Shouts from the desert

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.

There is a standing invitation to candidates for the Federal Electorate of Bennelong, the New South Wales electorate of Epping, and the Hornsby Shire Council, to submit content for inclusion on this site. Such candidates should contact me by telephone.

The name of the site reflects my position as somebody in the moderate range of the political spectrum who has been left behind by the radicalisation of politics. As the major parties have rushed to the right, and the Greens have ascended on the left, a gaping hole has been left in the centre.

My own contributions to this site will reflect my values. Those values are:

1. I am too busy living my own life to tell other people how to live theirs.
2. While my lifestyle is very conventional, I don't want the government or anybody else to tell me how to live my life.
3. The government should leave me alone, unless I have done something unreasonable that genuinely affects others adversely.
4. I am prepared to support others in their efforts to achieve these values, even if their choices are different to my own.
5. I do not fear others who are different. I value differences and the right to individuality.
6. I do not believe religion is a satisfactory reason for making a law. No law can be justified merely because somebody's god says so.
7. I believe we have an obligation to ensure the viability of the environment for future generations.
8. I believe in responsible and sustainable progress towards a fairer society.

I may add to this list over time, because it is likely I have left something out. Until then, I hope my other posts bear out and explain these values.

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).

For people looking for information on the New South Wales Senate Candidates, another blog has investigated them and posted a handy summary. It is a little tongue in cheek in parts, but most of the descriptions are fairly accurate.