Thoughts on before the election

So its come to this.  My first foray into Citizen Journalism almost done.  I might post again, but I'm not sure.  I'm not expecting any changes here in Gellibrand about who will get elected.  Tim Watts will be elected as the new member for Gellibrand.  He has a job as the member for as long as he wants it.  I'd say that if the Liberal/National coalition is elected, Tim will be minister in the following Parliament, maybe not cabinet, but certainly a minister. 

It is silly for someone with Tim's skills who has a safe seat not to be.  Tim has the right backing factionally, and this will be very handy for him.  Especially if there is a big loss of ALP members as predicted tomorrow.  The big hope is that Tim actually becomes a good local member.  This term is thrown around a bit, but it is a safe seat, and can easily be taken for granted.  I hope Tim does. 

I indicated early in my nofibs journey (to invoke MasterChef), that I thought the Greens would be out to knock off the Liberal Party for second place once the vote is counted.  I don't know if they will, but they will certainly come close.  The Greens candidate, Rod Swift, has proven to be everywhere, with lots of helpers.  This can't hurt, his chances of knocking off the Libs, or in helping to get the lead Senate candidate, Janet Rice, elected. 

The Liberal candidate, David O'Connell, has been campaigning, and has told me that the party is keen to support all seats.  This mustn't go as far as appearing at a local forum, but these things happen.  David is getting well known in the electorate, and this will probably serve him well when going for preselection in the seat of state Williamstown. Williamstown booths in Gellibrand always have the highest proportion of Liberal votes, and the continued gentrification of that area may well see David in with a shot, but not for a couple of election cycles.

The Sex Party candidate, Allan Cashion, is someone I think we will see more of.  As long as he doesn't get disenchanted my the whole process.  Their policies are very reasonable, and the lead Senate candidate would be a good addition to the parliament.  Depending on how minor parties poll, the Sex Party might become the fourth party.  Or even the third is the Greens do a Democrats.

Our Palmer United Party candidate, Dwayne Singleton, could also be around for the long term.  Again, this depends on the party. If Clive shuts down the party, then that's it.  If he doesn't the role for all minor parties is to keep their profiles up for the next election.  I could see Dwayne going for local council and probably succeeding.  It is always hard with a small party who has only just started. 

The two further minor parties, Australian Christians and Family First.  The ACP candidate, Anthony O'Neill, showed up at the forum and presented his views.  I don't agree with them, and stated my reasons why in my forum post.  But in a democracy, he is entitled to them.  Family First have been very low profile.  Seeing what Kerry Arch, FF candidate, tweets, it would appear that she was a candidate looking for a party.  Just about every tweet has been about restoring the parenting payment that the ALP removed.  Here's some news - won't happen under an Abbott government! 

Kerry has probably out tweeted everyone with this gem on 2 September: 

I'm a single parent and Childsupport helped pay for my kids private school Now working PT/Newstart I can no longer afford the fees.

David had the line at the forum in relation to same sex marriage: 

Penny Wong might be a great parent, but she will never be a great dad.

Both are fantastic contributions to the campaign.

What have I learnt?

Being fairly politically active before means that I've seen and run campaigns.  I was biting my lip a few times not to give suggestions to candidates.  At the forum, it was very hard for me to stand back, as I would have been one putting pressure onto candidates for things they have said.  Doing this also strengthened my views on who would get my first vote.  There have been some things said that I just don't agree with and the actions and self righteously of some candidates has confirmed all my suspicious of some parties. 

I know that come Sunday, I'll have a few less followers on Twitter and there will be some accounts closed. 

The ALP will always be the ALP, with the multitudes of views and factions. I am very familiar with it having been involved, and I know the right can be very strong in its desire to get what it wants.  And will.

The Liberals run a campaign to ensure that their supporters get a chance to vote for their person. I've done this in electorates before, so know what it can be like.

The Greens.  I honestly think that the Greens need a bit more bastard about them.  Maybe they are behind the scenes, but from what I see the need to always be right, not compromising and at times un-pragmatic could be their downfall.  Politics is all about greys and is not black and white.  I think the Greens see black and white at lot of the time, which politics isn't.  Compromise and compassion forms and continues in the grey, and some actions by the Greens in parliament me to think that this is the case.

Sex Party and others.  I think the Sex Party will continue on.  Some of their policies I agree with, some I don't.  ACP and Family First - a bit like the Greens, have issues that they believe in and that's it.  Not for me, then.

