High speed rail; the new Eastern Suburbs Railway line

The Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s announcement of the projected building of a high speed rail network up the East coast including regional centres will come as welcome relief to many traditionalists.  It is believed that it will probably replace the Eastern Suburbs Railway Line in Australian mythology.

For those not familiar with the ESRL, it was a line that was initially proposed in the late 1800s, planned in 1926, started, stopped, and promised at every election thereafter.  As such it became a part of our folklore until 1979 when it was completed by the Wran government, creating many idioms on the way.  Unemployment, for example was referred to as “working on the Eastern Suburbs line.”

Recognising the hole left in the Australian psyche by the lack of a never-never election promise, the Hawke government showed interest in the idea of high-speed rail as a politically viable though uneconomic alternative in the early 80s.  Most governments seeking re-election since then have backed the idea, which raises the possibility that in another thirty years or so, it could become an iconic promise.

At this point it will have to be either acted on or dropped, owing in this day and age to the risk of it becoming a heritage listed promise which would prevent any further action on it.
In the meantime though it will offer generous employment prospects for planners, researchers, study groups, lawyers, and think tanks, keeping them on the gravy train for the foreseeable future.

The lack of any implied commitment to HSR by the Turnbull government, raised concerns among some commentators that the government would rely on the newer, tried and tested pledge to adopt fiscal restraint, balance the budget and pay off the deficit. Economic restraint in the Liberal Party is showing signs of remaining a pipe dream for 50 – 100 years, with an accelerating rate of postponement already apparent. 

You must however respect the PMs desire to stick with tradition and offer the vision of sleepers and rails heading off into the sunset.

We need to be grateful that Hawkie came up with high speed rail rather than our own death star, an idea which is just so 80s.  Death stars, while offering the sort of kudos derived from commitments to spend a billion trillion gazillion dollars, tend to be more impractical than high speed rail. Sooner or later, everyone wants one and they lose their effectiveness when other nations realise that you wouldn't be stupid enough to blow yourself up in order to get your own way. 

This would probably happen sometime after the current crop of politicians leave office.

(UPDATE) The government has denied that this is how the idea got started:

Cormann reaches for his pen and his phone

Cartoon: By Bill Leak  

President Obama has been accused of ruling by decree in our language or to use the US term, by executive orders.  
Under this system a king, emperor, dictator, autocrat, or sundry despot picks up the phone and orders that his will be done.

It seems now that the minister for finance, Mathias Cormann has caught the bug and is using his pen and his phone, (to use the President’s own term) to increase fuel excise without senate approval: 

MOTORISTS are set to pay a $4 billion increase in fuel tax over the next four years despite the Senate’s objections to the controversial budget measure as the Abbott government uses administrative powers to impose the change. 

Finance Minister Mathias Cormann declared the government would adjust the indexation in the belief the change would be legislated in due course, ensuring the revenue could be raised while the Senate argues over the bill. 

The change will take effect from 10 November when the fuel tax will rise from 38.143 cents per litre to 38.6 cents per litre. 

The national average price for unleaded petrol was about 1.52 a litre last week according to the Australian Institute of Petroleum. …

The Liberals and Nationals are playing a dangerous game here if they are relying on Green support to pass this legislation.  While the Greens would welcome any legislation that raised the cost of fuel out of the reach of the poor, they will be in the box seat to move their agenda forward.

They will undoubtedly aim to eliminate the fuel rebate to non-road users, something they have always had in mind.  The fuel tax was originally designed as a user pays system of financing highway construction, although only a small portion goes toward that purpose.  The rest is pissed against the wall and the Greens are smart enough to understand that the LNP are desperate enough to sacrifice the mining and agricultural industries if it is needed to buy votes.

The Liberals have come up with some Gillardesque spin in attempting to blame Shorten in advance for any attempt to block this effort.  They are claiming that if it is not passed, the revenue raised will go back to ‘big oil’ and it will be all his fault.  There is a slight element of truth in this as the tax raised will be paid by oil companies and passed on to consumers.  If it fails to pass, the revenue will go back to those companies, not to the consumers.

It is however, completely dishonest to blame the opposition for a circumstance created by a unilateral decision by the government to start taxing now and waiting for the umpires verdict.

It is worth noting that from the figures above, about 25% of the cost of a tank of fuel goes to the government and they want more.

