Queensland is different from other states in that it only has a lower house. In other states minor parties achieve representation in upper houses — and therefore have a role in government — through proportional representation voting systems.
Nevertheless, a vote for a minor party in Queensland can still be important because of the state’s optional preferential voting system. Where a candidate does not achieve 50% of the primary vote in an electorate, preferences are distributed to decide the winner.
In this weekend’s election, preferences for the Green Party and Katter’s Australian Party will likely be crucial in deciding the outcome in some seats.
In Queensland there has been a public spotlight on issues of coal seam gas (CSG), coastal development and health of the Great Barrier Reef. Many voters are likely to attach importance to one or all of these issues. This article reviews the issues, compares party policies and suggests voting options.
Coal seam gas
Both Labor and the Liberal National Party (LNP) are committed to a strong CSG industry in Queensland. This is not surprising given the importance of investment in stimulating the state’s economy and of royalties in balancing the state’s books.
There is a great deal of uncertainty on the nature and severity of the cumulative environmental impacts of CSG extraction, as testified by the large number and complex nature of the conditions put on CSG developments by the Queensland Coordinator-General.
There are questions surrounding how green and clean CSG is. Queensland’s Labor government was the first to sign up to the Commonwealth’s initiative to gain more scientific knowledge about CSG impacts on water resources.
Surprisingly, however, Labor’s policies on CSG are rather inaccessible. Only one specific initiative — the banning of BTEX chemicals (benzene, toluene, ethyl-benzene, and xylenes) in CSG extraction — is mentioned in its achievements report.
Labor could have been more explicit about its achievements by summarising the laws it has passed and the conditions put on CSG extraction by the Coordinator-General in giving approval for the three main LNG developments to go ahead in Gladstone.
In contrast, the policies of the other parties relating to CSG are easily accessed. In the case of the LNP and the Greens, policies are comprehensive. The LNP has three main planks: an access and compensation policy for landowners, ensuring greater direct benefits to communities, as well as monitoring and enforcement.
For environmental management of the industry the party will rely on the environmental conditions already imposed on CSG developments by the Labor government. The Green Party is specific in calling for amendments to the Environmental Protection Act 1994 and the Petroleum and Gas (Production and Safety) Mining Act 2004 that will cease the exemption of mining from existing environmental laws.
The Greens' policies score by being integrated. CSG is linked not only with the impacts on surface and groundwater but also to impacts of the processing and transport of LNG on the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.
Both the Greens and Katter’s Australian Party call for a moratorium on all new CSG development. This stance could be criticised as being a luxury affordable only by minor parties, which will not have the responsibility of trying to balance the state’s books.
Katter’s party is quite specific on community benefits, the diversion of royalties for local development and a change in property rights in favour of landholders. But the economic implications of these polices are not explained.
Gladstone
Development in Gladstone Harbour is to enable liquefaction of CSG and the transfer of LNG to large vessels, whose access to the LNG plants requires a large dredging program that will continue until 2015, with maintenance dredging thereafter. Given that the World Heritage boundary follows the shore line it was inevitable that the development of Gladstone Harbour would be controversial.
But the way the problems associated with dredging, perceived and real, have been handled by the Gladstone Ports Corporation, especially its roughshod ride over fishermen and fish wholesalers and processors, will not have earned Anna Bligh votes on the coast.
Great Barrier Reef
The value of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park itself could be compromised if the Commonwealth allows dredge spoil dumping, associated with new coal port developments, within the Park’s boundaries.
Katter’s party responded quickly to this threat with a ban on spoil dumping. However, the party’s likely removal of regulations governing farming practices that protect the Reef could negate the impact of this ban.
An important Labor initiative on the reef is the reduction of fishing pressure by buying back net fishing licenses. Ironically, though, the promise of more dugong and turtle protection is likely to be undermined by the negative effects on these species of the massive developments proposed for coal ports together with the increase in coal-carrier traffic.
An ongoing and major threat to the reef is runoff loaded with sediments and agricultural chemicals. LNP leader Capmbell Newman has said the LNP is strongly committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef from pollution, “by actively working with our farmers to ensure practical common sense conservation outcomes. Improving and modifying farm practices will be achieved by working with farmers, not by simply by filling in more and more paperwork.”
This seems to suggest the LNP will do away with the legislation already put in place by Labor to regulate farming practices that harm the Reef.
The Greens' policies go further than Labor by advocating a moratorium on Great Barrier Reef coastal development, banning certain agricultural chemicals while further scientific studies are done, and providing incentives for farmers to alter their practices.