I said that nofibs gave me the bona fides to push forward with my reporting here in Gellibrand. It has been a blast meeting and communicating with the candidates, some of whom I know I'll keep in contact with, even if it's only on Twitter.  Those that I met and communicated with showed themselves to be reasonable and decent people who hold values that they are prepared to stand up for.  Not many of us would.

So to end (probably), I've had a blast.

Ramps to nowhere, a look at the proposed WestGate ramps

On 30 August, the Greens released a number of costed of policies relating to transport in Melbourne (although not costed at the time of release – they were received at the Parliamentary Budget Office on 3 September).  Upon reading these policies, there appears to be a number of issues with the figures that are used.

For example, the document says that the cost to build 2.85 kilometres of tram tracks from North Richmond to North Melbourne stations, including superstops and other requirements, will be $28.5m, with the Federal government kicking in $15m.  These figures are based on 2002 figures, and have not been adjusted by any CPI or real increase since then.   Anyone who tries to tell you that the cost of building tram or train lines is the same now as it was in 2002 should also be able to convince you to believe in the Easter Bunny.

I won't get started on High Capacity Signalling, with a proposed 'kick start' of $100m in funding towards a total cost of $2.8billion.  This would require major work to ensure grade separation across the metropolitan network, the purchase of more rolling stock, upgraded stations, and the need for more drivers to say the least.  Would $2.8b be enough to do all this?  Doubtful.

This article will focus specifically on the Greens policy of adding on/off ramps to the WestGate Bridge to get trucks off local roads, as stated in the above Greens policy document.  This is topical as there was also an article on this in one of the local papers this week.  The 2013 Greens Gellibrand candidate, Rod Swift, has done a very informative and descriptive YouTube, which attempts to explain the issue.  The lack of opposing views to the Greens policy and lack of analysis on their policy, but hopefully this article helps to add to debate.  

I live near a number of container parks and deal with trucks every day, and right now, I hear trucks going by.  To have trucks moved off local roads would greatly improve the local amenity; improve my family's local area and a significant number of other families and the broader local community.

A major announcement in the Greens policy is $100m from the Federal government to help the Victorian government build ramps for the Westgate, the total cost which is indicated as $390m.  Some believe ramps will take container traffic (which the truck traffic primarily is) from local roads and onto the WestGate Bridge, and then to their destinations. 

Ramps require trucks to go up an incline.  In simple terms, this means more fuel than on a flat road or a decline, as they are accelerating and going through their many gears.  Fuel costs money, and burning fosil fuels adds to pollution.  Therefore, going up a ramp uses more fuel than going down one, or traveling on a flat road.  This is one of the reasons why many trucks tend to avoid the CityLink toll way, it isn't due to tolls, but it is going up the ramps.  Same for the WestGate Bridge. 

If the ramps were built, a new circuit may be implemented where trucks travel into the Port of Melbourne (PoM) along the WestGate, down the ramps and into the PoM.  Going out, would be quicker and use less fuel to travel along the current routes of Somerville and Geelong Roads, Sunshine Avenue and Francis Street and bypass the WestGate ramps.   

The ramps proposal would see many trucks taking a longer route to get to container parks in Braybook/West Footscray than currently.  If the WestGate was the easiest, shortest and quickest route, trucks would be using it and City Link now.  They aren't.  They use the easiest, shortest and quickest route, which is the most cost (fuel) effective. 

For analysis I have provided links to show how trucks currently get from the PoM to container parks in my local area.  There are by no means centimetre accurate, but do provide the observer with an idea of truck routes.  Also provided are routes if the ramps were built – Google doesn't show the ramps but so you need to think about travel along the WestGate, not along the number 11 road.

 Somerville Road, with proposed ramp

Francis Street, with ramps 

Roberts Street 1 with ramps 

Roberts Street 2, with ramps

Sunshine Road, with ramps.

A cursory glance at my ramps routes, shows they are generally longer and involve more turns and stopping than the current truck routes.  Why would any truck driver take the longer route, when the imperative is to minimise fuel usage and travel times?

The completion of the western section of the EastWest Link would provide a second strategic river crossing, spreading the increasing traffic over two corridors, improve amenity in those areas effected by truck traffic currently and would stimulate land use change and urban renewal in West Footscray, Tottenham and Brooklyn.  