Senate ‘Q&A’ style panel to investigate Qld government

Or: Beware of Greens bearing gifts

Cartoon: By Paul Zanetti 

About the only thing that inspires any confidence that the Newman government is doing anything right is that crony capitalist and white shoe brigade wannabe, Clive Palmer has an obsessive hatred of it.

After years of being in bed with the LNP and a major donor to it, Clive has spat the dummy after receiving unfavourable decisions on some of his projects. 

While most ex-mistresses settle for writing tell-all books or at least a series of well-paid television interviews, Clive has instead used his diminishing wealth to establish his own political party, which he uses to obstruct the federal government’s agenda and use as a stalking horse against the Newman government.

He has now done a deal with Labor and the Greens to set up an inquiry into the Queensland government: 

... Clive Palmer has been engaged in a bitter and long-running personal feud with Premier Campbell Newman and has now been given a significant weapon to use against him.  It is a loss for the Federal Government which had successfully seen off a previous attempt to establish the inquiry, arguing it was without legal precedent and overrides parliamentary convention. 

Over the next six months the committee will examine Queensland's use of Commonwealth funds, the administration of the state's judicial system, and questions around development and environmental approvals. 

The select committee, which will consist of five members but only one from the Coalition, has a reporting date on or before March 27 next year, very close to the date of the next Queensland election. 

Mr Newman is on holidays but issued a statement calling the inquiry a stunt. His federal counterparts said the inquiry would abuse an established principle that federal and state parliaments stay out of each other's business. 

Senator Eric Abetz, the Leader of the Government in the Senate, said it was part of Mr Palmer's vendetta against Mr Newman. "Basically it's a bitch session about Queensland," Senator Abetz said. …

The composition of the inquiry is very reminiscent of the ABC’s Q&A show in which one member of the right is confronted by three or four lefties plus the moderator.  In this case, the Liberals who have 33 senators have a single representative, Labor (25) have two, the Greens (10) have one, and PUP (3) also have one.

The inquiry was scuttled on an earlier attempt to set it up when the Liberals moved to include the Bligh Labor government’s activities as well.  This one was supposed to avoid such scrutiny.

In further developments, Labor and PUP have found they have been duded by the Greens: 

… The backing of the Greens was crucial to the Palmer United Party’s third attempt to secure a Senate investi­gation into all ­aspects of Queensland Premier Campbell Newman’s Liberal Nat­ional Party government. 

Greens senator for Queensland Larissa Waters denied her party had been caught up in what the Abbott government has dubbed Mr Palmer’s “personal vendetta’’ against Mr Newman. 

“The terms of reference that we’ve had included will ensure that we can look at not just the Newman government’s environmental track record but the dodgy coal-seam gas approvals under the Bligh (Labor) government, and also Mr Palmer’s own activities with his mega mines in the Galilee and his Yabulu refinery on the shores of the Great Barrier Reef,’’ Senator Waters said. 

Yabula is Australia’s highest emitting nickel refinery.  

The Newman government is taking legal advice on the inquiry, and is expected to turn the tables on PUP and use the Senate probe to retaliate and dump on Mr Palmer and Labor. ...

Palmer and Labor would do well to remember the old adage; beware of Greens bearing gifts.

Oh great; we give $21.6 million to Disney, or:

Captain Jack meets the broken window theory

Most of us today are familiar with Bastiat’s broken window theory, where those observing the replacement of a broken pane of glass tend to look on the bright side by thinking of how good it is for the glazier to get the trade.  Bastiat points out though that this ignores the fact that the window owner is left with no gain for his expense, and the cobbler, tailor, or perhaps bookseller who might have benefitted from the trade instead, miss out. 

Keynesian economists though, love broken windows and never cease telling us at the advent of any disaster, just how good all of the resultant repair work will be for the economy.  The Kiwis were said to be the luckiest people in the world after the Christchurch earthquakes: 

Our Treasurer Joe Hockey though, sees no reason to hang around waiting for something bad to happen in order to strip the economy of funds to repair damage.  Joe is ahead of the game to the point where he supports event and project lobby groups in spending on what aint broke.  Krugman is so yesterday.

