where Canberra is located.

He cited a desire to be able to participate in policy and parliamentary debate as his main reason for resigning. He thanked his staff, his wife and his family for their support.  Finishing with:

I go placidly with my humour intact. I wish you all well.

The political interest came about when Peter Slipper, a Liberal MP, was voted in as his replacement, thereby increasing the numbers of the Labor Government by one (with Harry Jenkins rejoining active duties) and the Coalition losing one (with Peter Slipper leaving the Coalition and not having a vote as Speaker).

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott apparently didn't see this coming and proceeded to do what he always does - attack the Labor Government and Prime Minister Julia Gillard.   I don't agree his interpretation of his role "to provide an alternative government and to criticise the current government".  He and all his fellow opposition member's primary role is to represent their electorates, not keep endlessly carping about the government.

It will be interesting to see how this pans outs.  The Labor government cannot now be held over a barrel by any one of the cross benchers - Windsor, Wilkie, Oakeshott, Katter or Bandt.  They can still collectively influence voting on legislation, but individually they now can't.

Personally, I would like to poker machine restrictions proceed - either mandatory pre-commitment or a $1 maximum bet - as problem gambling is a major concern that government and the gambling industry has been unwilling to address properly to date.

Australia's carbon price arrives

Today, the Australian Senate voted on and passed the suite of Clean Energy Bills that have been a long time coming, and are primarily the work of the Multiparty Climate Change Committee.


This is wonderful news.  It is a shame it has taken so long for us to finally price pollution and provide leadership and and incentives for a clean energy future.

Well done Julia Gillard, The Labor Government, the MPCCC, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshott, all the Greens in the senate - particularly Christine Milne and Bob Brown and their advisors - and Adam Bandt in the House of Representatives.

Hard work by all concerned, and a proud and momentous day for Australia.

It was interesting that Opposition Leader Tony Abbott chose to be absent from Australia on this day, despite his vocal and trenchant opposition to pricing pollution.  It was also interesting that Malcolm Turnbull chose to vote against the legislation in the House of Representatives, despite his support of emissions trading and putting a price on carbon.

What our parliamentarians say doesn't matter nearly as much as how they vote.

Links

• Carbon tax passes Senate - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
• Finally, carbon tax becomes law - The Age 
• And It Passed! Australia Sets A Price On Pollution - Newmatilda

Why do we lock up asylum seekers?

There are two answers to this question, and neither of them are nice.

1. We lock them up in mandatory detention as a deterrent to others.

2. For political reasons.

Why should we NOT lock them up?

It is a breach of human rights.
They have done nothing wrong.
Prolonged incarceration causes psychological damage
It is inhumane.
It is very expensive.
It portrays a very negative view of Australia.

In Australia, there is bipartisan support for mandatory detention between the Labor party and the Liberal/National coalition.  But they spend a lot of time scoring "political points" off each other on issues like how many boats are coming and how tough their respective policies are.

This is immoral and wrong.  It just should not be happending in a society that calls itself civilised.

Australia has had waves of immigration, both "legal" and refugees, including Greeks, Turks, Hong Kong Chinese, Italians, Vietnamese (many in boats) to name a few.

Claims that asylum seekers are a "border security issues" and are "terrorists" have emanated from some Australian politicians.  This polarises public opinion and slanders hapless asylum seekers, who of course have no right of reply from behind the razor wire.

We should simply allow asylum seekers to live within our society, assess their claims, and send the cheats home.  It is time our politicians stopped grandstanding and breaching human rights and international conventions.  

We need leadership on this issue, not gutter sniping and political trench warfare.

Why did Julia Gillard rule out a carbon tax last year?

During the "cut and thrust" of a close Australian federal election campaign in 2010, Julia Gillard, the Australian prime minister said something remarkable.

The election was characterised by the usual claims and counter claims about a variety of the "usual issues" such as health, education, the economy, taxation and budget deficits.  There was also contention about some tentative Government policies designed to help us move to a low-carbon future such as the poorly implemented and managed home insulation scheme, green loans and solar panel rebates.

Climate change was the elephant in the room.  The Labor government's previous attempt to push through an Emissions Trading Scheme (the CPRS) had failed for two main reasons:

• The Liberals broke their bipartisan support for it when Tony Abbott rolled Malcolm Turnbull as opposition leader.  Abbott's basic position was a mixture of denial that climate is happening and obscure objections to the proposed market-based mechanism for limiting carbon pollution.
• The Greens and other independents did not support the CPRS because they judged it was far to generous to the big polluters and would not have been effective in reducing carbon pollution.

Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister at the time, lost his nerve and didn't call a double dissolution election on this issue.  Instead he back-flipped and delayed the introduction of the CPRS, an action that he had strongly criticised the Liberals for during the 2007 Federal election campaign.  The so-called "gang of four" - Julia Gillard (Deputy PM), Wayne Swan (Treasurer) and Linsday Tanner (Finance) along with Kevin Rudd collectively agreed to go soft on climate change.

Julia Gillard then rolled Kevin Rudd and became the prime minister in the run up to the election.  She was supported by some strong factional players, including Paul Howes (secretary of the Australian Workers Union), who has subsequently stated that "climate change policy must not cost a single worker's job".

Back to the question.  Tony Abbot was running (and still is) an effective misinformation campaign about climate change and carbon pricing that Labor party campaign people felt was getting significant traction with voters.  He was claiming that the CPRS was a "great big new tax" and that Labor would bring in a carbon tax.

With the failure of the CPRS (ETS), a carbon tax was the only quick and effective means of pricing carbon pollution left.  It was worthy of immediate consideration.  However, Julia Gillard specifically ruled it out in the closing weeks of the election campaign by stating "there will be no carbon tax under the government I lead".  

I thought at the time that this was an ill-considered statement designed to take the wind out of Tony Abbott's sails.  In short, political considerations during the election campaign ruled out a viable policy option that had been suggested and endorsed by Professor Ross Garnaut, the government's own advisor on climate change policy.

Fast forward to 2011.  To form a minority government, Julia Gillard had to gain the support of the Greens and two out of the three lower house independents.  Part of the deal was formation of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee.  The Liberals and Nationals, still stuck in a degree of climate change denial,  "spat the dummy" and refused to participate.  The others on the committee, a mix of Labor, Greens and independent MPs, resolved during 2011 that a carbon tax was indeed a valid and effective mechanism for pricing carbon.

Julia Gillard is now been constantly and relentlessly criticised by the Liberal National coalition for breaking her promise about never introducing a carbon tax.   Yes, she made a stupid promise.  However, a price on carbon is one essential measure for reducing carbon emissions.  But it is only one of many needed.  

It is also subject to the same corruptive influence that fatally compromised the CPRS - industry groups lobbying for special consideration, financial assistance and low carbon tax price - which of course means they just keep polluting.  The fact that many large industry players are opposing the carbon tax is a good thing.  We need to curb excessive profits reaped from carbon pollution and transition to a lower carbon economy.

The proposed carbon pricing mechanism is not even actually a tax.  It is set price on carbon that is likely to only apply to the top 100 listed companies in Australia, which could face an annual carbon cost of $3.3 billion if the government imposes a $25 per tonne price on carbon.

Low income households are already suffering from large increases in their energy bills without a carbon price.  Part of the proceeds of the carbon price will be directed to compensating them for their energy costs so they will end up better off when the carbon price is in place.

Along the journey to carbon price, presumably in response to some agitation by industry and some right-wing unions such as the AWU, Julia Gillard also decided to criticise the Greens at the Gough Whitlam oration in April 2011 with the following statements: 

"The Greens wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy. The Greens have some worthy ideas and many of their supporters sincerely want a better politics in our country. 

"They have good intentions but fail to understand the centrepiece of our big picture - the people Labor strives to represent need work.

"And the Greens will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of everyday Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation."

This is just more nasty, spiteful and divisive poll-driven politics. It demonstrates a basic failure of leadership by Julia Gillard and alienates a lot of people who voted for Labor either directly or via their preferences with the expectation they would deliver real action on climate change. 

The right wing media in Australia - most notable the Murdoch press including the Australian and the Herald Sun - jumped on these comments and have embarked on their own campaign to attack the Greens, Labor and any sort of price on carbon.  They are clearly in the thrall of large polluting industries who don't want to change, and are aligned with and supporting the Tony Abbott-lead conservative opposition in this regards.  This is not news - it is ill-informed opinion, and a public relations smear campaign.

A carbon price in excess of $50 per tonne is required to shift investment decisions towards renewable energy rather than natural gas.  A lower carbon price will result in a massive investment shift from coal-fired power to gas-fired power.  Unfortunately, while gas is more efficient than coal as an energy source, it will still produce huge quantities of carbon emissions.  I predict that the Gillard Government will announce a carbon price of $15 per tonne, which would be an abject failure.