It is unfortunate that this issue has been so politicised, and anyone who says the Western Section should be built is ridiculed as wanting a freeway through Footscray.  The proposed Western section is primarily a tunnel with an over land section through what is now industrial land joining up to the Western Ring Road.  The tunnel truck traffic using it would be container and other non-placarded loads that currently route through suburban roads.  Loads that have a placard are not permitted to use current tunnels in Victoria, and it would be very surprising if this was not continued with the Western Section.

The policy says that a $100 contribution from the Federal government will be made to the total cost of the ramps at $390 million, which assumes the state government is going to pay $290 million.  I don't believe this figure is anywhere near accurate.   Further to this, at a recent Western Transport Alliance meeting, a senior VicRoads manager indicated that the cost of ramps on these ramps would be closer to $500 million.  VicRoads would be contracting the work, and one would assume they have a good idea of actual cost.

The Maribyrnong Truck Action Group (Mtag) did a freedom of information request on the previous ALP State Government's Truck Action Plan, which includes the proposed ramps, and received a document that quotes the cost of the ramps as $450 million plus.  Even though the document is undated (most likely 2010 or 2011), it would be safe to assume that the proposed cost of $390 proposed by the Greens is on the low side.

The number one Senate candidate for the Greens in Victoria is Janet Rice, and Ms Rice is a founding member of Mtag.  It is therefore most surprising that the figure in the FOI document weren't used to better sure up the figures released, unless they didn't suit the desired outcome.  

There was a number of Twitter exchange on the night of 30 August between myself, LeadWest, Mtag, and Ms Rice.  And from these exchanges it can be clearly seen that Mtag supports the ramps unequivocally.  Why? Because Mtag believes they will get trucks off Francis Street Yarraville where they are based.  They certainly don't appear to care where they end up, as long as it isn't near them.  This tweet demonstrates this:

This is very disappointing, coming from an organisation that claims to be active in 'Melbourne's inner west, campaigning to reduce the number of trucks on residential streets'.

Mtag has also moved into politics as demonstrated on Facebook Mtag where they that [they], and anyone else concerned about trucks in the inner west, should support Greens because they are 'the ONLY party heading into this federal election with a policy to address the truck problem'.  A policy that appears to costed way below the actual cost.  Mtag continues to show its political colour by saying, in the same post, that Janet Rice should get your vote in the Senate, because Janet 'knows as much about transport and as much about truck problems in the inner west as anyone else and has worked hard on the issue'.  The post goes on to contain further concerning grammatical errors.

Mtag can no longer claim to be non political and should look at changing their 'About Us' page to:  

If it really comes down to it, we are concerned about truck traffic on Francis Street and want it gone, but we do pay lip service to truck issues in other areas of the inner west, and want you to vote Green in the 2013 election.

There are probably unaligned and reasonable members of Mtag.  These people should really stand up to the current administration and tell them that they are not happy with Mtag being used for such partisan purposes. 

As mentioned, the Greens have now put up a costing request at the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO), which is a re-direction of uncontracted Nation Building funds totalling $2.6 billion to priority public transport projects (are ramps to remove trucks public transport projects I wonder?).

The document mentions 'Prioritising public transport projects', and 'Better public transport options', but little about actual truck transport, but it is mentioned in the document linked called a costed transport plan for Victoria.  But how can a policy be referred to as being costed when it was released prior to the PBO costing it?

In relation to public transport, I have no issue with increasing funding, and have said that I support the Metro Tunnel over the EastWest Link (eastern section).  As a regular user of public transport, I know it needs all the help it can get. 

However, I firmly believe that the WestGate ramps will not solve the issue of trucks on local roads in the inner west.  This pie in the sky policy making does nothing to solve the issue, but rather pretends to show one party as having a solution to the issue, when the solution is known, but can't be supported due to ideological reasons.

You can be sure of one thing, if the ramps are costed by the Greens at $390m, the evidence given above shows that the actual cost to build them would be more like $500m, and probably more.  The $100m contribution will not provide great impetus for them to get the go ahead, and is nothing but tokenism.  The funding shortfall will need to be addressed, and it would be useful to the understanding from the Green candidates in the electorate how this shortfall could be funded.

Who you vote for in Gellibrand is up to you.  I have met most of the candidates, and they are (mostly) reasonable and believe in what they stand for.  One thing is for certain; the WestGate ramps won't be built for a total cost of $390m.  If you do, tell me about the Easter Bunny again.

Disclaimer:  In order to help facilitate change in the inner west, and to offer a different point of view I have recently joined Mtag.  As a member of the local community who wants to see trucks off local roads, I am sure I will be made welcome.