Instead of spending money on devastation, he wants to piss it away on something fun, like making movies with similar results:

MOVIE giant Disney is being offered a near $22 million treasure chest to bring Johnny Depp’s billion dollar Pirates of the Caribbean franchise to the Gold Coast. 

The Bulletin understands high-level discussions have taken place between US film bosses, Screen Queensland and the Federal Government to bring the lucrative franchise to Warner Bros’ Village Roadshow studios at Oxenford. 

The sweetener being dangled in front of producers of the film, tentatively titled Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales, is a one-off payment of $21.6 million. 

The money, originally offered by the Gillard Government to Disney for director David Fincher’s stalled 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea reboot, is at the centre of talks, with hopes the funds can be transferred to the Pirates production, which is expected to begin shooting early next year.  The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance has also met with Disney.

A film industry insider told the Bulletin discussions had progressed well and that the project was desperately needed for the city’s stalling film industry.  “We really need this movie for the Gold Coast and we are hoping things come together,” the source said. … 

… Gold Coast Tourism boss Martin Winter said securing the filming of a major blockbuster would pay dividends for the city. “The most immediate opportunity would be with the set itself becoming an attraction for people to visit, similar to the ship construction on The Spit for the Chronicles of Narnia film,” he said. 

“However, the long-term benefit to the local economy would clearly be the boost to employment numbers and if we reinforce the industry then it can only be a great thing for the Gold Coast.” …

Effectively, there is little difference between the two ideas; the first being that the diversion of funds to disaster reparations is an economic boon, and the second being that a similar diversion towards an unnecessary project does the same.

Both have visible results to show for the expenditure.  In both cases the lost opportunities of non-government activities in the private sector with the money used for those purposes cannot be assessed.

Industry and regional lobbyists can point to the relatively small amount per capita to be used for this project and the benefits that will accrue to little battlers like Disney and Warner Bros’ Village Roadshow, along with extra wealth for the glitter strip.  The things that might have happened instead elsewhere are invisible, because they didn’t occur.

A better solution

The real injustice of this proposal is that money is taken from taxpayers across the country and funneled into the Gold Coast, only benefitting that area.  If making the movie there really needs to happen here, a scheme that will encourage this yet benefit the wider population would be fairer.

A little imagination, (or in this case whimsy) offers a far more equitable solution to the problem of getting it made here while still spreading the benefit to the wider community.

An approach could be made to Disney offering to use $21.6 million for the following benefits to Australian viewers to encourage them to watch it if it is made here:

• First; Every ticket sold will be rewarded by the government with a free large bucket of popcorn, soft drink, and packet of Jaffa’s, (Do they still roll those down the aisle?) to have while watching the show, and:
• Second; Every rental or download will come with a government gift certificate for a family sized McHappy meal, (or the equivalent from Hungry Jacks, KFC, Subway, etc) along with fries, large coke, and whatever.

While this could cop some criticism from the AMA and associated health Nazis, all of the proposed benefits to the Coast would still come to fruition, and fast food joints across the nation would benefit, creating additional regional employment and generating untold wealth everywhere.

Truly, this represents a win win scenario.

Leyonhjelm doing the right thing for no good reason (or something)

Statists struggle to understand libertarians on those odd occasions where they actually bother to try to get a handle on the thinking behind non-interventionism and personal liberty.

Patrick Stokes, a lecturer in philosophy at Deakin University is an example of this phenomenon.  Patrick seems to think that it is not enough to accept that it is OK to let people do stuff that you might not care to do or might even not like on the grounds that it is non-coercive and doesn’t affect you.  You have to have a good reason to leave people alone in his jaded point of view.

Stokes starts off with the antics of Philip Nitschke in the euthanasia field, then attempts to link this with the LDP’s stance on same sex marriage.  He demonstrates his confusion on the subject matter by trying to link libertarian thinking to the old left/right paradigm: 

This problem isn’t unique to the euthanasia debate. Last week, newly-minted Liberal Democrats senator David Leyonhjelm announced plans to introduce a bill to legalize same sex Marriage. 

As a libertarian, Leyonhjelm has called for lower taxes and a massively reduced role for government. Yet his position on marriage equality aligns him with a policy more closely associated with the political left. … 

… Philosophers such as Richard Mohr have argued that committed same-sex relationships already are marriages in a substantive sense, and the law should simply recognise that.For libertarians (for the most part), the only real substantive good is individual autonomy. 