So in summary, the broad policy measures we need to tackle climate change include:

• A carbon price on pollution in the range of $50 to $100 per tonne. 
• 7 star national building energy ratings.  Our current state standards are lame and a dog's breakfast.
• Mandatory energy efficiency standards for appliances in line with european standards
• A national feed-in tariff  to boost investment in large scale 100% renewable energy such as wind and concentrated solar
• Standard distributed local solar energy production plants of remote communities - possible based on the CSIRO parabolic solar dish system
• Major investment in low-carbon public transport systems in both city and rural areas.  This should be mostly rail systems powered by electricity
• Local low-carbon water storage and conservation measures such as rainwater tanks and urban storm water collection to avoid the construction and use of massive energy guzzling desalination plants.
• Protect Australia's remaining old growth forests to keep the carbon they store safe, and allow logged forests to regrow and sequester more carbon.  Shift all timber production to plantations.

Unfortunately, or political system and leaders seem to be mired is a sideshow prize fight about only one issue - a price on carbon.  

Gillard is bad, but Abbott is worse.  His plan to hand about billions of our money (yours and mine) to large corporates without any tangible or effective carbon emissions resulting is a complete sham.

Both Gillard and Abbott really need to lift their game.

Links

• Multi-Party Climate Change Committee - Think Change
• Carbon tax promise has Julia Gillard choking on her words | Herald Sun
• Carbon price compensation: businesses not like households | Crikey
• Gillard plans FY13 carbon price | News | Business Spectator
• Prime Minister Julia Gillard tells Gough Whitlam Oration Labor will never partner with Greens, news.com.au : 
• Bob Brown warns Julia Gillard's attacks on Greens are 'divisive' | Herald Sun 

Is Julia Gillard doing a Beazley?

So now we have the new Labor Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, launching Labor's election campaign less than a week before the election with hardly a mention of climate change - "the greatest moral challenge of our time".

This election has been largely a content and policy free zone.  It has devolved to a game of cat and mouse between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, both of whom have adopted personas quite different from their own.

Gillards rapier wit and forensic precision so often admired in parliament has been replaced by a bland and carefully measured drone.  She doesn't answer questions and stays on message about "moving forwards".

Abbott's bovver boy combative style has been replaced by a forced joviality and an appearance of calmness and control befitting someone who would be prime minister.

Neither are playing their natural game and it shows.  The winner takes all game they are playing is to form government after the election.  To do this they need to win the votes of a small percentage of swinging votesr  (less than 15%) in a small number of marginal electorates - approximately 20 out of 150.

The entire election has been pitched at winning the votes of this very small proportion (less than 5%) of the Australian population - based on feedback from "focus groups" in these electorates.

Rusted on voters are taken for granted -their votes won't shift.

Voters in non-marginal seats are considered irrelevant as their votes will not determine who will win government.

So what about the issues?

Climate change

• Gillard has committed to a "community consensus of 150 randomly selected people".  There will of course be no consensus if at least one skeptic is included, and there is nothing new that will emerge that the Garnaut Climate Change Report has not covered
• Abbot has committed to NOT introducing any price on carbon pollution if he wins government, and to hand out millions of taxpayers funds as corporate welfare to large polluters to "encourage them to reduce their emissions".  This is ridiculous - the role of government is to legislate, not hand out corporate welfare.
• Gillard scores 1 out of 10, Abbott scores 0.  Neither will commit to the year Australia's emissions should peak then fall.
• Emission reductions 0.

Asylum seekers

• Gilllard has "done a Beazley" and aped Coalition (indeed Howard) policy on offshore processing.  This will disenfranchise a lot of Labor voters and drive them to the Greens.  This could a factor that costs Labor the election.  This is moving to the right and to the bottom, not moving forwards
• Abbott's policy is virtually indistinguishable from Gillard's
• Both are dog whistling on this too - dropping hints about "border security" and "Australia's population growth", both of which are completely irrelevant, but not apparently in the minds of those few voters who matter

National Broadband Network (NBN)

• This is one of the few policy areas where there is a discernible difference.  
• Labor is committing to spending $43b on fibre to 93% of homes offering speeds up to 1gbit per second.  Next generation wireless services to 4 per cent of premises and satellite services to 3 per cent will deliver speeds of 12 megabits per second.
• This has a very high cost and provides bandwidth than many people need.
• Abbott is proposing a confusing mixture of cheaper technologies - but it is quite clear he does not know what he is talking about. He has committed to killing the NBN too.
• I think about $20b should be spent on high speed internet - with the priority shifted to rural and regional Australia that currently has poor and expensive services - and the other $20b allocated to clean energy project to transition us off coal

Health

• Gillard wins on this - GP super clinics are a good idea and some additional funding for mental health have been committed too.
• Abbott will kill the GP super clinics.

