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.

Fred Nile calls for dress code

Cartoon: by R May 

Australia’s wowser in chief, Fred Nile is having a second crack at banning the burqa, or at least preventing the covering of the face in public.   He doesn’t mention the terms, burqa or Muslims in his bill and it will be interesting to see how this affects brides at traditional Christian weddings.

Fred is a man who knows what he hates and believes that all things he detests need to be prohibited via the auspices of the great and good benevolent state which, under his gentle guidance knows what is best for all of us.

He will though, allow us to wear ski masks in a blizzard, but only if it becomes fashionable: 

He says the measures come at an "opportune" time after Wednesday's arrest in Queensland of two men allegedly linked to terrorist groups in Syria. 

"We also face the new Islamic State (IS) terrorist threat, whose black uniforms for both men and women include face coverings to prevent identification," he told the upper house.Labor MP Amanda Fazio said the measures were "anti-Islamic" and had more to do with Mr Nile's bid for re-election in March. … 

… Under Mr Nile's plan, a person who covers their face in public would face a $550 fine and a person who forces someone else to cover their face would be hit with a $1100 penalty. 

The plan allows faces to be covered under certain conditions, such as during a parade or if "Sydney is suddenly hit by a blizzard and ski masks are the latest fashion", the MP said. … 

… John Blaxland, an intelligence and security expert at the Australian National University, said authorities already had powers to ask for face coverings to be removed.  He said Mr Nile's plan was unlikely to be supported by the security community. …

It is uncertain why the time is “opportune because of the arrest of two men with terrorist links.”  None of the reports on the incident indicate that either of them was wearing a burqa at the time.

It is difficult to see this as anything other than an attempt to capitalize on anti-Islamic sentiment using their traditional dress as an excuse.  We shouldn’t fall for the PC line that anti-terrorism measures are by nature anti-Islamic, (we have yet to see a Lutheran or Baptist suicide bomber) but banning religious symbols does nothing to improve our security.

Bob Day; “enemy of the state”

Image: Bob Day, Weatherill’s nominee for first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Since the demise of Leonid Brezhnev and later the Soviet Union, the term, ‘enemy of the state’ has largely gone out of fashion.  While there are occasional references to it from regimes like North Korea, and Zimbabwe, its use in the west is virtually zero.

South Australian premier Jake Weatherill has resurrected it though with his reference to SA Senator, Bob Day as an enemy of the state over his opposition to interstate tax transfer payments: 

… Mr Weatherill describes the­ ­fellow South Australian as an “enemy’’ of the state and a “lost cause’’.

“Senator Day wants to cut more deeply than even Tony Abbott wants to cut,’’ the Premier told a Senate select committee on health yesterday. 

“Senator Day wants to sell out South Australia to the Western Australians and hand over $1 billion of our GST payments. Senator Day is an enemy of South Australia. I don’t need to meet with him.’’ 

Senator Day hit back, saying the Weatherill government just wanted to “spend, spend, spend’’. 

“The Premier shouldn’t come to Canberra just to listen to those who will tell him what he wants to hear, but to those with initiatives to help South Australia,’’ he said. …

Weatherill is being dishonest here in his claim that Bob supports ‘handing over $1 billion of South Australia’s GST payments’ to Western Australia.  The reality is that for every dollar contributed by SA in GST, it receives $1.29 back, the majority of the additional sum coming from Western Australia.

WA on the other hand, receives only $0.38c per dollar back from its dollar, soon to be reduced substantially.

The money Weatherill is talking about is not South Australia’s; it is the proceeds of an interstate welfare arrangement based on the idea of from each according to his ability to each according to his need.  This may be the origin of Weatherill’s ‘enemy of the state’ nonsense.  Perhaps Jake will use some of that Western Australian and New South Wales money to establish a reeducation facility for Bob.

Whatever happened to the good old-fashioned “capitalist (or imperialist) running dog?

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. 

Leyonhjelm inspires another cartoonist

Giving inspiration to cartoonists can be a mixed blessing, frequently a negative one, even a brutal experience.  Still, if it is a good likeness, your name is spelt right, and whatever it is highlighting is not a really bad, it can be as good as a big advertising budget for getting your name out there.

LDP Senator, David Leyonhjelm has come off very well, getting the cover of The Spectator Australia on his election.

It is understood that the original is proudly displayed in his office.

Recently he was seen commenting on how we have a government he likened to Godzilla, a reasonable assessment of the enormous burden of the state on the population with its attendant pernicious imposition of itself into every aspect of our daily lives as well as our wallets in order to fund its depredations.

This appears to have inspired well known cartoonist Stephen Zeg Gunnell (Zeg) to come up with his offering on the subject, which rather than Godzilla uses the theme of David and Goliath to illustrate this situation and David's role in opposing it.

 

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.

“None of these candidates wins in Nevada

There has been a major embarrassment for the Nevada Democrats in their primary for Governor, with ‘None of these candidates’ winning the poll.   In fact, it wasn’t even close, NOTA getting 29.96%, and the leading candidate only pulling 24.9%.

Libertarian Republican is reporting that only one candidate beat NOTC in any county, his home one, and by a narrow margin. 

Unfortunately, this does not mean that there will be no Democrat standing in November, nor does it requite a new ballot, the second placed candidate will be nominated to stand: 

"None of the Above" won with 29.96% of the vote. Nevada was the first state to institute a “none of the above” line to its ballot in 1975, as a way for voters to protest weak, unqualified candidates. 

Senator Harry Reid, who runs the Democrat party in Nevada with an iron fist, told reporters earlier this year, that the candidate to run against the popular Republican Governor Brian Sandoval, would be "a respectable Democrat and someone that people know." … 

… Second place went to Robert Goodman, a retired state economic development commissioner, who got 24.9% of the vote. Since "none of the above" can't win under state law, virtual unknown, Goodman will be the nominee.

There is probably little point in standing a Democrat there given the extreme embarrassment associated with the ballot with their candidate clearly not meeting the expectations of the electorate.  His acceptance speech should probably start with, “Boy, is my face red.”

Libertarians have long favored the idea of a ‘None of these candidates’, or ‘none of the above’ option in ballots to allow voters the option of letting the parties know that they are dissatisfied with the quality of the candidates on offer.

Parties tend to promote hacks or shills who can be relied on to toe the party line, good, or bad, while voters have to put up with whichever idiot is the least worst option for the term of the elected body.  The libertarian position though, is that in the event of NOTA winning, a new election should be called with those candidates excluded, or that the position should be left vacant, or unfunded.

The then Australian libertarian party, the Progress party first called for this option in 1980 when Viv Forbes made the following statement: 

“Election ‘illusion’,” The Canberra Times, April 21, 1980, p. 9.

The Progress Party yesterday called for an amendment to the Electoral Act to allow voters the choice of “none of the above” in all Federal, State and local elections. 

The national secretary of the party, Mr Viv Forbes, said that until voters could say “no” to all candidates, the voting system was an illusion of free choice. 

“To many people at the ballot box, the decision is as significant as the choice between arsenic and rat poison,” he said. 

“If a significant percentage of people vote ‘no’ to all candidates, it would indicate massive public disapproval of the policies of them all.”