Support for Alternative Newspaper?

Several people have expressed interest in the establishment of an alternative newspaper to service the Fraser Coast area... a "good news" paper where the front page headlines are not scandal, crime, violence or Nancy's pet promotion of the month.

Early suggestions for such a newspaper include...

• Bringing a genuinely independent viewpoint on major events happening within our community
• Providing a special focus on educational issues and employment creation
• Allowing all candidates in political contests to freely express their opinion on an equal basis
• Encouraging community groups and not-for-profit organisations to submit newsworthy items, meeting notes and date-claimers
• Actively pursuing positive, wholesome news items
• Being pro-family, pro-good values, rather than constantly promoting "alternative" lifestyles,
• And not competing with the existing printed media as a source for turf guides, horoscope and Dear Aunty trash, and adults-only dating and related advertising.

Any further ideas or thoughts?

Reaction to Previous Blog

Thank you to those who wrote or telephoned supporting the comments I made in my previous blog.

I certainly do not regret anything I wrote leading up to the election, however the bitterness and toxicity of the reactions of a few who felt aggrieved by my views did surprise me a little. I guess accountability and integrity are just irritating words to them. For the information of a few of their friends, I've pulled the knives out of my back and life will go on whether they approve or otherwise.

Turning to the outcome of the election, democracy is a strange invention at times, but democracy Beattie-style is a very curious thing indeed.

It is interesting to note that only one candidate elected to represent us on the Fraser Coast Regional Council achieved more than 50% of the eligible vote.

In fact, on the latest figures posted on the Queensland Electoral Commission website (7/04/2008) for the Mayoral contest, over 56% of eligible voters either said "No" to the successful candidate or were so disinterested that they either forgot to vote, refused to vote or deliberately wasted their vote. Hardly a mandate to get excited about.

For those interested in where all this is headed, the result in some ways mirrors the last State Election held on 9 September 2006, when the ALP managed to secure 59 of the 89 seats (or 66% of the seats), with only 46.92% of the vote.

Some of us are old enough to remember the journalists and Labor hacks who constantly proclaimed the evils of "The Gerrymander" when electoral weightage protected regional, rural and remote areas of the state from the excesses of city-centric government.

Anyone needing a hospital in Maryborough lately, or driving regularly between Hervey Bay and Brisbane, will confirm we simply are not getting our share of funding despite the protestations of Labor sympathisers or our completely ineffective Members of State Parliament. Labor is treating voters outside of the Noosa-Ipswich-Gold Coast triangle with contempt.

On this occasion the outcome was heavily influenced by a natural fear of isolation and disenfranchisement and certainly does not reflect the respective abilities of many of the candidates. Time will tell which ones will be re-elected and which ones will be flushed away when voters have had more time to think things through.


Successful Councillors - Declared Results Summary

Electors at Close of Roll: 61,959
Last Updated Date/Time: 26/03/2008 12:43:38 pm
Percentage of Roll Counted: 87.02%

HOVARD, Barbara 31,705
HAWES, Debbie 29,385
ARTHUR, Julie Ann 27,804
HARRIS, Linda 26,480
McNEVEN, Belinda 25,270
NIOA, Anne 24,431
MUCKAN, Les 24,017
BROOKS, Sue 23,930
O'CONNELL, Gerard Daniel 23,787
DALGLEISH, David 23,159

Think Again

With all the mud flying from the local newspaper and the constant attacks on anyone prepared to speak up or question the lop-sided journalism of that publication, more and more people are clicking on "the blogs" looking for information and ideas. Long live freedom of speech!

My recommendation remains: "TA", not "JA". Think Again! Don't donkey vote or run with the names you perhaps first think of.

We have candidates out there trumpeting their own virtues, spending a mint on glossy fliers, coreflutes and bus advertising, but my vote is not for sale.

The track record of some of these people suggests, if elected, they will sit on the new council doing exactly the same as they have done for the last "x" number of years. While Beattie's Labor government was busy stripping Maryborough's largest medical facility of most of its equipment and senior staff, where was "JA" and her mate "GO'C"?

"JA" and some very prominent doctors in this town sat silent for years not breathing a word to anyone. Indeed, most of our civic notables, from the Mayor down to the most silent of her colleagues, did virtually nothing to stop Maryborough losing essential infrastructure.