Your environmental how to vote card
This analysis suggests Queensland voters who want to send a strong message on coal seam gas, coastal development and protection of the Great Barrier Reef should vote 1 Greens and 2 Labor.
More pragmatic voters who do not want to compromise Labor’s chances of achieving 50% of the primary vote in their electorate, but want to make an environemtal statement, should vote 1 Labor, and 2 Greens.
The risks from CSG and coastal development by voting 1 for the LNP or for Katter’s Australian Party do not appear to be any greater than the risks from voting 1 for Labor. But such a vote for the conservative parties will likely increase the risks to the health of the Great Barrier Reef.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
There is some thought that it takes more energy to extract, compress and transport natural gas than the energy actually in it. If this is true, then the state should be exporting coal, and leave the natural gas there for some possible future use.
The balance sheet of the QLD state government is a complete disaster, but a drive through rural towns in QLD shows many towns have hardly changed in 20 years. Money has been sucked out of rural QLD and spent in Brisbane. That’s where all the money went.
David Arthur
n/a
Gday Dale, the points you make in the second paragraph are spot-on.
Qld used to have a reasonable balance sheet; mind you, 12 years of cetralising Howard government in Canberra has been universally bad for State governments' balance sheets.
On top of that, Qld has suffered through the particular genius of its past Premiers.
Joh's rule for electoral success, along with his gerrymander, was "a dam per election". Peter Beattie modelled himself on Joh, and took to that rule with gusto. That…
Read moreDale Bloom
Analyst
David,
I also am concerned that people believe agriculture can easily replace mining. Agriculture requires fertilizer and water, and that water requires dams.
It is not an easy choice when deciding what industries should be the main industries in a state or country.
I have the opinion that people in QLD sometimes vote for parties such as the One Nation Party because the people in those parties listened to them, (at least initially), whereas many people in the ALP and LIBs simply don’t associate with, or listen to someone in their electorate.
My local representative is really a clerk, and simply transfers anything to the Premier’s Office, and I have heard the Premier’s Office employs more journalists than the Courier Mail.
David Arthur
n/a
You're jolly right about LNP and ALP not listening. I live outside Brisbane, where the local Environment Council put on a meet the candidates meeting.
The LNP don't want anyone to know what their environmental policies may be, so they didn't show up. The ALP sent some bloke who's candidate in a seat ~120 km away (they also sent a minder to make sure he didn't stray from the Party line by, for example, actually answering a question).
Regarding fertilisers, did you know that legumes don't require nitrogenous fertilisers? This is because they have nodules on their roots, rhizobia, which support nitrogen-fixing bacteria in symbiosis with the plant. So why not use GM or whatever to transfer rhizobia-forming capability to non-leguminous food crops? I understand research is underway that has the potential to substantially decrease NOx emissions from agriculture, as well as do away with the need for large amounts of fossil fuel using Haber process industry.
David Arthur
n/a
A week or two in the campaign, Ms Bligh floated the idea of having a border to Brisbane Green Belt running up through the Bunya Mountains to the Dividing Range, follow it west past Injune and further to the NT border. Great, that's more than LNP has proposed.
However, noting that Garrett knocked Traveston back on the basis of three endemic species of National Environmental Significance, you'd think they'd accept that the Mary warrants similar protection as the "way-to-b*****y" Wild Rivers of the Cape York Peninsula. Years of employment could be provided in the Mary Valley on vegetation and restoration programmes, in the end we'd have a clean river that discharges clean water to the southern end of the GBR lagoon instead of the present muddy mess.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Or include more legume crop rotation as smart farmers have done for centuries. :-)
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Byron,
Yes and no. In the tropics legumes such as beans do not grow very well as they rot away in wet weather. They also need spraying with lots of insecticides to keep the myriad of bugs from eating them.
Archaeological digs have concluded that some of the village gardens in the New Guinea highlands are over 10,000 years old. The New Guinea natives have been growing food crops in the same land plots for over 10,000 years. They used some interesting techniques to do this, but unfortunately, how they did it is not suitable for large scale agriculture.
Charles Worringham
logged in via Facebook
True, I'm a Greens candidate, but I'm not commenting on Prof Hunt's analysis. whcih speaks for itself. it's the voting advice to people concerned about this issue that's strange. There is no way that voting 1 for the Greens candidate and 2 for whomever the voter ranks next on this policy (Labor according to Prof. Hunt) can do anything EXCEPT either elect the Greens candidate or pass that vote on at 100% value to their next choice. There is no strategic advantage whatsoever in putting your first choice second - indeed you miss out entirely on sending a message to your less preferred parties. Ranking your second choice first counts not a jot more than ranking them second on your ballot paper in terms of the outcome in your electorate.