Leyonhjelm doesn’t argue, as far as I can see, that certain types of relationship have a special, substantive value; he simply thinks, “It is not the role of government to define relationships.” (In which case, we might ask, why should governments get involved in certifying marriage at all?) 

Those of us who support same-sex marriage can probably live with that tension, if it delivers the outcome we want. But the philosophical tension between approaches is still there. 

And the very moral thinness of libertarianism, its refusal to trade in any ethical currency other than liberty, sits uneasily with issues of life and death, where all sorts of other moral considerations are in play. …

There is no explanation offered as to why we should think, “that certain types of relationship have a special, substantive value.”  In an argument for marriage equality, it simply makes no sense to claim that one form of relationship is special, something that those opposing SSM claim as a key point.  Such a claim is counter-productive.

It is nice to know though, that statists arguing the issue as a special case for SSM as some kind of state granted privilege are prepared to hold their noses and accept Leyonhjelm’s support, even if they don’t really like it. 

He then goes on with the following doozy:

One reason death is viewed as normally being a harm to the person who dies is that it deprives us of goods we would have enjoyed had we lived. In a situation where there is nothing left in the patient’s future but pain and loss of dignity, there are no more goods to lose.

For those of us who deal more with the real world rather than academic navel gazing, the biggest reason for death to be considered a harm, is that we don’t get to live longer. 

At this point, he exposes the weakness of his argument under the rather dramatic heading of:

Libertarianism’s moral moonscape 

If you think, as Nitschke apparently does, that the question here is simply about exercising a right to suicide, why should it matter whether someone is terminally ill or not? If someone wants to die, and they’re clear-headed enough to make competent decisions, who are we to interfere with their personal liberty in order to stop them? … 

… When teaching classes on the ethical debate over euthanasia, I’ve found that students often seem to struggle with explaining why it should matter whether the patient is dying (or at least permanently debilitated) or not. Yet from a mercy perspective, it matters very much that there are, in fact, no truly good options left open. …

It sounds like those students have a more consistent view than their teacher.  To assume the right to deny a person the right to die, we are adopting the assumption that we have a right to insist that they live, even against their own wishes.  No explanation of this position is offered.

Assuming the right to refuse the right to die implies a form of ownership over the person involved which is an anathema to all decent civilized people.  The problem most of us have with Nitschke’s position on the recent suicide of a depressed 45 year old is that he didn’t advise him to seek psychiatric advice.

Nitschke is not a libertarian, never was, and never will be.  He is a statist leftist who proved in the Western Australian senate election rerun, that he prefers to support leftist parties, even those who oppose his cause to a libertarian party that in the main, supports his single issue.

In attempting to secure some sort of dispensation from the state in relation to his plea for special interest, he has fluked a position where the LDP has a similar morality based position.  This does not make him a libertarian in any way, shape, or form.

The LDP policy on voluntary euthanasia can be found here. 

WA Potato Marketing Corporation bites the dust

Cartoon: By R May 

It looks like Western Australia is sliding off into anarchy with the removal of another regulator.  The Potato Marketing Corporation appears to be heading towards the chopping block on the recommendation of the Economic Regulation Authority (ERA) apparently at the behest of the Labor opposition.

Fears of rogue potato growers doing whatever they want and street vendors selling illicit potato products to unwary addicts in dark alleys have been dismissed: 

Arguably an anachronism in today's capitalist world, WA's Potato Marketing Act of 1946 - and its subsequent regulator, the Potato Marketing Corporation of WA - trace their history back to the shortages of the Great Depression and post-war food security. 

The corporation not only controls what potato varieties can be grown and sold, but who grows them and how much they are paid. 

It has the power to search premises, confiscate equipment and crops, and prosecute farmers - as rebel southwest potato grower Tony Galati has found over the years after being threatened with legal action for overplanting and trying to sell excess spuds cheaply. … 

… ''The Potato Marketing Corporation and Western Australia's absurd laws have stifled competition and denied choice to growers and consumers,'' Mr McGowan said.  ''No other Australian state has a body that decides what varieties of potatoes can be grown, who can grow them and at what price they can be sold. 