"GO'C" has been running around grabbing Chronicle photoshoots ever since he was elected, and was one of the first to sing the virtures of forced amalgamation. Perhaps this was his way of feeling good about doing nothing of any substance to stop the drift of services to the Bay?

So before you rush out to return "JA", "GO'C" and other sitting councillors to even plusher pastures, Think Again!

Ten Suggestions for a Balanced Council

Seems everyone is struggling to come up with ten names to mark on Saturday for people to serve as Councillors on the new Fraser Coast Regional Council.

Everyone has different ideas, of course, but for me the first task, on thinking it all over again, was to cross off sitting Councillors whom I felt were either past their "use-by date" or who had not demonstrated a willingness to genuinely represent their constituents or to speak up on important issues.

Next came those whom I felt were too eager to follow a political agenda when the State government decided to force through the Amalgamation issue, or who clearly do not understand their responsibility to be fully accountable to the community. Some pretty big names disappeared here, but that is the nature of politics. Even the Prime Minister had to go in the end.

I then eliminated a couple of candidates whom I did not personally know, along with a few that I felt were insufficiently prepared for the role or about whom too little was known for the average voter to make a properly informed decision. Then another few whom I felt were "in it" for themselves and not for the good of the community.

Trying to find at least five people from the remaining candidates that did not live in or have dominant affiliations with Hervey Bay proved the most difficult criteria of all, so I looked for a balance of experience and fresh ideas, for candidates whom I believed had empathy for a wide cross-section of people, and for people I believed could make a strong contribution to the future of our region.

The following ten candidates are listed in the order they will appear on the ballot paper.

Gary Jensen - Maryborough businessman and farmer (Fresh blood)
Roger Michael Currie - Well known conservationist (A sharp mind and an independent viewpoint to keep debate open)
Peter Souvlis - Maryborough identity with strong business links in both Maryborough and Hervey Bay (Fresh blood)
John Alan Kingston - Somewhat grumpy, former Maryborough councillor and MP (Keen intellect and a wealth of experience to contribute)
Darren Dickson - Maryborough Meals on Wheels CEO (Hands-on experience and understanding of issues affecting older citizens)
Ernie Paussa - Former journalist (Perhaps a late learner, but someone who understands the media)
Darryl George Stewart - Serving Tiaro councillor (Solid understanding of rural issues, articulate and passionate, and a vocal critic of the Traveston Dam)
Trevor McDonald - Experienced Hervey Bay councillor, intelligent, supportive of community projects
Troy Sullivan - My wildcard entry - Young, and closely involved with youth
Sue Brooks - Experienced Hervey Bay councillor, intelligent, environmentally aware

This team includes three experienced councillors and a former councillor (two from Hervey Bay and two from the other three shires), and six fresh faces to bring new ideas to the table and to break the stale mould of local government that has shackled the growth of Maryborough, distorted the growth of Hervey Bay, and overlooked the needs of the smaller communities within our shires.

Fraser Coast Regional Council Elections 2008

In less than a week we will vote again, this time for a mayor and ten councillors to form the new Fraser Coast Regional Council. Five candidates for mayor, 29 for councillor, and all without electoral divisions.

Not too daunting, if you know most of them and have been keeping your eyes and ears to the ground over the last few months?

But what if the dominant local newspaper seems "hell-bent" on promoting the editor's favourites and starving other candidates of political oxygen? Remember Peter Huth and Chris Foley in 2003? Everybody else was a "wanna-be" or "unsuitable for the task".

Or what if that local newspaper seems to regularly print only one side of a story, or frequently displays editorial prejudice or lack of impartiality? Think Amalgamation. Think Wide Bay Water. Think Strewth! Try http://strewthreloaded.wordpress.com/

Merging four shires' individualities and unique qualities into one was always going to be an interesting exercise, whether or not we agreed that it was even necessary in the first place, but finding ten suitable people to form the first super council, plus an impartial and honest person to serve as mayor, when the average citizen probably does not know any more than about half the nominees is going to mean a lot of spoiled ballot papers on the day.

But before we go looking for our ten, what are we actually looking for?

