The last days of an election campaign are a mixture of thoughts for what has been done and panic for what is still to be done.
I can only speak for myself, but I can't help but look back over the last six weeks of electioneering from the leaders of our two main parties and wonder 'what was that all about anyway?'
Unlike the 2007 election and others besides, there has been a distinct lack of vision expressed by either party. Sure, they've packaged up their bread and circus type annoncement with grand motherhood statements but they don't speak to me at all about where we're headed as a nation.
On Sunday morning we will probably know who will lead our nation for the next three years. It seems likely that, beit ALP or The Coalition, that the Greens will be a constant thorn in the side of government.
I've said it before, but it's worth a reminder: the ALP/Green pact will probably deliver the Greens the balance of power int he Senate and that, under an ALP Government, we can be almost certain that Rainbow Labor and the Greens will be pushing Gillard hard for a free vote on same-sex marriage.
There are many reasons why a vote for the DLP on Saturday is important, protecting Marriage must surely be the highest.
At this, the eleventh hour, think clearly and soberly about our nation's future and cast your vote carefully.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
DLP SA Press Release on Marriage
MEDIA RELEASE
GILLARD NEEDS TO COME CLEAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The Gillard Government has been attacked for sending mixed messages about its support for traditional marriage.
SA DLP Senate Candidate Paul Russell responded to comments by Labor heavyweight Graham Richardson, made on the ABC’s Q & A program on Monday night.
“Ms Gillard has stated her personal opposition to same-sex marriage, but with the likelihood that the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate after August 21, the ALP leader needs to let all Australians know if she will hold her colleagues to the supposed party line,” said Mr. Russell.
“The Prime Minister’s personal views are simply not enough. Graham Richardson’s comments that ALP support for same-sex marriage is ultimately inevitable make that perfectly clear.”
“Richardson’s remark that Penny Wong would successfully agitate for same-sex marriage highlights that Gillard’s pledge in support of traditional marriage rings hollow,” Mr. Russell added.
The DLP has called on all Labor-minded voters to abandon support for the Green / ALP machine and support a real Labor Party with traditional labor and family values.
The DLP is currently represented in the Victorian State Parliament and is seeking to return to the Senate. Candidates are standing in every state at the Federal Election.
For further comment, contact Paul Russell on 0407 500 881
GILLARD NEEDS TO COME CLEAN ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
The Gillard Government has been attacked for sending mixed messages about its support for traditional marriage.
SA DLP Senate Candidate Paul Russell responded to comments by Labor heavyweight Graham Richardson, made on the ABC’s Q & A program on Monday night.
“Ms Gillard has stated her personal opposition to same-sex marriage, but with the likelihood that the Greens will hold the balance of power in the Senate after August 21, the ALP leader needs to let all Australians know if she will hold her colleagues to the supposed party line,” said Mr. Russell.
“The Prime Minister’s personal views are simply not enough. Graham Richardson’s comments that ALP support for same-sex marriage is ultimately inevitable make that perfectly clear.”
“Richardson’s remark that Penny Wong would successfully agitate for same-sex marriage highlights that Gillard’s pledge in support of traditional marriage rings hollow,” Mr. Russell added.
The DLP has called on all Labor-minded voters to abandon support for the Green / ALP machine and support a real Labor Party with traditional labor and family values.
The DLP is currently represented in the Victorian State Parliament and is seeking to return to the Senate. Candidates are standing in every state at the Federal Election.
For further comment, contact Paul Russell on 0407 500 881
Monday, July 26, 2010
Time to actively support Traditional Marriage
I found myself somewhat in disbelief the other evening as I watched Greens Senate Leader, Bob Brown being interviewed on a late night TV program.
We all should know that the Greens actively support same-sex marriage. Indeed, Greens SA Senator Hanson-Young sponsored a same-sex marriage bill that failed in the last parliament.
What surprised me by Bob Brown's statement that night was his identification of same-sex marriage as one of the top policy priorities for his party under the hackneyed phraseology of 'ending discrimination in marriage' (or some such).
Like many of my colleagues, I've long noted that the Greens aren't simply a feel-good, tree-hugging environmental party, but I never really expected that they'd be so bold as to put this 'other agenda' out there in policy land front-and-centre.
They must believe that same-sex marriage is a policy winner for them - that's the only conclusion I can come to. Into the bargain, they must also believe that, even with voters who don't actively support this policy, that it's not a turn off.
If this is so, and if their premise is indeed that and, more significantly, if they are correct, then Marriage as we know it is definitely under direct threat from the Green ALP Alliance.
But Julia Gillard has said that she doesn't support same-sex marriage so what's the worry? It is indeed a worry when you consider political reality.
If the Greens gain the balance of power in their own right in the Senate after this election (a distinct possibility) then they are obviously in a very strong negotiating position. It is well within the bounds of possibility and, perhaps, even an inevitability, that the Greens would bargain same-sex marriage as a trade off for supporting some other ALP government legislation.
But Julia said... yes, but funny things happen when parties horse trade. I believe that, when the Greens re-introduce same-sex marriage legislation in the new parliament, Ms Gillard will re-affirm her opposition to it - but offer her party members a conscience vote on a private member's bill. (remember that both major parties organised party votes against the last bill)
There's no telling what the Coalition might do but my feeling is that they'd stand against same-sex marriage as a party (even though there are clearly those in their ranks that would privately support such a move).
Notwithstanding this possibility, there may yet not be a majority in either house for such a bill. But having a major party open the debate up to a matter of conscience means its simply a matter of time. Progressives like the Greens and those on the Left of Labor know that the Fabian philosophy of incrementalism will bring them success eventually and I don't think it would take very long at all.
This election may very well be a last stand.
We all should know that the Greens actively support same-sex marriage. Indeed, Greens SA Senator Hanson-Young sponsored a same-sex marriage bill that failed in the last parliament.
What surprised me by Bob Brown's statement that night was his identification of same-sex marriage as one of the top policy priorities for his party under the hackneyed phraseology of 'ending discrimination in marriage' (or some such).
Like many of my colleagues, I've long noted that the Greens aren't simply a feel-good, tree-hugging environmental party, but I never really expected that they'd be so bold as to put this 'other agenda' out there in policy land front-and-centre.
They must believe that same-sex marriage is a policy winner for them - that's the only conclusion I can come to. Into the bargain, they must also believe that, even with voters who don't actively support this policy, that it's not a turn off.
If this is so, and if their premise is indeed that and, more significantly, if they are correct, then Marriage as we know it is definitely under direct threat from the Green ALP Alliance.
But Julia Gillard has said that she doesn't support same-sex marriage so what's the worry? It is indeed a worry when you consider political reality.
If the Greens gain the balance of power in their own right in the Senate after this election (a distinct possibility) then they are obviously in a very strong negotiating position. It is well within the bounds of possibility and, perhaps, even an inevitability, that the Greens would bargain same-sex marriage as a trade off for supporting some other ALP government legislation.
But Julia said... yes, but funny things happen when parties horse trade. I believe that, when the Greens re-introduce same-sex marriage legislation in the new parliament, Ms Gillard will re-affirm her opposition to it - but offer her party members a conscience vote on a private member's bill. (remember that both major parties organised party votes against the last bill)
There's no telling what the Coalition might do but my feeling is that they'd stand against same-sex marriage as a party (even though there are clearly those in their ranks that would privately support such a move).
Notwithstanding this possibility, there may yet not be a majority in either house for such a bill. But having a major party open the debate up to a matter of conscience means its simply a matter of time. Progressives like the Greens and those on the Left of Labor know that the Fabian philosophy of incrementalism will bring them success eventually and I don't think it would take very long at all.
This election may very well be a last stand.
Hip Pocket to take a hit under ALP
Sometimes I miss the little gems as I scan the daily paper. Often it's my wife, Anne, who picks up these gems in the smaller articles. Perhaps she reads at a more leisurely pace - or maybe she's a better reader generally, I'm not sure.