''It should be left to the growers to decide if they will grow a particular variety of potato.''Mr McGowan said the restrictive laws were responsible for some of Australia's highest potato prices and, of the 66 commercial varieties grown around the nation; only 13 were permitted in WA. 

''It would be comical if it wasn't so damaging to WA's economy and consumer and grower choice,'' he said. ...

Marketing authorities and regulations became popular after World War 2, possibly as a reaction to the demise of wartime rationing, fears of a free market renaissance, and a need to find spots for all of those bureaucrats likely to be left with nothing to interfere with.

Both Labor and the Liberal and Country Party, (now National Party or LNP) were very keen on the idea; the difference being that while Labor aimed to control production, distribution, and marketing of products, the conservatives chose to regulate it.  There was little difference in the result.

During the 60s, and 70s, the most heinous crimes you could commit in Queensland on the basis of penalties, were breaches of national Party orderly marketing regulations. 

Newman government backtracks

"In retrospect it becomes clear that hindsight is definitely overrated!" Alfred E. Neuman. (No relation to Campbell)

Cartoon: By R May

In the wake of their second crushing by-election defeat, the Newman government has decided to reverse some of its more controversial, or at least idiotic decisions made in the last couple of years.

It’s sometimes said that the first step to recovery is to admit that you have a problem.  The government seems to be doing this, which is something we should give them credit for.

Their task is made more difficult though, in that they apparently have little idea what the problem really is: 

Mr Newman left the door open to wind back other controversial decisions. …

… “They want us to have a good relationship with the judiciary, they want those sort of arguments to cease and desist and they want the focus of everyone to working for Queenslanders.” 

The Courier-Mail had earlier revealed Cabinet would today discuss scrapping several of the most contentious elements of reforms to Queensland’s corruption watchdog and tough anti-bikie legislation. 

The Queensland Premier spent yesterday briefing senior LNP MPs on his plans after the Government suffered a massive 18.6 per cent swing against it in Stafford. 

It is understood the Government will reintroduce a bipartisan appointments process for the chair of the newly named Crime and Corruption Commission. 

The controversial decision by Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie to remove the bipartisan parliamentary committee’s role in appointments was heavily condemned by former corruption inquiry head Tony Fitzgerald in one of his numerous salvos at the Newman Government. 

Cabinet will also discuss removing some of the harshest aspects of the criminal motorcycle gang legislation that Mr Newman has repeatedly insisted he does not like but were an important weapon in the war against rebel bikies. 

It is also understood Cabinet members have been assured there will be no reshuffle and each will fight on to the election and be tasked with better selling the Government’s achievements. 

A senior Government source last night said Mr Newman had briefed colleagues that the Stafford result showed the Government’s pace and extent of reform had worried Queenslanders and they must now act. …

The problem with the biker laws is not pink jumpsuits, nor isolation of these prisoners as the LNP seems to believe.  The entire act is draconian, from its aim of outlawing the act of associating through to huge penalties for being, or having been a member of an organization since declared criminal.  There were already sufficient laws to do with all aspects of criminality among these groups; making these laws unnecessary.

The idea of 15 – 25 year mandatory prison sentences for being, or having once been, a member of a currently declared organization is an anathema to fair minded Australians, and have no place in a free society.

Asset sales are going to have to be done and should be.  In a modern nation state there is really no reason for the government to run commercial enterprises.  On budgetary issues they have been respectable, although they have not yet produced a surplus.

Since taking office just over two years ago, the Queensland government has been something of a showpiece in how not to do it.  A massive majority seemed to convince the LNP that it was immortal and could act in any way it pleased, and it did.

The massive loss in the Redcliffe by-election earlier this year taught it nothing other than to pay lip service with “We’re listening.”

There is probably little likelihood of a Labor win in next year’s election; that would require a stunning turn-around in a state still suffering from buyer’s remorse from the Labor years. 

The real danger though, is where protest votes from the sizable chunk of voters who find the LNP no better will go. 

Palmer United is the elephant in the room here.  Well funded, widely publicized, under scrutinized, and led by a populist with a pathological hatred of Newman, it’s potential to hold the balance of power and render the state government unworkable should not be underestimated.

It is difficult to understand why a government that is not travelling well in the polls and by-elections would rule out a ministerial reshuffle. 

Newman needs to reconsider this, given that the issues he wants to change are all the products of one minister, Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie. 