Gellibrand Candidate Forum - first one EVA!

Being the safest ALP seat in Australia, all us voters usually get is some articles in the local paper like this.  This is standard stuff for the local newspapers, it's a phone call and they can knock the photos off candidate's websites, so it is a easy thing to put together.  I had seen a report on nofibs.com.au about a forum in Wentworth, so I got to thinking, if they can have one in a safe Liberal seat, why not here, and why can't I organise it?

To some, organising an event like this sounds would be like building a 3D jigsaw.  I've organised many events previously and know they all basically run to the same model:  Get venue, Promote, Undertake. I had contacted all local Councils about a getting a room, one said they don't rent out rooms, and I am still waiting for a call back from the facilities officer at Hobsons Bay Council.  I've always believed in doing, and I knew waiting would just string things out further, so I contacted a local football club to see if they had a room.  The Rocks is a new function centre in what used to be the old grandstand at Williamstown Football Club.  Once I had a chat them and described the event, they agreed to host the event for nothing.  That was the Get Venue part done, now it was time to Promote. 

The candidates were vital in this, and their tweeting and promoting the forum no doubt helped to get some people along.  I also sent emails to all the local MPs, federal and state (not surprisingly, none turned up) as well as the local Councillors of the two Councils Gellibrand covers.  These details are easy to find on the Internet.  The local newspapers were also contacted, but only one of the three followed up and told me they would write it up.  Most of them came out the same day as the forum, so it would make it tight for any potential attendees. There were a couple of people at the event who must have heard out the Forum through other means, so the paper must have done something to get them along. 

The Family First candidate was an apology because of family commitments, as was the Liberal Party candidate.  To be honest, we haven't seen much of the Family first candidate at all.  A few Tweets, an appearance on The Project and some Facebook posts is the extent of campaigning.  That meant five of the seven candidates confirmed and with that the model moved onto Undertake. 

The structure was easy, up to five minutes to introduce themselves, questions from the floor with two minute answers, then a three minute closing statement.  Starting time was 7 and finish by 8:30.

When the candidates arrived, they got to pick an envelope with a number in it which would be their speaking order.  Turned out it went like this:

Anthony O'Neil - Australian Christians

Rod Swift - The Greens

Tim Watts - ALP

Dwayne Singleton - Palmer United Party

Allan Cashion - Sex Party

Anthony was late, and Tim let Anthony go after Rod.

Rod Swift started off with thanks to the traditional owners, and went through the Greens policies. Rod spoke of the Greens commitment to improvements in health, public transport, transport more generally, education, clean energy and climate and about wanting to make a real change.  The Greens are always on message and it was more of the same that you can read about in the above link.  Interestingly, Rod also included some policies that have not yet been released or costed, more to come on this.

Anthony O'Neil gave a rundown on the Christian Party, which is not Christian and not trying to get people to follow this faith.  Anthony also dropped the line of the night, if not the campaign:  Penny Wong might be a great parent, but she'll never be a great Dad. Basically, they believe in traditional marriage, and that seems to be the main reason for the party being in existence.  I'm not married, but I do have three kids, and my partner and I have been together for over 17 years now.  Years ago, we would have been singled out as being sinners and bringing down the 'sanctity of marriage' by living together and having kids outside of wedlock.  Here's the rub, no one really cares anymore that we aren't married.  Gay marriage will be the same.  I have close gay friends who might want to get married.  It is wrong that they can't if they want to, because I can.  If they want to have kids, good luck to them.  What I think people forget in this debate, is that members of the GLBTI community are just like you and me.  The only exception is that they love someone of the same gender - in every other aspect they are like you and me.  Although, sadly, many have walked a harder road because of who they love.

Tim Watts spoke of the Labor government's achievements, and said he wanted a fairer more prosperous country.  One point Tim did speak on was the little spoken of item of raising the tax free threshold, saying that this is something that has been forgotten about.  Infrastructure was also mentioned including the $3b committing the ALP has made to build the Metro Rail Tunnel.  He discussed Regional Rail Link, and the investment that the ALP has made to Toyota (which manufactures cars here in Gellibrand) which the Coalition government if elected would not support, which might end Toyota's manufacturing.  Tim spoke very well, but that is something I expected knowing that he has worked for Senator Conroy and also for Telstra.  He did come with a posse of supporters which took me back to my days when I was one of them.