Perhaps a selection of candidates with some of the following qualities would give us a good blend of skills and talents with which to forge this new alliance of shires:

• Demonstrated business accumen and understanding of financial prudence (and not just a piece of paper with some academic qualification noted),
• An understanding of pressing environmental issues,
• A blend of Local Government experience and fresh ideas,
• Depth of knowledge of local issues,
• An understanding of rural issues and challenges,
• A genuine empathy for community groups (not just fete attenders and monument builders),
• An ability to think independently, rather than simply following the mob or a Party line,
• Intellectual capacity (Some of the candidates are having great difficulty in stringing ten words together and have no idea that spelling and punctuation are still important prerequisites to a professional career)... And, most critically,
• A willingness to be both transparent and accountable to the public for their actions.

I'm sure you have crossed quite a few candidates off already. "Seventeen years on Council" but without a thing to show for it except plaques all over town, does not make a person fit to be re-elected. Nor does attending every fete in town, but betraying the community groups that have supported you, establish the bonafides of trust necessary to expect continued support from a disappointed public.

Let us start with the candidates for Councillor...

Here is the list advised by the ECQ (Electoral Commission Queensland), in the order they will appear on the ballot paper:

• McNEVEN, Belinda
• OLUJIC, Richard
• HAWES, Debbie
• FELTON, Russell
• JENSEN, Gary
• BANKS, Brendon Arthur
• O'CONNELL, Gerard Daniel
• CURRIE, Roger Michael
• MACKELLAR, Jim
• CAMPBELL, Bob
• SOUVLIS, Peter
• KINGSTON, John Alan
• DICKSON, Darren
• HARRIS, Linda
• MUCKAN, Les
• PHILIPPI, Walter
• PAUSSA, Ernie
• HANSEN, James
• ARTHUR, Julie Ann
• STEWART, Darryl George
• HOVARD, Barbara
• DALGLEISH, David
• NIOA, Anne
• SMITH, Kevin
• McDONALD, Trevor
• SULLIVAN, Troy
• HUNTER, Allen
• BROOKS, Sue
• KUHN, Shayne
  

One of the great problems we face in finding the right blend of people is making sure that outlying areas are not forgotten post-15 March. With the population dominance of Hervey Bay it could be very difficult for the present Shires of Woocoo and Tiaro to have any sort of representation at all on the new Council. (It is interesting that four of the five mayoral candidates come from Hervey Bay.)

Ideally, we need at least five councillors from outside Hervey Bay, plus a fair mayor as chairman, to ensure balance in decision making from the new council, or at the very least, people who have demonstrated an empathy for a broader constituency than just the coastal city. Voting proportionately favouring the city of Hervey Bay as some have advocated as "fair" will simply ensure little or no representation for ratepayers from the present Tiaro and Woocoo Shires.

And we need at least five honest people, plus a completely impartial and balanced mayor, to have a workable council that will listen to the needs of the community and act on behalf of ratepayers without selling out to property developers or other sectional interests.

The Labor government had its own agenda in forcibly restructuring local government in Queensland, so perhaps the first candidates for thinking people to eliminate are the two who have supported the government from the outset... Gerard O'Connell and Belinda McNevin. These two are clearly Labor Party idealogues (stooges, if you like) prepared to do whatever the State Labor Party wants them to do, even if is against the wishes of the majority of their constituents. Good looks and youthful charm do not make up for being either gullible or ignoring the wishes of people.

And while you have your pencils out, cross off the two candidates presently serving on the Woocoo Shire Council who have betrayed their ratepayers by rushing out to fill up the pockets of their former mate and CEO before an independent abitrator could look at all the facts and hand down a fair judgement. These people need to understand we want them to work for us not their grubby little mates. (It is interesting that the only two Councillors who reportedly voted against paying out Joe Hill have both decided not to run for the new Council.)

You can also cross off the present councillors boasting about all their years of service when, in reality, they have little to show for all their meeting fees other than an assortment of plaques scattered around their neighbourhood from some official opening of someone else's achievement or of a public monument of dubious value. Sitting on all sorts of committees and never making decisions, or hiding the decisions that were made, does not qualify a person for election or re-election to public office.

On the other hand, there are several candidates whom I would think would be "must haves", because of the depth of wisdom and knowledge that they could contribute to the new council. Here we would immediately think of Dr John Kingston, the former Maryborough City Councillor, turned One Nation MP, turned Independent MP for the State Seat of Maryborough.

Another would be present Hervey Bay Councillor Sue Brooks, frequently on the outer with her present colleagues for her willingness to listen to the public rather than to property developers and others.