Colin Hunt
Honorary Fellow in Economics at University of Queensland
Charles, You say voting Green 1 and Labor 2 would either elect a Green candidate or pass on the preference on to Labor. That is exactly what I intended.
My second recommendation is aimed at voters who cannot deny Labor their primary vote, not wanting to take the risk that preferences will get their candidate across the line. Granted, voting Green 2 will have no impact in most electorates. However a Green candidate, or two, might be right up there and need such preferences to be elected.
David Arthur
n/a
Gday Colin,
The Mary River discharges into the Great Sandy Strait between which separates Fraser Island from mainland, from where northward currents take Mary River discharge plume into the Wide Bay and hence to the Southern-most end of the GBR.
In our electorate (Maryborough), there are five candidates. Of these, three have declared their opposition to exploiting CSG in the Mary River basin and surrounds. The remaining two candidates are noticeable by their silence on this issue, which…
Read moreByron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
The development of more fossil fuel reserves represent a grave danger not just the parts of the reef directly affected by dredging. Climate change and ocean acidification threaten the entire reef (along with many other natural and human systems). If we want to have a better than 75% chance of staying below 2ºC (which may not actually be enough to save the GBR from very significant harm), then we need to leave at least 80% of global fossil fuel reserves in the ground. Expanding our capacity to exploit fossil fuels is short-sighted, destructive and a wilful contribution to the ultimate death of the GBR.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Byron,
I spent many years sailing around the GRB and Whitsunday Islands. The greatest damage to coral and the islands I have seen has been due to tourism, and some of that damage has been extensive. (e.g acres of coral ripped up by boats not anchoring properly)
I don’t think we need natural gas as an export, but Australia only produces about 6% of world wide coal production. So what will we do to replace coal as an export?
Please don’t say education. If education was an export industry, it only accounts for about 5% of exports.
David Arthur
n/a
Gday Dale, it's not a matter of choosing to replace coal as an export earner, it''s a matter of Asia weaning itself off coal use. Don't worry, rest assured they will.
So what's the future for steel? After all, a great deal of coal is combusted to make it. Are Asian markets for Australian iron ore also going to diminish?
The answer is, of course not. Steel is going to be produced from iron ore by direct electrolytic reduction, as is aluminium at present. It's just that the power supply…
Read moreDale Bloom
Analyst
Hi David,
I personally am concerned about what can replace coal or iron ore exports. I think many people do not have appreciation or knowledge about the huge scale of the mining industry, and coal and iron ore exports cannot be replaced by something else within a short time period. To replace those industries may take decades.
Personally I do not believe CGS exports are necessary, and I would not recommend anymore tourism for QLD either, for economic, environmental or social reasons.
The ALP in QLF will obviously lose the next election, but I think it will be interesting to see how the independents, the Greens and Bob Katter’s party fare, and also interesting to see how many people cast an informal vote.
Michael James
Research scientist
Dale, we could never replace coal exports with thorium. Not only is it far from rare--even if Australia has one of the world's largest reserves--the export income from uranium is under $2 billion dollars. In fact I suspect that China already has huge semi-enriched thorium deposits in that it is a (unwanted) byproduct of purifying rare earth metals.
I would also hope that since you are an enthusiast for thorium-based nuclear power generation that you will support the billions of dollars in research…
Read moreMichael James
Research scientist
Oops, that should have been David not Dale.
David Arthur
n/a
Thanks Michael, you raise excellent points that set out our conundrum.
On the one hand, export markets for coal are likely to decline over the next couple of decades (see, for example, "Winds of change blow through China as spending on renewable energy soars" in the UK Guardian). I would hope that this is matched with declines in Australian petroleum imports.
This leaves us, nevertheless, as an exporter of raw materials, which means that we are giving other countries the opportunity to make…
Read moreDavid Arthur
n/a
Easy. Replace coal and iron ore exports with steel exports (mineral processing = value adding). Grows the domestic economy, increases the tax base, populates the north-west, decreases volume of shipping required for exports (steel is denser than iron ore, as well as more valuable).
Dale Bloom
Analyst
David
I don’t know the answer at present. There is the situation where welded steel framework for the conveyor belts and wash plants of new coal mines is actually being imported by the shipload from Vietnam.
So we are exporting coal and iron ore, and then importing welded steel framework to build more coal mines.