Page 11 of last Friday's Adelaide Advertiser held one such story. Under the headline: HEALTH INSURANCE voters could pay extra, the article described how, under a Green/ALP alliance, private health insurance would rise by $1500 per annum and university students would be slugged a $250-00 "levy" (when is a levy NOT a tax) to pay for campus childcare and sports services.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, be careful what you vote for. While not every Australian is in a private health fund, an increase of $1500 will most surely reduce that number putting extra pressure on the public system and increasing public waiting lists. The Student 'levy' for the sake of childcare and sports is, in reality, a reintroduction of Compulsory Student Unionism by stealth and something that all reasonable people should reject as anarchic and just plain wrong!
Why didn't we hear about this in the 'great' debate!
Page 11 of last Friday's Adelaide Advertiser held one such story. Under the headline: HEALTH INSURANCE voters could pay extra, the article described how, under a Green/ALP alliance, private health insurance would rise by $1500 per annum and university students would be slugged a $250-00 "levy" (when is a levy NOT a tax) to pay for campus childcare and sports services.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, be careful what you vote for. While not every Australian is in a private health fund, an increase of $1500 will most surely reduce that number putting extra pressure on the public system and increasing public waiting lists. The Student 'levy' for the sake of childcare and sports is, in reality, a reintroduction of Compulsory Student Unionism by stealth and something that all reasonable people should reject as anarchic and just plain wrong!
Why didn't we hear about this in the 'great' debate!
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Be careful what you vote for: Green's madness puts SA's future at risk
Recent news that the Greens would stop the $21 billion expansion of Olympic Dam is putting thousands of SA jobs in jeopardy
SA Greens Senate candidate, Penny Wright, told the Advertiser (July 20) that the Greens’ policy was to, "end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium". This would spell the end of the massive Olympic Dam expansion in South Australia’s far north.
Under the Green’s South Australia’s economic future would be bleak indeed. Penny Wright wants South Australians to put her in the Senate where she and her colleagues would put this state to the sword. This is madness!
Much of the planned growth in South Australia is built on the back of our mining success. It’s a great story and one that all South Australians will profit from through thousands of new jobs, new homes, new support industries etc. A vote for the Greens will put all that at risk.
But a vote for Labor in the Senate might bring about the same result. The Labor / Green preference deal could see Penny Wright elected on Labor preferences. Don’t put your family’s future at risk.
A vote for Labor or the Greens in the Senate could kill off SA’s future prosperity. Vote 1, Paul Russell in the Senate to keep our future safe.
SA Greens Senate candidate, Penny Wright, told the Advertiser (July 20) that the Greens’ policy was to, "end the exploration for, and the mining and export of, uranium". This would spell the end of the massive Olympic Dam expansion in South Australia’s far north.
Under the Green’s South Australia’s economic future would be bleak indeed. Penny Wright wants South Australians to put her in the Senate where she and her colleagues would put this state to the sword. This is madness!
Much of the planned growth in South Australia is built on the back of our mining success. It’s a great story and one that all South Australians will profit from through thousands of new jobs, new homes, new support industries etc. A vote for the Greens will put all that at risk.
But a vote for Labor in the Senate might bring about the same result. The Labor / Green preference deal could see Penny Wright elected on Labor preferences. Don’t put your family’s future at risk.
A vote for Labor or the Greens in the Senate could kill off SA’s future prosperity. Vote 1, Paul Russell in the Senate to keep our future safe.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
The DLP an independent voice
Not long after the 2004 Federal election, I was at a function addressed by the new Coalition Health Minister, Tony Abbott. It was essentially a gathering of the Liberal Party faithful.
You will recall on Election Day the elation in Coalition ranks when Senator Boswell phoned Prime Minister Howard with the news that Senator Elect, Barnaby Joyce, had effectively given control of the Senate to the Government benches.
Abbott, in his talk that day assured those present that the Liberal Coalition would not abuse this rare and welcome control of both houses.
Barely a year later, this same government introduced Work Choices. Properly titled the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, the problems of workers’ rights and protection from unfair dismissal, the no disadvantage test etc. that this bill created, seem now like a distant nightmare.
Make no mistake; no matter who is elected to lead Australia for the next three years, giving that same party control of the Senate would neuter the house of review as well as the proper scrutiny of every piece of legislation that should take place if our system of government is to be effective. The same could be said for Labor/Green alliance.
That’s why we believe that it is in the best interest of all South Australians and every Australian that the DLP should represent South Australia in the Senate.
The DLP is an effective independent voice. We are not beholden to big business or to union heavies and we don’t have any direct interests in any industry (other than a general interest in an economic sense for the benefit of all). We have a long and proud history of doing what we believe is best for our nation and we believe in progress.
Make your vote in the Senate count and VOTE 1 DLP.
You will recall on Election Day the elation in Coalition ranks when Senator Boswell phoned Prime Minister Howard with the news that Senator Elect, Barnaby Joyce, had effectively given control of the Senate to the Government benches.
Abbott, in his talk that day assured those present that the Liberal Coalition would not abuse this rare and welcome control of both houses.
Barely a year later, this same government introduced Work Choices. Properly titled the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005, the problems of workers’ rights and protection from unfair dismissal, the no disadvantage test etc. that this bill created, seem now like a distant nightmare.
Make no mistake; no matter who is elected to lead Australia for the next three years, giving that same party control of the Senate would neuter the house of review as well as the proper scrutiny of every piece of legislation that should take place if our system of government is to be effective. The same could be said for Labor/Green alliance.
That’s why we believe that it is in the best interest of all South Australians and every Australian that the DLP should represent South Australia in the Senate.
The DLP is an effective independent voice. We are not beholden to big business or to union heavies and we don’t have any direct interests in any industry (other than a general interest in an economic sense for the benefit of all). We have a long and proud history of doing what we believe is best for our nation and we believe in progress.
Make your vote in the Senate count and VOTE 1 DLP.
On Asylum Seekers
Like most Australians, I held some hope that the coming Federal Election might have prompted both major parties to look seriously at the problem of asylum seekers and the stream of leaky boats that have been processing towards our northern waters for some time now.
Instead all we heard from both Gillard and Abbott were poll-driven non-solutions that were more about neutralizing the issue rather than solving it.
Gillard’s East Timor Solution, as has been said, is nothing more than Howard’s Pacific Solution moved a 1000 kilometres or so westward. Had Gillard talked it over beforehand with our northern neighbours or New Zealand? Apparently not. What an insult! Fancy dragging our nearest friends into a political storm – and without even asking them!
Abbott said that he’d turn the boats back and reject any illegal immigrant who did not have his or her papers. That may have stopped boats in the past; but will it work now? And, more importantly, is it the right thing to do?
Surely stopping the boats is the primary concern here. Not because we’re heartless; not because we don’t care – but because we do! We need to stop innocent people risking their lives on the ocean, it’s that simple.
Gillard’s solution won’t stop the boats. Those who take such risks to get to Australia won’t be deterred by a detour to East Timor. They’d be processed offshore anyway, so what’s the real difference.
As I said earlier, it’s clear that neither major party really want to deal with the issue. I think it’s particularly cruel and shameful to use these people for political point scoring; but that’s about all that has happened.
The DLP believes that every boat arrival should be flown straight back to Indonesia. Why? Simply because Indonesia was and is a safe haven. It is probably the first safe haven that genuine refugees entered upon leaving their homeland but, most certainly, the last before leaving for Australia.
In short, these people are in reality, Indonesia’s problem. Kevin Rudd, to his credit, recognised this and began financially supporting the Indonesian government towards a more effective intervention.
The DLP would even further assist Indonesia to make sure that all asylum seekers, both those who have left their homeland and those returned from Australian waters, are well treated and processed quickly and properly under the supervision of the UN High Commission for Refugees.