Bleijie had two years since his law degree in a provincial law firm doing ‘commercial law’, (read conveyencing work) when he was elected to state parliament.  With the training wheels barely off his work practice, he was made Shadow Attorney General.  It is hardly surprising that this guy’s screw-ups have overshadowed anything that the government has actually done.

Newman really needs to tramp him.

James McGrath; another ‘Libertarian’ senator?

On the basis of Senator James McGrath’s maiden speech he has a lot going for him among libertarians. Some of his views are straight from the Liberal Democrat’s playbook, while others are consistent with our aims:
  
Getting rid of compulsory student union fees isa step in the right direction.  The idea that an organisation be allowed to charge a compulsory fee on those it claims to represent because of their employment or other status is akin to granting ownership of those people or allowing a taxation power over them.
Having a senator with a strong commitment to freedom of speech is a welcome addition to a house that sadly lacks many members who have either an understanding, or real commitment to the concept.  It will be interesting to see how many qualifications he puts on it, given that the LNP tends to be rather PC whipped and timorous on the issue.

His support for the abolition of the federal departments of Health, and Education are basically the same as the LDP case and for the same reasons.  Neither of them actually run a school or hospital and merely intrude on what is a state responsibility.

There are though a number of other departments and bodies that need the axe, the Department of Climate Change, being one that immediately comes to mind, as well as the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.  The first is designed to engage in histrionics on Global Warming, while the latter helps the new generation of carpetbaggers to invest in more expensive green energy that is compulsorily sold off to consumers under a government mandate.

There is no place in a free society for the government picking winners or engaging in social engineering.

This raises the issue of his call to increase the GST by 50% and extend it to cover all purchases including food ‘with compensation for low income earners’.  While the taxes he mentions need to be abolished or reduced, especially payroll tax, slimming down the federal government and passing some of the savings to the states would be a better idea than a tax increase.

The idea of a consumption tax replacing stupid and iniquitous ones like payroll tax is admirable however, these taxes were supposed to be abolished under the original GST proposal, but weren’t. This seems to be rewarding bad behaviour by the states. 

Low-income earners need just as much basic foodstuffs as the rich although perhaps at a lesser quality.  There seems little point in increasing the price by 15%, then compensating them for it.  This merely creates churn, which requires more public servants to administer the scheme.

GST funding is not distributed rationally among states but is rather sent out on the basis of ‘each according to his ability, to each according to his need’, which would have to be reformed for any sort of fairness to exist.

Another problem is the ABC.  While he correctly makes the case for it to be sold or abolished, he claims that it should be done as some sort of penalty for left wing bias.  In an age where there are numerous sources of commercial TV and radio entertainment there seems to be little reason to spend over a billion dollars per year providing a government network to compete with that.

It’s rather irrelevant that it’s left wing; that is merely the consequence of being a state media entity dedicated to providing ‘high brow’ stuff that the ‘common heard’ doesn’t require and is therefore not catered fo by commercial networks.  We don’t need it.

The senate will be better for having this guy in it depending on whether he follows through, or merely votes the party line, good or bad.  

First Australian senator elected on libertarian platform gives his maiden speech

All of Australia’s libertarians are feeling the joy today with the maiden speech of David Leyonhjelm in the senate this afternoon.  We have had to wait for nine months since his election last September, for this moment.

This is the first time in Australia’s history that a libertarian party has elected anyone into federal politics. Here is what he had to say:

This has been the culmination of a long haul for many of us.  From a personal standpoint I have pursued libertarian politics since the mid 70s with the formation of the Progress Party, and later with the Liberal Democratic Party.  A few others have been at it longer, as the Workers Party preceded the Progress Party.

Nonetheless, 40 years is a long wait.  Those years have flown by like a stack of papers caught in the breeze since I first walked into a meeting called by a group that inspired me with their message; that we should control the government, rather than have it control us.

Today might seem like a culmination, but as David says, “There is much to be done.”  And as Churchill said, “This is not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning.”

Lets all work to take control and hand that control back to where it belongs; in the hands of the individual. 

Queensland government arrested under VLAD Act

Image: Qld politicisan, possibly Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie being interviewed by Taskforce Maxima

In a stunning development, police officers from Taskforce Maxima raided a well-known hang-out on the corner of George and Alice Streets in Brisbane and arrested eighty-nine ‘persons of interest’ found there.  All are expected to be charged under the ‘Vicious Lawless Association Disestablishment act as criminal associates.