Councillors must be able to think through the issues of the day, clearly and decisively, without fear of or favour from political masters or vested interests.

Councillors must be prepared to act in the best interests of their constituents and must be comfortable with being fully accountable for their decisions and actions. Seventeen years of attending meetings and being paid well to do so, does not necessarily make a person a good representative of the organisations to which they belong or of the community they are supposed to be serving.


For a Mayor... I'm looking for fresh blood, an independent thinker, a person able to broker a balance between protecting the environment and developing the potential of this beautiful part of Queensland, someone with integrity and untainted by the decisions of past public life...

...MORE SOON


Full responsibility for the political opinion and assessment above is taken by the author. Authorised and published via the internet by Bevan Collingwood, 659 Teddington Road, Teddington, Queensland (presently a part of the Woocoo Shire).

The Jaws of Defeat

COMMENT - 27 November 2007

The extent of the Rudd victory on Saturday perhaps surprised some in Coalition ranks, however the prophetic writing had been on the wall for a long time.

Former Nationals leader Mark Vaile has apparently blamed "the desire for a change" for the government's defeat. He was quoted as saying, "There seemed to be a sense of just wanting to change for change's sake in Australia" (Melissa Jenkins, AAP, 26/11/07).

To a certain extent there is truth in that statement, however, it would be too easy to sweep reality under the carpet and walk away from the real causes for the Coalition's defeat.

Over a period of 11 years Australians had become quite cynical of the government's motivations and goals.

Firstly, we were never ever going to have a GST. During the 1996 campaign then-Opposition Leader John Howard issued a four-sentence statement saying, "Suggestions I have left open the possibility of a GST are completely wrong. A GST or anything resembling it is no longer Coalition policy. Nor will it be policy at any time in the future. It is completely off the political agenda in Australia."

The Coalition introduced their "tax reforms" soon after the 1998 Federal election, and the GST, so soundly rejected when proposed by banker-turned-politician Dr John Hewson in 1993, became law.

This clearly was a breach of trust on the part of the government and one which should have brought retribution at the ensuing election. However, the government managed to escape the wrath of Australians by focussing Australia's attention on three quite unexpected events in the weeks leading up to the election: the MV Tampa incident in August, the terrorist attacks on the New York Twin Towers a few weeks later and the arrival in early October of The Olong (referred to as "SIEV-4" in official circles; "SIEV" being short for "Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel") .

When the government's lies about the "babies overboard" were exposed, Defence Minister Reith lost his career but the government was safely re-elected on 10 November 2001.

On 17 September 2002, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer addressed the Australian Parliament at length on "Iraq" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction". Seven days later, the British government released a dossier on "Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction", and the "threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime". A few weeks later, in November 2002, United States President George W. Bush called for a "coalition of the willing to disarm" Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

The rhetoric continued until March 2003 when the Howard government announced that it was committing Australian troops to support the invasion of Iraq. Prime Minister Howard said it was "directed towards the protection of the Australian national interest" (Sydney Morning Herald, 18/03/2003).

Bush and Howard and the British PM Tony Blair, unable to get United Nations support for the invasion, continued to talk about weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the great need to restore democracy in Iraq. No such weapons have ever been found and Iraq is still locked in dangerous conflict with no end in sight.

Only this month, former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan was reported as saying, "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil" (Graham Paterson, The Sunday Times, 16/11/2007).

According to Great Britain's Sunday Herald newspaper, the decision to attack Iraq had already been made by the United States long before September 11, 2001. "President Bush's Cabinet agreed in April 2001 that 'Iraq remains a destabilising influence to the flow of oil to international markets from the Middle East' and because this is an unacceptable risk to the US 'military intervention' is necessary" (Official: US oil at the heart of Iraq crisis, Sunday Herald, 6/10/2002).

In hindsight, it seems the entire conflict was simply a ruse to secure (and advance) United States oil interests in the Middle East (Iraq is reportedly the second largest source of oil on planet Earth) and to enhance the considerable business interests of President Bush himself, as well as those of his key supporters.

It is interesting to note that for the first time in United States history, the President, Vice-President and Secretary of State are all former executives from the oil industry. Bush and his Vice-President Dick Cheney still have substantial interests in oil. Cheney's company Halliburton, an oil service company, has been awarded lucrative contracts by the United States government in post-war Iraq.