This would stop the boats almost instantly and put those who trade immorally upon people’s emotions by selling them passage to Australia on leaky boats in dangerous seas well and truly out of work.
Some have called these people ‘queue jumpers’. There is clearly a queue. I personally know people who waited for their chance to settle in Australia who endured many years, even decades in refugee camps in Africa and South East Asia. People like these deserve a break too. They can’t jump on a plane to Indonesia, let alone a boat to Australia. I wonder what they would think about those who can afford to take a plane to Indonesia and pay for a boat ride to Australia.
That’s why the DLP would bring two refugees to Australia from other camps for every boat arrival sent back to Indonesia. Once the boats have stopped, and they will under this policy, we can begin accepting those from the Indonesian processing facility.
That’s a real policy to solve a problem.
That’s why the DLP is worth supporting!
Instead all we heard from both Gillard and Abbott were poll-driven non-solutions that were more about neutralizing the issue rather than solving it.
Gillard’s East Timor Solution, as has been said, is nothing more than Howard’s Pacific Solution moved a 1000 kilometres or so westward. Had Gillard talked it over beforehand with our northern neighbours or New Zealand? Apparently not. What an insult! Fancy dragging our nearest friends into a political storm – and without even asking them!
Abbott said that he’d turn the boats back and reject any illegal immigrant who did not have his or her papers. That may have stopped boats in the past; but will it work now? And, more importantly, is it the right thing to do?
Surely stopping the boats is the primary concern here. Not because we’re heartless; not because we don’t care – but because we do! We need to stop innocent people risking their lives on the ocean, it’s that simple.
Gillard’s solution won’t stop the boats. Those who take such risks to get to Australia won’t be deterred by a detour to East Timor. They’d be processed offshore anyway, so what’s the real difference.
As I said earlier, it’s clear that neither major party really want to deal with the issue. I think it’s particularly cruel and shameful to use these people for political point scoring; but that’s about all that has happened.
The DLP believes that every boat arrival should be flown straight back to Indonesia. Why? Simply because Indonesia was and is a safe haven. It is probably the first safe haven that genuine refugees entered upon leaving their homeland but, most certainly, the last before leaving for Australia.
In short, these people are in reality, Indonesia’s problem. Kevin Rudd, to his credit, recognised this and began financially supporting the Indonesian government towards a more effective intervention.
The DLP would even further assist Indonesia to make sure that all asylum seekers, both those who have left their homeland and those returned from Australian waters, are well treated and processed quickly and properly under the supervision of the UN High Commission for Refugees.
This would stop the boats almost instantly and put those who trade immorally upon people’s emotions by selling them passage to Australia on leaky boats in dangerous seas well and truly out of work.
Some have called these people ‘queue jumpers’. There is clearly a queue. I personally know people who waited for their chance to settle in Australia who endured many years, even decades in refugee camps in Africa and South East Asia. People like these deserve a break too. They can’t jump on a plane to Indonesia, let alone a boat to Australia. I wonder what they would think about those who can afford to take a plane to Indonesia and pay for a boat ride to Australia.
That’s why the DLP would bring two refugees to Australia from other camps for every boat arrival sent back to Indonesia. Once the boats have stopped, and they will under this policy, we can begin accepting those from the Indonesian processing facility.
That’s a real policy to solve a problem.
That’s why the DLP is worth supporting!
Paid Parental Leave – creating second class parents
You know, it’s an unfortunate state of affairs in this country that the value of our wages has effectively halved in the last generation or so. When my wife and I bought our first home we were able, sometimes only just, to get by on one income. Try doing that now.
While we might lament the current high house prices that need both parents in the workforce to pay their bills and the fact that so many of our young children are cared for more and more away from their hard working mums and dads, this is the world that we find ourselves in. In that context, it’s not unreasonable that our government should look to ease something of the extra burden that families face with the birth of a child and loss of one income for an extended period.
You might think that this would mean that the DLP would give a nod to Labor’s recent introduction of a paid 18 weeks of leave at the level of the basic wage. Sure, it’s a step in the right direction (and far better than Abbott’s proposal – more on that later), but just like the Coalition’s position, it creates second class parents and effectively puts a different value on babies of working mothers and those that don’t work.
Abbott’s proposal is far worse. The coalition’s policy ensures that those in high-paid jobs get more financial support than those in lower paid jobs. On top of that, they expect business to pay for it! Again, stay-at-home mums miss out.
It’s not an ideal situation, but there is a clear consensus that something should be done. We support the extension of the Rudd policy of 18 weeks paid at the basic wage to all new mothers and their families. The principle here is about supporting all parents and their new child – that’s got to be a better way.
While we might lament the current high house prices that need both parents in the workforce to pay their bills and the fact that so many of our young children are cared for more and more away from their hard working mums and dads, this is the world that we find ourselves in. In that context, it’s not unreasonable that our government should look to ease something of the extra burden that families face with the birth of a child and loss of one income for an extended period.
You might think that this would mean that the DLP would give a nod to Labor’s recent introduction of a paid 18 weeks of leave at the level of the basic wage. Sure, it’s a step in the right direction (and far better than Abbott’s proposal – more on that later), but just like the Coalition’s position, it creates second class parents and effectively puts a different value on babies of working mothers and those that don’t work.
Abbott’s proposal is far worse. The coalition’s policy ensures that those in high-paid jobs get more financial support than those in lower paid jobs. On top of that, they expect business to pay for it! Again, stay-at-home mums miss out.
It’s not an ideal situation, but there is a clear consensus that something should be done. We support the extension of the Rudd policy of 18 weeks paid at the basic wage to all new mothers and their families. The principle here is about supporting all parents and their new child – that’s got to be a better way.
Health – decentralization is the key
None of us should be in any doubt that health and the growing national health bill will be significant issues for the foreseeable future. The solutions will not be easy, but there are principles which the DLP believes need to be adopted so that we’ve got the basic framework right for the future.
That principle is decentralization or, to use and old word, subsidiarity. This essentially means that decision making should occur at the lowest possible competent level. Put simply: local decisions for local needs.
When he was Health Minister, Tony Abbott made no secret of his desire for the Federal Government to take over the running of our hospital system. The Rudd/Gillard new deal on health is similar, but with a dramatic increase in bureaucracy to boot.
Kevin Rudd was right about one thing: there are problems in the system and that health can and should be delivered more equitably and efficiently. In announcing his policy, however, he did not make anything like a convincing case for a federal takeover just as he failed to show us what the efficiency dividends might be. That’s because, in our opinion, there are none.
Last week Tony Abbott announced that a Coalition government would allow local schools to manage their own Building Education Revolution projects; arguing that this would save costs and provide better outcomes. Sound familiar? Then why not in the health sector?
The DLP, like Abbott on the BER, believes that local is better and that local hospital boards can and should have the opportunity to manage their facilities with the local community in mind.
That principle is decentralization or, to use and old word, subsidiarity. This essentially means that decision making should occur at the lowest possible competent level. Put simply: local decisions for local needs.
When he was Health Minister, Tony Abbott made no secret of his desire for the Federal Government to take over the running of our hospital system. The Rudd/Gillard new deal on health is similar, but with a dramatic increase in bureaucracy to boot.
Kevin Rudd was right about one thing: there are problems in the system and that health can and should be delivered more equitably and efficiently. In announcing his policy, however, he did not make anything like a convincing case for a federal takeover just as he failed to show us what the efficiency dividends might be. That’s because, in our opinion, there are none.
Last week Tony Abbott announced that a Coalition government would allow local schools to manage their own Building Education Revolution projects; arguing that this would save costs and provide better outcomes. Sound familiar? Then why not in the health sector?
The DLP, like Abbott on the BER, believes that local is better and that local hospital boards can and should have the opportunity to manage their facilities with the local community in mind.
Monday, March 29, 2010
It's been more than a week since the last election!!!