A spokesman for Taskforce Maxima, Inspector Mark, “Copper” Reid announced that those taken into custody are reasonably suspected of belonging to an organization with a higher than normal rate of criminal convictions and are ‘helping police with their enquiries’.

“This gang, Queensland Parliament,” he said “has only 89 members but in the last twenty years, eight of them; (nearly 10%) have done time for serious criminal offences.” 

“It’s not just small stuff we are talking about here, two were for shagging schoolies, one for extortion, one for corruption and theft, and four for misappropriation of public funds.”  He pointed out that it was almost an embarrassment that while police were sent out on a witch hunt against mainly innocent bikers by this very group, they themselves seem to be the very essence of everything wrong in this state today.

Asked by the media what offences these people were alleged to have committed, Inspector Reid said, “That’s the beauty of a law enacted by an Attorney-General with only two years legal experience as a conveyancing solicitor; it is a crime punishable by fifteen years in pokey, or twenty five for leaders, just for being in the company of persons reasonably suspected of having criminal associations.”

“This makes our job a hell of a lot easier,” he said.

“We thought it would be worth following up on a comment by a Ulysses Club guy we were beating … err interviewing who asked us why we were not looking into parliament house,” he said. 

Civil Liberties spokesman, Perry O’Corman said that while his organization was opposed to overuse of police powers, this lot deserve everything they have coming to them.  “While we strongly object to excessive use of force, pick-handles are too good for these pricks,” he concluded.

Liberal Democrat spokesman Gabriel Buckley commented, “The first sitting of Queensland Parliament was done in the old convict barracks in Queen St, so their new accommodations will be quite appropriate and be in line with a great Queensland tradition.”

Truss; Your duty to democracy, support your ruling class

Acting Prime Minister, Warren Truss seems to be a little miffed with people voting for Palmer United, but doesn’t seem all that fussed with other minor parties.

Speaking about the future for PUP, he claimed that it, like others before it would ultimately fail.  This is a reasonable assumption given the fate of Pauline Hanson and the Australian Democrats. 

At this point though, Truss loses the plot with his claim that voters have ‘an obligation to democracy’ to vote for the three majors (although he only mentions the LNP): 

… He said yesterday those who voted for him [Clive Palmer] in protest were ignoring their obligations to democracy and putting their country at risk. 

Mr Truss, Acting Prime Minister while Tony Abbott is overseas, said the Coalition took its responsibilities seriously and would get on with the job of delivering what was important for Australia. He said other parties could worry about themselves. 

Asked if Mr Palmer's Palmer United Party was just a “flash in the pan”, he said there had always been independent parties. 

“We have had plenty of saviours in the past, like Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter. They all made a little bit of an impact for a while,” he told reporters at the NSW Nationals conference in Queanbeyan. 

Mr Palmer was a big winner at the 2013 federal election, gaining his own seat and three Senate spots.  Ms Hanson roared on to the Australian political landscape in 1996 but was only in federal parliament for a single term. 

Despite big predictions, the vote for the Katter's Australian Party of Mr Katter, a longtime Queensland-based MP, was disappointing at the last election, and Mr Katter's personal vote slumped. 

Mr Truss said there was always a protest vote.  “Sometimes these people will gain support from that element,” he said.  “Those who throw away their vote in some kind of protest are in fact ignoring their obligations to their democracy but also putting their country at risk.”

It is a curious claim that voters have an obligation to democracy that requires them to support their established ruling class.  It is downright bizarre to then go on to claim that failure to do so puts the country at risk.  Of what???

The risk is not to the nation but to the governing triumvirate.  Wazza, like so many other politicians, tends to confuse his own party’s interest with the national interest.

Truss’s problem will not end with the demise of PUP; the vote for Clive is only the symptom of a much bigger issue for the LNP and other majors.  The real problem is that around a quarter of the electorate has had a gutful of the dithering, spendthrift major parties and want someone else to do the job.

Palmer is offering little other than another populist party competing for the ground already covered by the Liberal/ Labor/Greens cartel, but as a policy free zone.  His only appeal to the electorate is that he is not LNP, Labor, or Greens.