Shouts from the desert

In council elections, we have one advantage we do not in state and federal elections. In the council elections, the electoral commission gives the candidates a candidate information form, which is published on the electoral commission's web site, to tell us a little bit about the candidate - who they are, what they believe in, and why we should vote for them.

In an election where it is likely there is to be a landslide, it is important to vote for combinations in the upper house that can act as a check on government.

In the upper house this election, there are 3 viable choices, the John Hatton Group (Group C), Save Our State (Group E) and the Australian Democrats (Group L).

In the case of the Australian Democrats, Arthur Chesterfield-Evans is back and is the lead candidate on the ticket.

Note that in state elections, you can use preferences (number 1, 2, 3 and so on) above the line, so you can put these three in whatever order you want.

My analysis this time will be brief, and not just because this election seems to be a foregone conclusion. This Saturday in Epping we have 6 candidates, being:

1. Emma Heyde, Greens
2. Greg Smith, Liberal
3. John Kingsmill, Christian Democrats
4. Victor Waterson, Independent
5. John Thomas, Family First
6. Amy Smith

I am going to start with the quick eliminations - candidates who in my view simply are not an option, with very brief reasons:

There is an amendment to the Social Security Act 1991 proposed for debate in Federal Parliament next week. This is one of many changes combined under the Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2011.

Welcome to the successor site for "Your Voice", which I have named "Shouts From the Desert". I have kept the graphics colour scheme and functionality unchanged, but as I was no longer able to keep up with all the spam being submitted to the site, I was forced to turn off the ability for others to submit stories or comments. As such, the site going forward will be predominantly for expressing my views, or for invited guests to express their views.

Due to an overwhelming volume of spam contributions to this site (nearly 5,000 spam story submissions, and hundreds of spam comments) since the federal election), I am no longer able to keep up with the volume. Unfortunately this means I can no longer accept comments or storage submissions from the public.

As this will mean that the "Your Voice" theme will no longer be appropriate, I am also rebadging this site. It will still be accessible at the old URL, but will now have a new one at politics.troy.rollo.name.

Calls by Senator George Brandis for the Government to take action to strip Hicks of profits from his book involve some risks that Senator Brandis might not have considered. Senator Brandis has suggested two approaches - one involving the Proceeds of Crimes Act, and another involving a condition on Hicks' plea bargain with the United States that he assign profits from any book to the Australian Government.

Researching something else, I came across the following in State Hansard:

While the election of a candidate in Bennelong on the back of sporting fame rather than merit is sorely disappointing, the national result (assuming it does not change after counting of postal and declaration votes) is that independents will decide which side gets to form a government. That is encouraging, since it means the system can get a chance to work the way it is supposed to for a change.

On reviewing the preferences lodged for above the line voting in New South Wales, I cannot find any satisfactory set of preferences. Of course that may be in part because I cannot identify any group among them that I think should have the balance of power in the Senate (and I would prefer to not put either Liberal or Labor first).