No doubt, the title of this post reminds Catholic readers somewhat of their childhood learnings of the Confessional process. Not a deliberate association, I assure you; but one that does give me cause to apologise for those who might have expected a shakedown of the SA State Election a little earlier!
I won't delve into the entrails of slain goats nor the dissections of the psephologists - probably had enough of that, right? I would, however, like to offer a few short comments on the DLP and this election.
Let me begin with a great big 'thank you' to everyone who joined up, donated, prayed, letterboxed, emailed or chatted to friends or stood on a booth on polling day - great effort guys! A special mention to those who came from interstate for the election. In addition to two DLP stalwarts from Victoria, we were gobsmacked when four young fellas made their own way across from Melbourne to help out. Well done!
Major thanks to my upper house running mate, good friend and fellow nutter, David McCabe. Dave's efforts were well and truly above and beyond the call. With work on the following day, Dave was still pulling down posters at midnight the day after the election and had a few more to snaffle before work the next morning!
Mark Freer's commitment as Candidate for Hartley was, likewise, never in doubt. An extra big bouquet to Mark : a political neophite three months ago has now morphed into a seasoned campaignster!
Clearly we did not win a seat in the Upper House. The eleventh position went to D4D's Kelly Vincent - enough said if you read my last post! Put simply: in a polarized election and with virtually no media attention what we achieved was outstanding - even if not quite enough.
We staffed something like 35 booths out of approximately 500 across the state; we ran one lower house candidate from 37 possible - yet we still polled better than many candidates! Imagine what we could achieve with a larger presence!
I guess that's a good point to finish on: If you've appreciated what we've begun in SA and what the DLP is doing, why not get on board. Put the 'U' back in Labor and help the DLP work for the issues that really matter!
I won't delve into the entrails of slain goats nor the dissections of the psephologists - probably had enough of that, right? I would, however, like to offer a few short comments on the DLP and this election.
Let me begin with a great big 'thank you' to everyone who joined up, donated, prayed, letterboxed, emailed or chatted to friends or stood on a booth on polling day - great effort guys! A special mention to those who came from interstate for the election. In addition to two DLP stalwarts from Victoria, we were gobsmacked when four young fellas made their own way across from Melbourne to help out. Well done!
Major thanks to my upper house running mate, good friend and fellow nutter, David McCabe. Dave's efforts were well and truly above and beyond the call. With work on the following day, Dave was still pulling down posters at midnight the day after the election and had a few more to snaffle before work the next morning!
Mark Freer's commitment as Candidate for Hartley was, likewise, never in doubt. An extra big bouquet to Mark : a political neophite three months ago has now morphed into a seasoned campaignster!
Clearly we did not win a seat in the Upper House. The eleventh position went to D4D's Kelly Vincent - enough said if you read my last post! Put simply: in a polarized election and with virtually no media attention what we achieved was outstanding - even if not quite enough.
We staffed something like 35 booths out of approximately 500 across the state; we ran one lower house candidate from 37 possible - yet we still polled better than many candidates! Imagine what we could achieve with a larger presence!
I guess that's a good point to finish on: If you've appreciated what we've begun in SA and what the DLP is doing, why not get on board. Put the 'U' back in Labor and help the DLP work for the issues that really matter!
Friday, March 12, 2010
Dignity for Disability - continuing betrayal of the disabled
I've blogged before about the Dignity for Disability Party and their lead candidate's support for voluntary euthanasia.
Dr. Paul Collier passed away during this last week. In his passing he is widely recognised for his excellent work in advocacy for the disabled in many ways. It is indeed fitting that he should be remembered so.
One correspondent to this blog attacked me following my speech against euthanasia last weekend where I railed against D4D for the pro-euthanasia position of Dr. Collier. (see here) That person said that Dr. Collier's position on VE was a private matter and that he spoke at the Voluntary Euthanasia rally as a private citizen (I have proof that this was not the case, but, for the sake of the argument, let's assume that this is so).
Someone's personal view on this issue is normally exactly that; personal. However, when someone represents a group for whom such a matter is of intrinsic interest and contrary to the science and basic human dignity of those they represent, then such a view needs to be made public. My criticism of D4D is essentially that they knew about Dr. Collier's position on this issue but did not think to advise their membership and their potential voters.
It would be a travesty and a moral outrage, in my opinion, if people living with disabilities, their friends and families, supported D4D because of their advocacy only to find at some future time that their elected candidate voted for a VE bill.
Let's briefly revisit the issue by way of explanation. The disabled are amongst the most vulnerable members of our society. They need and deserve our support and protection is such ways as to enable them to enjoy their rights and full access to the goods of society on a par with everyone else.
The spectre of euthanasia is directly contrary to these aims. In the Netherlands, where VE has been practiced for decades (and legal for about a decade) children born with disabilities are routinely euthanased without consent (under the Groningen Protocol). Both in the Netherlands and in Switzerland, people with disabilities are over represented in the assisted suicide and euthanasia statistics. Again in the Netherlands, support services for the disabled, the infirmed and those with terminal illnesses are under resources and, in some cases, almost non-existent. Why? It stands to reason: They have other choices.
Make no mistake, the existence of voluntary euthanasia makes the disabled more vulnerable, not less. Read Alison Davis' story HERE to see what I mean. Thats why the US Journal on Health and Disability recently devoted an entire edition to the issue of Assisted Suicide - a close associate of VE. They concluded, in all their articles, that legalised Assisted Suicide (and VE) is never in the best interests of the disabled. (See the January 2010 edition HERE)
The Adelaide press ran appropriate and sensitive stories on the passing of Dr. Collier. According to the electoral act, his name remains on the ballot and his votes pass to the number two candidate, Kelly Vincent.
Kelly Vincent has been outed by the SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society as also supporting legalised VE. (see HERE . Click on Legislative Council and scroll down). What is going on here?
I hesitate to draw conclusions about the intentions of D4D but I'm none-the-less compelled to note that there's something seriously wrong here. As a parent of a child with a disability I feel personally betrayed that what we might call a 'peak advocacy body' is not acting in my child's best interest nor in the intrinsic best interest of any disabled person.
No matter what fine and lofty achievements this group can claim for the disabled, their support for voluntary euthanasia through the views of not one, but two, Legislative Council candidates casts an all-consuming shadow. Without the fundamental protection of their lives in law and in practice, the disabled will become more vulnerable; the quiet whispers about comparative 'quality of life' will eventually become audible.
A vote for D4D is not a vote for the best interests of the disabled
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Rally Shake Down
Watching the Channel 9 News tonight you would have thought that we (the DLP) were the nasty interlopers raining on someone else's parade. The News ran an interview with the anti-Trevor Grace rallly organiser who claimed that they had 'done the right thing' and were angry at being gazumped by us.
I gave an interview to the same journalist making it clear that we infact were the rightful party on the day - not them - becuase we had followed the correct ptotocol and booked the rally in the appropriate manner with the sargeant at arms of the parliament. Did they put this side of the story? No, not at all!
Such is the balanced and objective journalism that exists in this state at the moment. Shame!
As a post script, I learnt shortly after my speech that the D4D lead candidate whom I mentioned in my speech and whose group I attacked, fell ill last night and was on life support. Had I kown that I don't think I'd have changed anything. His views are his views and my attack was on the organisation.
Having said that, in your charity, please join me in a prayer for Dr. Collier, his family and friends at this time of difficulty.
If you feel so motivated, why not phone Channel Nine and give them a few well chosen words (polite of course) about their objectivity.
I gave an interview to the same journalist making it clear that we infact were the rightful party on the day - not them - becuase we had followed the correct ptotocol and booked the rally in the appropriate manner with the sargeant at arms of the parliament. Did they put this side of the story? No, not at all!
Such is the balanced and objective journalism that exists in this state at the moment. Shame!