The outcome will be interesting.  Labor could well lose the election in the key marginal seats, even though they are likely to have a higher overall vote.

Forests
Forest destruction and land clearing accounts for over 8% of Australia's carbon emissions, yet neither Julia Gillard nor Tony Abbott is proposing to do anything about this.  The solution is quite simple - protect our native forests for their carbon stores, biodiversity and water production.   However, the silence from Tony and Julia on this is deafening.

Indigenous Australians
The racist Northern Territory National Emergency Response Bill 2007 brought in by John Howard as an election stunt in 2007 is still in place and supported by Labor.  This legislation is racist as they first had to suspend the Racial Discrimination Act to bring it in.  This suspension is still in force.  Welfare payments are quarantined and indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory are treated differently from everybody else.

It was supposed to be an emergency in 2007, yet in 2010 indigenous affairs have not been mentioned during the campaign.  The gap has not been closed, and needs to be.  Indigenous Australians need to empowered to manage their own affairs, and more funding is required for improved health, housing and employment.

Public Transport
No federal funding is routinely allocated to the States for public transport, unlike roads which are funded 50% federally and 50% from the States.

Consequently, public transport infrastructure has lagged behind and crumbled for over 50 years.

During this election campaign, the Gillard goverment has announced funding for two new urban rail lines that both run through marginal electorates.

• Gillard has pledged $742 million for the long-awaited $1.15 billion Redcliffe rail connection, should Labor be re-elected.
• Gillard has promised to build the long-awaited $2.6 billion rail link between Parramatta and Epping.  This rail line runs through the marginal seat of Bennelong.  This is the biggest single funding announcement of Gillard's campaign so far, with $2.1 billion in federal funds towards the project, with the a state government contribution of $520 million.

Gillard have also pledged up to $20 million for a feasibility study into a fast railway linking Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra and Melbourne.  This after they has previously voted down a bill from the Greens for exactly this, prior to the election campaign.

Will we get a minority government?

I think the best outcome would be hung parliament followed by negotiation to form government with independent MPs such a Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, and possible Adam Bandt from the Greens if he wins the seat of Melbourne.

This would curb the excesses of either major party governing in their own right, with the democratic representatives of other electorates frozen out of government and forced into a largley futile opposition" role.

Perhaps it is time for political parties to be banned - as they mostly don't act in the best interests of Australia and they corrupt the basic principle of democracy by putting there "partly line" at a much higher priority than the local MPs representing their own constituents.

This is an interesting "example" of election advertising from the Gruen Nation program that we have not seen during this campaign.  It provides some food for thought.

An open letter to Julia Gillard PM - please take action on climate change

Subject: Congratulations on becoming Prime Minister - please take action on climate change and forest protection

To: Julia Gillard MP

Dear Julia,

Congratulations on becoming Prime Minister.  I think you will do a great job.  I was extremely disappointed when Kevin Rudd abandoned any effective action on climate change.

Here are some items I suggest you consider, with urgency:

• Negotiate with Greens and at least two Coalition Senators in the Senate to get a carbon tax in place - this would apply across all industries, not just mining, and the funds can be directed towards transitioning to a low carbon economy

• Remove perverse taxes that encourage fossil fuel use - such as car leases that require minimum kilometres to be driven, the diesel fuel rebate, and sundry others

• Allow tax deductions and/or salary packing for people who cycle to work

• Ditch the $2billion+ corporate welfare funding for "Clean Coal" geo-sequestration pipe dreams that defy the basic laws of physics and direct this towards a 100% clean energy program based on concentrated solar with salt storage and wind power.

• Commence planning for a very fast train project to link Adelaide, Melbourne, Canberra, Sydney and Brisbane.

• Introduce national building standards for 6 Star Rated buildings and retrofit of existing building stock (and keep Peter Garrett away from it)

• Protect native forests from logging to keep the carbon they store where it is, secure our water supplies and provide habitat for endangered species. 

• Do not allow the burning of native forest woodchips as a "renewable energy source" - it clearly is not renewable and our forests are worth much more than woodchips.

• Commence an initiative to transition Australia to net zero emissions by 2020 - as outline in the Zero Carbon Australia 2020 Stationary Energy Plan produced by Beyond Zero Emissions

I believe you have an excellent opportunity to lead Australia towards a vibrant zero carbon emissions economy that is sustainable, with our national heritage and environment protected.

Regards, Peter Campbell
Home address supplied