I can’t see any possible industry on the horizon in Australia that could match the exports of coal and iron ore, and pay for all of our imports. Our balance of trade has recently swung to deficit, even with the exports of coal and iron ore.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/economics/trade-balance-swings-to-deficit-as-iron-coal-gold/story-e6frg926-1226295054180
Now is the time to think about what Australia should be producing in the future.
David Arthur
n/a
Dale, it's also time to abandon the Clean Energy Futures package, and replace it with a fossil fuel consumption tax. The following is from one of my comments posted in response to Peter Lloyd's "The Conversation" piece, "Why compensating households affected by the carbon tax is bad economic policy", which I reproduce below.
In particular, have a look at the paragraph beginning "Regarding Carmody's border tax adjustment for imports ...". It shows that a fossil carbon consumption tax
Read more1. does…
Michael James
Research scientist
Arthur, I wrote my own version of the Dutch Disease a few years back:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2913836.htm
RSPT: money we deserve.
. by Michael R. James. ABC The Drum, 31 May, 2010
(note, the title was not my choice; editors!)
........................
Yesterday Tim Colebatch had a good piece on world perspective re primary resource exploitation; and also some comments on the dollar.
I'm not so sure or enthusiastic about domestic mineral processing--and if you're thinking uranium/thorium it is way too late for that game here (even Switkowski's report on the industry clearly admitted that if we set up a nuclear power industry we would still re-import nuclear fuel that had been processed/enriched from our own uranium ore exports!). No, we have to go technology and high-end services.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
David,
There does seem only one way out, and that is to reduce imports, and produce more in Australia.
We seem to be importing more and more, and we can’t export much more to cover the costs of all the imports, unless we export more fossil fuels.
David Arthur
n/a
Dale, you have managed to completely misunderstand my proposal.
The idea is to put a consumption tax on fossil carbon. This INCLUDES the fossil carbon used to power the ships that import goods to Australia.
Will this favour local manufacture over imports, as I have already written? YES.
David Arthur
n/a
Dale, I have just marked my own previous comment, where I suggest that you have completely misunderstood my proposal, as unconstructive. I realise that it is I who misunderstood what you wrote, for which I apologise.
You wrote "There does seem only one way out, and that is to reduce imports, and produce more in Australia", which is exactly one of the outcomes of imposing a consumption tax on fossil fuel use. To put it another way, the goal that you see as necessary for the Australian economy is a natural consequence of the tax on fossil fuel use that I see as necessary, and advocate.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
David,
Ah, so this will be a type of tax on imports. Possibly a good idea, but I think it has to be backed up by campaigns to buy Australian made products. I think there are now people who will still buy imported products, because they think Australian made products are inferior.
An example is imported food (now about 50% of food for sale in the shops). Australian food is often cheaper and fresher and better quality, but there is a reluctance to buy it.
A condensed summary of the ALP vs LIB policies is here.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-16/queensland-2012-election-policies/3894274
The only thing I can see that goes towards more Australian made products may be this by the ALP.
•$3 million in grants for entrepreneurs aged under 30.
•$2 million more towards What's Your Big Idea? – providing grants for innovative products developed in Queensland.
The rest seems more of the same as what we presently have.
David Arthur
n/a
Dale, it's not a tax on imports per se, it's a tax on fossil fuel use.
Imports require a great deal more fossil fuel to bring them to markets in Australia because they have to be shipped from far away.
I have argued until I am blue in the face that Australia should CUT lots of its existing taxes and replace the revenue foregone with a consumption tax on fossil fuel. Sadly, you seem to not grasp what I am trying to get across to you.
I've explained it over and over at Climate Spectator…
Read moreDavid Arthur
n/a
Thanks Michael, I have a small problem with the RSPT ass it stood. Here's my own preference for an additional mining tax, which I posted to Max Corden's "The Conversation" piece a few days ago. You'll see that my tax proposal has a double purpose. In the short term, it recovers additional revenue to public coffers for beneficial use in Australia.
In the longer term, it encourages Australian processing of mineral exports BEFORE export. By encouraging increased domestic activity and value…
Read moreDavid Arthur
n/a
I'm not arguing that Australia should export thorium - there's not much market as yet. However, Australia should develop thorium reactor technology, perhaps in partnership with India which has its own ample reserves.
I understand thorium reaction requires is not self-sustaining - it requires continued excitation from a particle accelerator or something. This means it cannot melt down, and it may not be used as a weapon. [In turn, that may make small thorium reactors attractive for ship propulsion in the future - certainly more attractive than uranium reactors, and vastly preferable to fossil fuel powered shipping.]