As a post script, I learnt shortly after my speech that the D4D lead candidate whom I mentioned in my speech and whose group I attacked, fell ill last night and was on life support. Had I kown that I don't think I'd have changed anything. His views are his views and my attack was on the organisation.
Having said that, in your charity, please join me in a prayer for Dr. Collier, his family and friends at this time of difficulty.
If you feel so motivated, why not phone Channel Nine and give them a few well chosen words (polite of course) about their objectivity.
Anti-euthanasia Rally - my speech
Folks I gave this speech at a DLP Rally on the steps of Parliament House, Adelaide on Sunday the 7th of March.
Euthanasia Rally speech
Euthanasia from the Greek and meaning a happy death
It is at best a misnomer to describe the deliberate killing of a human being as ‘happy’.
As with the prosecution of so much of the agenda of the anti-life progressives, the first assault comes in the form of a corruption of language.
“Death with Dignity” they cry. As though these ghoulish death peddlers were simply benevolent players bringing dignity to death where none previously existed. What rubbish!
“Compassionate Choice” they say. There is no compassion when the object is dead because compassion means ‘to suffer with’ and is not a synonym for killing. ‘Choice’ itself has now become a sacrament unfettered by truth and convention. It is never licit to choose a lie over truth.
We see this in other areas:
“Pro-choice” sounds a lot nicer than ‘pro-death’ doesn’t it?
The squeaky wheel of the progressives demands to be greased but when the still small voice dares to speak truth into this confused world it is drowned out in a cacophony of empty shibboleths and the messenger is pilloried and demonised. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? God Bless you Trevor Grace!
“Freedom of Religion” has been sacrificed to the god of tolerance and diversity – an unholy deity of deceit and weasel words.
Clearly, language is important. No progressive agenda could succeed without control of the lexicon. Slogans and the subversion of language serve to camouflage the truth. Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men: THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Nor can they accept, for the sake of their agenda, anyone else using the language of truth lest they be exposed for their hypocrisy.
There are absolute truths which the pro-death brigade acknowledges in the breech. The Truth convicts; they know it; they can’t deal with it – so they suppress it.
Since when was deliberate ending of a life akin to palliative care? That’s the line Green’s MLC Mark Parnell tried on us last year. Though it is entirely obvious to any reasonable person that the twain shall not meet, a significant number in the Upper House of this parliament either couldn’t or wouldn’t see the blindingly obvious.
That is the danger before us at this moment. A change of heart by one courageous MP at the eleventh hour was all that stood between the status quo and defeat in November last year. Progressively the calibre of our elected MLCs has deteriorated. The major parties offer us, at best, a mixed bag while many others are either programmatically pro-euthanasia or subversively so.
I’ve said it hundreds of times now and we need to hear it, we need to heed it and we need to act on it.
We stand upon a precipice. We lose two anti-euthanasia stalwarts from the Upper House to retirement at this election. God Bless Rob Lawson and Caroline Schaefer. The Liberal Party has offered replacements that, it would seem, do not hold the same firm opposition on euthanasia. If we don’t stand against this black tide of death in a concerted and organised way then we may see, in the next parliament the passage of a VE bill in the Upper House that will send shock waves across the western world.
It’s a hard but necessary sell when I tell you that with this knowledge you are duty bound to act with all the effort you can muster in your individual circumstances.
Let’s look at what’s on offer at this election in the Upper House:
Liberals: A mixed bag.
Labor: ditto the Liberals.
In the Lower House our Candidate for Hartley is standing against the current Labor member Grace Portolesi who has openly declared her support for euthanasia. Mark’s doing a great job and is likely to ensure that this seat changes hands. On ya Mark!
The Greens: Pro-euthanasia. As Lord Monckton said to me a few weeks ago, the Greens have traffic light syndrome: They’re Green but too Yellow to admit that they’re Red!
The Democrats: Pro-euthanasia – who can forget Sandra Kanck’s euthanasia efforts. The current Lead Candidate is cut from the same cloth.
Independent David Winderlich: Supported Parnell’s bill last year.
Independent for Voluntary Euthanasia: enough said
Independent for Legalised Voluntary Euthanasia: ditto – nothing like diversity!
Independent Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia: That’s like saying “Christians for Atheism!” I really don’t get these people.
Those above who have made their preference for voluntary euthanasia known have, at least not hidden their position. For this we should be grateful.
I reserve, however, my harshest criticisms for Dignity for Disability and, as a father of a disabled child; it pains me to do so.
The Dignity for Disability Lead Candidate is in favour of euthanasia. He actually spoke at a SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society rally on this very spot not four months ago representing D4D. He was quoted in hansard by two pro VE MPs.
How can it be that the lead candidate for an organisation created to serve the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society support euthanasia when we know both from common sense and the data from places such as the Netherlands that these same people are amongst those most at risk from euthanasia – often without consent?
It is no accident that in Holland both palliative care and disability services are amongst the most underdeveloped in the western world. Why would they put additional strain on their health budget when the old, the infirmed, the depressed and the disabled have –quote-unquote- “other alternatives”?
In January the prestigious US Journal on Health and Disability devoted an entire issue to discussing assisted suicide, euthanasia and the disabled in terms of public policy and risk. Every single contribution in that edition recognised the significant risks that voluntary euthanasia presents for those living with disability. It concerns me that well meaning people either with disabilities themselves or a heartfelt desire to help the vulnerable in their family may find their genuine voting intention turned against them should the D4D candidate take a spot in the Upper House.
On the positive side of course, there are a number of independents who share our views. I’ve already mentioned Trevor Grace and we need to mention our friends at Family First. They will see Rob Brokenshire returned to the Upper House. This is so important. However, even that success would leave us in the minority on VE in the Upper House after this election.
That’s why the Democratic Labor Party’s rebirth at this election is so significant and that’s why it is so important that you support the DLP.
Our focus is on keeping the eleventh and final upper house seat in the hands of an anti-euthanasia candidate. This is absolutely imperative. Your vote for the DLP is not only a vote for an ethically sound pro-life party, it is also a vote for a party that’s preferences will also work towards this good end.
The Democratic Labor Party was born by the sacrifice of those who put principle ahead of prestige and position. We are the only party with such a history. The modern DLP honours this tradition.
We will not compromise.
We will not do dodgy deals for the sake of preferment.
We will stand against the tide
We will not bend
Stand with the DLP.
Make a commitment to make a difference. If every person here took the time over the next 2 weeks to speak to 50 people about the DLP and to explain briefly why we need the DLP we would be so much closer to success. That’s about 4 people a day. People you meet at your work, your school your Church, your sports club, your gym – wherever.
The Democratic Labor Party – because South Australia deserves better!
Thank you
Euthanasia Rally speech
Euthanasia from the Greek and meaning a happy death
It is at best a misnomer to describe the deliberate killing of a human being as ‘happy’.
As with the prosecution of so much of the agenda of the anti-life progressives, the first assault comes in the form of a corruption of language.
“Death with Dignity” they cry. As though these ghoulish death peddlers were simply benevolent players bringing dignity to death where none previously existed. What rubbish!
“Compassionate Choice” they say. There is no compassion when the object is dead because compassion means ‘to suffer with’ and is not a synonym for killing. ‘Choice’ itself has now become a sacrament unfettered by truth and convention. It is never licit to choose a lie over truth.
We see this in other areas:
“Pro-choice” sounds a lot nicer than ‘pro-death’ doesn’t it?
The squeaky wheel of the progressives demands to be greased but when the still small voice dares to speak truth into this confused world it is drowned out in a cacophony of empty shibboleths and the messenger is pilloried and demonised. Sounds familiar doesn’t it? God Bless you Trevor Grace!
“Freedom of Religion” has been sacrificed to the god of tolerance and diversity – an unholy deity of deceit and weasel words.