Condoleeza Rice, "after serving in the first Bush administration from 1989 to 1992, was placed on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation and served as its principal expert on Kazakhstan, where Chevron holds the largest concession of any of the international oil companies" (http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/rice/rice.html).

Indeed, there has been a very active pro-war lobby of influential figures who continue to benefit handsomely from the ongoing conflict in Iraq.

Polling clearly showed many Australians did not support becoming involved, but the government pressed on. Australians were taken for granted yet again and treated as gullible fools by the Howard government.

But the final straw for the average Aussie was the arrogance of a government pumped up by its capture of the Senate in the 2004 election. It failed to learn from either Australia's history or its Constitution.

The Senate was intended as a House of Review, not as a rubber-stamp for ill-considered government policy or sectional interests.

Despite very clear warnings from many in the community, the government pressed ahead with its reforms of the industrial relations system and drove a wedge deep into the electorate.

The unions, facing declining membership and good economic times, saw this as their opportunity to reassert themselves as the guardians of Australian working conditions. They started a very intense and expensive public awareness campaign against the government.

The government foolishly thought they could exploit the links between Labor and the unions, but in the end it was only Labor who appeared to be concerned about the loss of workers' rights and conditions and this struck a very raw nerve with the average Aussie.

Along the way, there was an assortment of other distractions for a government that seemed to be losing its discipline and its focus on serving the people. For the last two or three years, the government wandered from issue to issue seemingly unable to project a clear message on any one of them. These included:

• The sale of Telstra and the continuing public stouch with its directors over which direction to take telecommunications. This allowed Labor to put forward an alternative plan, which although flawed, kept the government on the back foot.
• The government's failure to hold any of its ministers accountable for the AWB fiasco and its irregular wheat dealings with Iraq.
• The government's failure to act decisively following the arrest of Australian citizen and alleged terrorist collaborator David Hicks. For more than five years Hicks was held without trial at the notorious Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba, amidst constant accusations of torture and inhumane treatment of inmates.
• The government's erosion of civil liberties as evidenced by its handling of the arrest of Indian-born Dr Mohamed Haneef on rather flimsy grounds and the subsequent revoking of his work visa. This was seen as a cynical exercise to use the threat of terrorism to evoke support for the government in the lead up to an election.
• The government's failure to understand and counter the influence of the global warming lobby.
• The government's inability to steer the debate with respect to Gunn's environmentally sensitive pulp mill for Tasmania.
• The failure of the Health Minister to show up on time for his most important press event of the campaign.
• The unfathomable stupidity of Liberal supporters in the seat of Lindsay, printing and distributing misleading and provocative election fliers.
• And the corker of them all, the ongoing petulence of Treasurer Peter Costello and his band of supporters within the government itself. The childish cage-rattling of the Member for Higgins, in his craving to be Prime Minister, when he did not even have the support of his Liberal Party colleagues to mount a challenge to John Howard's leadership, proved invaluable to the Opposition in its quest to undermine the government. Costello's decision to abandon his quest for leadership of the Liberals following the government's defeat has not only thrown the Party into confusion and disarray but reinforces the widely held view that he was really not interested in what he could do for Austalia but what The Lodge could do for his ego.

Unfortunately, with so many little fires burning, the government was simply unable to regain the momentum it desperately needed to hold onto government.

House of Representative Preferences - Election 2007

LETTER TO THE EDITOR - 15 November 2007

Dear Editor

There seems to be some confusion regarding the two different ballot papers we will be given on election day. Ken Kerr asks federal election candidates in Wide Bay and Hinkler to say who will get their preferences (FCC 15/11/07).

Unlike voting above the line for Senate candidates, voters are required to consecutively number every square on their House of Representatives ballot paper, beginning with the candidate of their choice.

As voters in a democratic society, it is our responsibility and privilege to number our ballot papers according to our own judgment and beliefs. The How to Vote fliers distributed on election day, which usually reflect how the candidates think we should vote, ought not to persuade us one way or another. Indeed, they are contrary to the very spirit of democracy.

Firstly, they try to rob us of our democratic right to preference candidates in whatever order suits us. Secondly, they encourage laziness by offering an instant solution to the need to make an intelligent judgement based on knowledge. And thirdly, they are an atrocious waste of paper and resources.

The simple answer is, the candidates do not decide the preferences. We do.