Candidates listen to a question from the audience

Dwayne Singleton from Palmer United Party (PUP) spoke of his links to the local area, and from the heart about his father who was well known in the Williamstown area. Dwayne had previously handed out for the Democrats, and based on this was a strong believer in third parties.  Dwayne spoke about people coming into the electorate, and was particularly clear that although Tim Watts was from outside the electorate, he should be welcomed into the electorate, as that is what Gellibrand was built on.  Dwayne tried to give a rundown on PUP policies, but the clock beat him to it.

Allan Cashion from the Sex Party introduced himself and spoke of the Sex Party as being a party for small business, as that is where its founders came from.  Allan spoke of the policies, such as BAS reform, drug law reform including an injection room and how they believe in decriminalisation of some drugs so that they can then be treated as a health issue. Something that has been overlooked in the Sex Party policies is their policy of ending the tax exempt status for religion.  Only a small party could run with this, and if their lead senate candidate gets up, which is a possibility, this would be something that could shake some 'religions' quite forcefully.

Questions were then invited from the floor with a some coming from local residents.  As said earlier, the Greens mentioned that a major transport plan was coming, and repeated some policies items from a public transport forum. These were funding for the Altona rail loop, a station at Caroline Springs, rail lines to Doncaster and Rowville and high speed signaling.  Rod was questioned quite hard on these and indicated that they were to be in the transport policy which was going to be released in that week. Only Doncaster rail and signaling are in that policy, and they are commitments for part funding, which when faced with a hostile state government, is almost useless.  It may seem that Rod is being pointed out here, but he did tweet that "The Coalition won't release costings until final week. The Greens won't release a policy without costings!"  It was naive to think that a statement like this wouldn't come back to haunt you.

A number of other items were covered such as asylum seekers which most candidates discussed clearly and from the heart.  It was discussed about policies which favoured boat arrivals over plane, who gets to come and why as well as intake numbers. One candidate summed the issue up as 'the life of someone on a boat is no less valuable than someone in a camp'.  Changing demographics in Gellibrand and being home to many new immigrants means that many people know former refugees and have an interest deeply in their plight.  An attendee said that it was important not to forget people in camps, and thanked the candidates for this reminder that not all asylum seekers are waiting for a boat.

Greens candidate outlines why voters should vote for him

Transport issues were covered, including an extraordinary claim that regional rail link wouldn't increase travel times for commuters - a project that separates regional from metropolitan trains is going to improve travel times.  When it came to trucks, it was mentioned that one candidate believes the EastWest Link will actually remove trucks from Gellibrand, the Greens policy of ramps for the West Gate was covered (article to come), and the ALP said they will always let Infrastructure Australia prioritise the projects that get built.  

One attendee said he was going to vote Palmer, as Clive 'had run a business before', and as we had the PUP lead Senate candidate, Barry Michels, he asked Dwayne to explain some policies.  Clearly, at the PUP meeting the previous weekend in Queensland a lot of time went into swatting by candidates on policy and should they continue as a party.  Many local candidates, not just from PUP, will have three years to build their profiles and to get into policy debates.

Once questions were over, candidates then had three minutes to make a final pitch to the attendees.  Being the first forum done in Gellibrand, as confirmed by attendee Ralph Willis (Member for Gellibrand 1972 – 1998), all enjoyed being part of it, and for me it was interesting to see the candidates on their feet.  Sure most of the questions were from apparatchiks from the various parties (so to the majority of the 25 in attendance), and if the candidates can't stand a little heat then they shouldn't be there.

In a safe seat the candidates really have nothing to lose.  Those from smaller parties find it hard to get traction, and the incumbent can risk looking arrogant if they don't turn up.  Organising the forum was, to me, a chance to promote nofibs, but more a chance for the candidates to be in a forum with each other and voters.  A number of people on the campaign here in Gellibrand had told me what I was doing as a Citizen Journalist was a worthy thing, they knew of nofibs.com.au and were impressed with Margo and her contribution to the polity over time.  Having Margo's name attached to what I was doing here in Gellibrand, not just with the forum, gave me credibility and ready established bona fides.  nofibs.com.au didn't embolden me, but it opened showed opportunities that I suspect might not have been available to me if I was reporting back to my own Blog.  I have never found event management difficult, and I don't know where I'll be in three years time, so hopefully the idea of the Gellibrand forum continues.  It was a worthwhile project and, from my point of view, anything that allows the voters to interact with those who want to represent them can never be a bad thing.