Clearly, language is important. No progressive agenda could succeed without control of the lexicon. Slogans and the subversion of language serve to camouflage the truth. Paraphrasing Jack Nicholson’s character in A Few Good Men: THEY CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH! Nor can they accept, for the sake of their agenda, anyone else using the language of truth lest they be exposed for their hypocrisy.
There are absolute truths which the pro-death brigade acknowledges in the breech. The Truth convicts; they know it; they can’t deal with it – so they suppress it.
Since when was deliberate ending of a life akin to palliative care? That’s the line Green’s MLC Mark Parnell tried on us last year. Though it is entirely obvious to any reasonable person that the twain shall not meet, a significant number in the Upper House of this parliament either couldn’t or wouldn’t see the blindingly obvious.
That is the danger before us at this moment. A change of heart by one courageous MP at the eleventh hour was all that stood between the status quo and defeat in November last year. Progressively the calibre of our elected MLCs has deteriorated. The major parties offer us, at best, a mixed bag while many others are either programmatically pro-euthanasia or subversively so.
I’ve said it hundreds of times now and we need to hear it, we need to heed it and we need to act on it.
We stand upon a precipice. We lose two anti-euthanasia stalwarts from the Upper House to retirement at this election. God Bless Rob Lawson and Caroline Schaefer. The Liberal Party has offered replacements that, it would seem, do not hold the same firm opposition on euthanasia. If we don’t stand against this black tide of death in a concerted and organised way then we may see, in the next parliament the passage of a VE bill in the Upper House that will send shock waves across the western world.
It’s a hard but necessary sell when I tell you that with this knowledge you are duty bound to act with all the effort you can muster in your individual circumstances.
Let’s look at what’s on offer at this election in the Upper House:
Liberals: A mixed bag.
Labor: ditto the Liberals.
In the Lower House our Candidate for Hartley is standing against the current Labor member Grace Portolesi who has openly declared her support for euthanasia. Mark’s doing a great job and is likely to ensure that this seat changes hands. On ya Mark!
The Greens: Pro-euthanasia. As Lord Monckton said to me a few weeks ago, the Greens have traffic light syndrome: They’re Green but too Yellow to admit that they’re Red!
The Democrats: Pro-euthanasia – who can forget Sandra Kanck’s euthanasia efforts. The current Lead Candidate is cut from the same cloth.
Independent David Winderlich: Supported Parnell’s bill last year.
Independent for Voluntary Euthanasia: enough said
Independent for Legalised Voluntary Euthanasia: ditto – nothing like diversity!
Independent Christians for Voluntary Euthanasia: That’s like saying “Christians for Atheism!” I really don’t get these people.
Those above who have made their preference for voluntary euthanasia known have, at least not hidden their position. For this we should be grateful.
I reserve, however, my harshest criticisms for Dignity for Disability and, as a father of a disabled child; it pains me to do so.
The Dignity for Disability Lead Candidate is in favour of euthanasia. He actually spoke at a SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society rally on this very spot not four months ago representing D4D. He was quoted in hansard by two pro VE MPs.
How can it be that the lead candidate for an organisation created to serve the needs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society support euthanasia when we know both from common sense and the data from places such as the Netherlands that these same people are amongst those most at risk from euthanasia – often without consent?
It is no accident that in Holland both palliative care and disability services are amongst the most underdeveloped in the western world. Why would they put additional strain on their health budget when the old, the infirmed, the depressed and the disabled have –quote-unquote- “other alternatives”?
In January the prestigious US Journal on Health and Disability devoted an entire issue to discussing assisted suicide, euthanasia and the disabled in terms of public policy and risk. Every single contribution in that edition recognised the significant risks that voluntary euthanasia presents for those living with disability. It concerns me that well meaning people either with disabilities themselves or a heartfelt desire to help the vulnerable in their family may find their genuine voting intention turned against them should the D4D candidate take a spot in the Upper House.
On the positive side of course, there are a number of independents who share our views. I’ve already mentioned Trevor Grace and we need to mention our friends at Family First. They will see Rob Brokenshire returned to the Upper House. This is so important. However, even that success would leave us in the minority on VE in the Upper House after this election.
That’s why the Democratic Labor Party’s rebirth at this election is so significant and that’s why it is so important that you support the DLP.
Our focus is on keeping the eleventh and final upper house seat in the hands of an anti-euthanasia candidate. This is absolutely imperative. Your vote for the DLP is not only a vote for an ethically sound pro-life party, it is also a vote for a party that’s preferences will also work towards this good end.
The Democratic Labor Party was born by the sacrifice of those who put principle ahead of prestige and position. We are the only party with such a history. The modern DLP honours this tradition.
We will not compromise.
We will not do dodgy deals for the sake of preferment.
We will stand against the tide
We will not bend
Stand with the DLP.
Make a commitment to make a difference. If every person here took the time over the next 2 weeks to speak to 50 people about the DLP and to explain briefly why we need the DLP we would be so much closer to success. That’s about 4 people a day. People you meet at your work, your school your Church, your sports club, your gym – wherever.
The Democratic Labor Party – because South Australia deserves better!
Thank you
Friday, March 5, 2010
count down to the 20th March
15 days to go to the SA election.
David McCabe and I are fulltime campaigning at the minute. There's a great deal of organising to be done. The mainstream media have been ignoring us. The Independent Weekly posted a 30 second clip on youtube recently which was appreciated. I'm beginning to wonder if I don't need to run naked down Rundle Mall to get some attention! Maybe I should start one of those blogs: Donate here if you DONT want Paul to do a nudie run!
I was completely outclassed the other day by the DLP future member for Harltey, Mark Freer's new blog. Take a look. A great effort from a great candidate. http://mark4hartley.wordpress.com/ And there's some great music courtesy of Mark's recordings!
Mark learnt today that he's in the 'donkey' position ont he Hartley ballot paper (number one). Not a reflection on Mark's looks nor physique at all! Go Mark!
In the Upper House, the DLP is box 'O' which is in the second row above the line and the third position from the left (no ideological reflection). We're directly below the ALP which is precisely the reverse of Mark's ticket positin in Hartley.
I really wonder what effect it will have upon voters when they're given the white ballot paper with so many boxes to choose from. Let your friends know, the simple way out of the dilemma is to place a '1' in the 'O' box for the DLP.
Remember folks, there are very serious and might I say diabolical consequences afoot for this state at this election. It is imperative that we make this vote count on euthanasia - all our votes. As David pointed out today: Of the 23 Parties/Groups contesting the upper house, 7 are Pro-euthanasia, 13 have no interest either way and 3 are anti-euthanasia.
This does not include a further 12 candidates who are standing as independents. The numbers are against us!!!!
David McCabe and I are fulltime campaigning at the minute. There's a great deal of organising to be done. The mainstream media have been ignoring us. The Independent Weekly posted a 30 second clip on youtube recently which was appreciated. I'm beginning to wonder if I don't need to run naked down Rundle Mall to get some attention! Maybe I should start one of those blogs: Donate here if you DONT want Paul to do a nudie run!
I was completely outclassed the other day by the DLP future member for Harltey, Mark Freer's new blog. Take a look. A great effort from a great candidate. http://mark4hartley.wordpress.com/ And there's some great music courtesy of Mark's recordings!
Mark learnt today that he's in the 'donkey' position ont he Hartley ballot paper (number one). Not a reflection on Mark's looks nor physique at all! Go Mark!
In the Upper House, the DLP is box 'O' which is in the second row above the line and the third position from the left (no ideological reflection). We're directly below the ALP which is precisely the reverse of Mark's ticket positin in Hartley.
I really wonder what effect it will have upon voters when they're given the white ballot paper with so many boxes to choose from. Let your friends know, the simple way out of the dilemma is to place a '1' in the 'O' box for the DLP.
Remember folks, there are very serious and might I say diabolical consequences afoot for this state at this election. It is imperative that we make this vote count on euthanasia - all our votes. As David pointed out today: Of the 23 Parties/Groups contesting the upper house, 7 are Pro-euthanasia, 13 have no interest either way and 3 are anti-euthanasia.
This does not include a further 12 candidates who are standing as independents. The numbers are against us!!!!
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Campaign Launch: Huge success!
Last Tuesday a packed house joined the SA DLP team at the Pagoda Restaurant to launch the SA 2010 Campaign.
Guest of honour, Peter Kavanagh MLC from Victoria spoke passionately about the history of the DLP, the current problems facing Australia and argued that now, perhaps more than ever, Australia needs the DLP!
The DLP is growing again in every mainland State. Its growth builds upon our history; a history of integrity, passion, commitment and innovation. As Kavanagh said, we're for Families, for workers, for life and for Australia. This is not some empty slogan. For the DLP it's a way of life, an abiding philosophy that seeks the very best for every Australian.
THis resurgent DLP stands on the shoulders of giants. In SA that includes people like Mark Posa. It includes all the men and women who sacrificed privilege and position for principle and it includes the fallen heroes who have gone to their reward.
The DLP, like no other party, is built on principle. Like no other party, we honour our hiostory and have stayed true to our founding principles.
Now that the election is here it's time for action. With yor support, we can make a difference!
Paul Russell
BTW, if you want to help the campaign in any way, email me at dlpforsa@esc.net.au
For more pics of the Launch visit my facebook site HERE
Guest of honour, Peter Kavanagh MLC from Victoria spoke passionately about the history of the DLP, the current problems facing Australia and argued that now, perhaps more than ever, Australia needs the DLP!
The DLP is growing again in every mainland State. Its growth builds upon our history; a history of integrity, passion, commitment and innovation. As Kavanagh said, we're for Families, for workers, for life and for Australia. This is not some empty slogan. For the DLP it's a way of life, an abiding philosophy that seeks the very best for every Australian.
THis resurgent DLP stands on the shoulders of giants. In SA that includes people like Mark Posa. It includes all the men and women who sacrificed privilege and position for principle and it includes the fallen heroes who have gone to their reward.
The DLP, like no other party, is built on principle. Like no other party, we honour our hiostory and have stayed true to our founding principles.
Now that the election is here it's time for action. With yor support, we can make a difference!
Paul Russell
BTW, if you want to help the campaign in any way, email me at dlpforsa@esc.net.au
For more pics of the Launch visit my facebook site HERE
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Is the SA government tanking over water?
Every now and again you come across an idea that simply makes good sense; a blinding flash of the obvious, as they say.
Last weekend, trawling through the weekend real estate pages, one such bright idea struck my eye. A land division in the Yorke Peninsula is offering a 100,000 litre rain water tank free with every 900m2 house block sold. They have mains water to the door – so this isn’t simply about providing a water supply where none exists. It’s a great marketing idea that gets a big environmental tick. Great idea! Full marks!
There’s a whole lot like this that can be done in South Australia to reduce our future reliance both on the Murray for water and our generators for power.
The soon to be released revised Greater Adelaide Plan forecasts significant population growth for our city and our State. We’re right to be concerned for the strain that population growth will bring to our water and power resources but, at the same time, we cannot not grow. Our power infrastructure is largely aging and based on old technology, but the debate about nuclear power seems still a long way off. We’re also concerned that land prices have skyrocketed, leaving young families to struggle even more to build their own home; but conventional wisdom says that there’s little that can be done to tinker with the market.
The question then is: can we develop a way of assisting young families and support population growth while minimizing the drain on our water and power resources? The Democratic Labor Party believes we can.
We want to see every new major government land release to include, in the sale price, a 100,000 litre rain water tank plumbed into the house and free solar panels on every roof. Through the Land Management Corporation, the government raises significant revenue in land sales. Forgoing part of that revenue in this way makes good sense – it’s an investment in our future.
We have a once-for-all-time opportunity here. Wouldn’t it be great to see the Buckland Park development, for example, lead the way in protecting our environment and our resources while at the same time helping young families reduce their power and water bills. Buckland Park could become a model for sustainable growth, but we have to act now. Once the blocks are sold and the houses built we’ve missed the opportunity.
There’s an old saying that fads start at the top while solutions come from the bottom. It’s time we stopped placing all of our focus on the Federal argy-bargy over water flows, important as that is, and begin to look closer to home for real, lasting solutions.
The Democratic Labor Party has a proud history of innovation on environmental issues. In 1974 we pushed for kerbside recycling, years before it became a reality. We’re not ‘greenies’ but we do believe in taking care of what we’ve got. Like the Yorke Peninsula deal, we think this makes good sense, but we can’t wait for years for the idea to permeate through the grey marble walls on North Terrace.
What do you think?
Last weekend, trawling through the weekend real estate pages, one such bright idea struck my eye. A land division in the Yorke Peninsula is offering a 100,000 litre rain water tank free with every 900m2 house block sold. They have mains water to the door – so this isn’t simply about providing a water supply where none exists. It’s a great marketing idea that gets a big environmental tick. Great idea! Full marks!
There’s a whole lot like this that can be done in South Australia to reduce our future reliance both on the Murray for water and our generators for power.
The soon to be released revised Greater Adelaide Plan forecasts significant population growth for our city and our State. We’re right to be concerned for the strain that population growth will bring to our water and power resources but, at the same time, we cannot not grow. Our power infrastructure is largely aging and based on old technology, but the debate about nuclear power seems still a long way off. We’re also concerned that land prices have skyrocketed, leaving young families to struggle even more to build their own home; but conventional wisdom says that there’s little that can be done to tinker with the market.
The question then is: can we develop a way of assisting young families and support population growth while minimizing the drain on our water and power resources? The Democratic Labor Party believes we can.
We want to see every new major government land release to include, in the sale price, a 100,000 litre rain water tank plumbed into the house and free solar panels on every roof. Through the Land Management Corporation, the government raises significant revenue in land sales. Forgoing part of that revenue in this way makes good sense – it’s an investment in our future.
We have a once-for-all-time opportunity here. Wouldn’t it be great to see the Buckland Park development, for example, lead the way in protecting our environment and our resources while at the same time helping young families reduce their power and water bills. Buckland Park could become a model for sustainable growth, but we have to act now. Once the blocks are sold and the houses built we’ve missed the opportunity.
There’s an old saying that fads start at the top while solutions come from the bottom. It’s time we stopped placing all of our focus on the Federal argy-bargy over water flows, important as that is, and begin to look closer to home for real, lasting solutions.
The Democratic Labor Party has a proud history of innovation on environmental issues. In 1974 we pushed for kerbside recycling, years before it became a reality. We’re not ‘greenies’ but we do believe in taking care of what we’ve got. Like the Yorke Peninsula deal, we think this makes good sense, but we can’t wait for years for the idea to permeate through the grey marble walls on North Terrace.
What do you think?
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
It really gets me hopping mad!
I need to get something off my chest. I get more than a little annoyed with people like our Prime Minister and the likes of Dick Smith issuing holy writ on matters that they clearly know little about.
Not long ago, in speaking to a report on Australia’s aging population, Prime Minister Rudd virtually decreed that we will all need to work harder. Sure, we know that our aging population will require a higher tax take on the diminishing work force over time; no sensible person would deny that and it didn’t really need the authority of a formal report to declare it so. But work harder? What kind of a solution is that?
Australians are known the world over as hard workers – Aussies don’t shirt putting in the hard yards. What the PM really means is that we’ll all have to work longer hours to get paid more so that the ATO can tax us harder. Putting aside the fact that this is really a non-solution from a Prime Minister who simply doesn’t have the ticker to name the elephant in the room, it’s deeply offensive to all Australians and young families in particular when families (working families) are already stressed beyond reason and good sense in the time that they’re away from the home striving to pay the bills.
The elephant in the room, by the way, is the reality that we’re beginning to reap what we’ve sewn over the past thirty years and more. Every economist knows that children and young families drive the domestic economy. Abortion isn’t simply a choice for an individual – it has significant long term ramifications for all of us. When we begin to understand that many of those children aborted in the 1970s and even 1980s would themselves now be forming their own families we can see the compounding effect that these ‘choices’ have.
And while the real answer to the aging population lies in increasing the nation’s birth rate from the current (admittedly historically high) 1.9 children to at least the basic replacement rate of 2.1 children per couple, there are other breast beating prophets who would rather see us spare the planet by putting humanity on the endangered species list.
Renowned entrepreneur, Dick Smith, recently called for families to limit their offspring to only two children for the sake of the planet. Smith, like the earlier famed Malthusian, Paul Ehrlich, either simply doesn’t get humanity or ignores ‘inconvenient truths’ for the sake of his argument. Smith bases his apocryphal predictions that an increase in our population will spell doom for us all on the premise that our food and water supplies simply could not cope with this increase. Smith, like Ehrlich before him, fails to consider the ingenuity of mankind and our ability to find solutions to complex problems (that is, when we’re not wasting time and money at events like Copenhagen!).
Maybe I’m just riding high on my hobby horse. Please, you don’t have to believe what I say, check it out for yourself. Two movies that should have won Nobel Prizes instead of Al Gore: Demographic Winter and the Population Bomb tell the real story.
You can view the trailers at: http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html
Thursday, January 14, 2010
On disability, euthanasia and the State Election
In my last blog entry, I began by quoting former US Vice President Hubert Humphrey on the moral test of a good government. I argued that the only true measure of a just society (not just of government) should be how we treat those who “live at the margins”, experiencing poverty, dysfunction, disability, homelessness etc.
This disability question is extremely and personally important to me for a number of reasons. Firstly, I have a young son with Down Syndrome and my wife’s brother lived his whole life with a significant disability. My Upper House running mate, David McCabe’s brother also lives with a disability. I know that Dave would agree with me when I say that the profound and immeasurable privilege of sharing in the lives of these wonderful individuals in all their pains and their joys makes progressing justice and dignity for those with a disability ‘deeply personal’.
Secondly, as some of you will know, I am a long time campaigner against euthanasia and assisted suicide. When I read the literature, it is blindingly obvious to me that the mere legalization of voluntary euthanasia (VE) or Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS) in places such as the Netherlands, Switzerland and some US States, at the very least, becomes the ‘elephant in the room’ for those living with a disability in those places.
As many disability activists have noted, it is not that they feel their lives at imminent risk. It is more about the eventual extension of who qualifies for VE and PAS to more and more groups of persons. It is about doctors, trained to save, who become desensitized to the value of life once they begin down that path. Think about questions of scarce and expensive medical resources and a judgement about who is worthy to receive them and who isn’t. And, closer to home, once society accepts that some lives are of more value than others, it is not difficult to foresee the beginnings of a subtle shift away from principles of equity and justice for the disabled.
This is scary stuff indeed, but it is also the reality in some places and it might be where we’re heading too.
As many of you will recall, SA Greens MLC, Mark Parnell’s recent euthanasia bill was defeated in the Upper House by one vote not two months ago. The closeness of the debate shocked me, especially considering the flaws in the bill and the clear risks associated with it.
I was also shocked, and deeply dismayed by the references in speeches by Mr. Parnell and the Hon Ann Bressington to a talk given by Dr. Paul Collier on the steps of Parliament House on the 28th of October at a rally in favour of this bill organised by the SA Voluntary Euthanasia Society.
As Mr. Parnell mentioned, Dr. Collier was a candidate at the last State Election for Dignity for the Disabled (now Dignity for Disability) and may stand again for the March 2010 election.
Let me say, at this point, that I respect every person’s right to hold and promote their views. I also know something of Dr. Collier’s work and admire his advocacy and passion. The fact that by his appearance at the SAVES rally and by the references to what he is reported to have said (appearing in Parliamentary Hansard), it is obvious to me that he supports a right to choose euthanasia and would, I imagine, therefore support pro-euthanasia legislation. That’s his right.
I do question, however, the fact that, by the wording of the SAVES leaflet for the event, he spoke as a representative of Dignity for Disability. Even if he were to have made it known (and he may have) that what he said that day in favour of euthanasia was his own private view and not necessarily that of Dignity for Disability I would seriously question the right of anyone to formally represent any organisation whilst espousing a view on something so fundamental as life and death, where the organisation had no policy position on the issue and where, in all probability, the membership had not the opportunity to express their views.
As for Dr. Collier’s candidacy at the next election, I would suggest that his public position on such a contentious issue, (particularly for those with a disability, as I have already discussed) has the potential to fracture the organisation and to dissipate support. If the candidates have yet to be chosen, I urge their selection committee to give this matter serious consideration.
Ultimately, if Dr. Collier is a candidate for the Upper House, then I respectfully suggest that South Australians who want a fair go for disability have a clear choice: support for the Democratic Labor Party is representative advocacy that respects life – what we call true human dignity.
Your views are welcome. I would love to hear from people living with a disability and those who represent the various peak bodies.
Note: anyone who wanted to follow up literature supporting my position vis-a-vis disability and euthanasia and assisted suicide would do well to read the online version of the US Disability and Health Journal this month, particularly the article by Diane Coleman.
(Go to: www.disabilityandhealthjnl.com/current) You can also read a summary article at: www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/is_death_better_than_disability.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Priorities
“The moral test of government is how it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.”
Last speech of Hubert Humphrey 1 Nov 1977
Last speech of Hubert Humphrey 1 Nov 1977
A close friend of mine reminded me of these fine words of the US Vice President and Senator, Hubert Humphrey. Humphrey retired after this speech from the last of an impressive list of public offices he had held during his long career in public life. I get the sense that this reflection, only months before his death, was the synthesis of the creed he had lived by rather than simply musings on regrets for things left undone.
I had been expressing to my friend my own thoughts about how we measure the success of our society. Should it be by the number of stadiums we have, by the new hospitals we build, by the achievements of our sporting stars or by way of a ‘triple A’ credit rating? Should it be by the regular ranking of ‘league tables’ that score each state and city in the Commonwealth by its liveability?
Paraphrasing Humphrey, surely the only true measure of a just society is about how we treat those in or midst that live at the margins; that experience poverty, dysfunction, disability, loneliness and fear. All other achievements, no matter how grand, come to nothing if we cannot protect and support the vulnerable; answering their need and ensuring, as far as is possible, that they enjoy access to the benefits of our modern society in equal measure with everyone else.
Folks, in SA we fail this test. There remain in this State, pockets of significant disadvantage where, amongst other social ills, children may have never seen someone in their household go off to work. Having no positive modelling, a lack of hope and sense of purpose is a breeding ground for all manner of social dysfunction.
We know well that Families SA social workers are overworked and under resourced. If we’re to protect children properly, to support families in their needs and to build social cohesion (rather than the current band aid approach) we’ve simply got to resource these frontline workers better and to let them know that their work is valued.
How is it in this State that we have a long waiting list for mobility devices for disabled children? How is it that parents of students with disabilities frequently report that they feel victimized and unwelcomed at their local schools? These are not matters that should be on the government budget ‘wish list’ to be fixed at some future time when the coffers are fatter; these are matters of basic human dignity which should be priority one.
All we’re asking our government to do is simply to draw up their budgets based on human dignity and answering the needs of the marginalized and the disabled. That’s essentially what every family does: we feed and clothe the children, pay the bills and then, with what’s left, maybe plan for a new car, a holiday (stadium, tramline)etc. Is it that difficult, really?
It might seem like a cliché, to say that society as a whole suffers when we do not answer the call of those in need, but it’s true. The reverse is also true: the more care we take for those in need the better our society will be because respect and compassion bear good fruits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
