Another Late Train

Public transport remains one of the biggest issues for the O'Farrell government.


There are a number of problema that they, as the incoming government, have been lumped with.


Decades of under-investment (predating the Labor government) have left public transport networks that lag behind the road system that we now have.


The transportation system has been described as shambolic, abysmal and even (with disturbing frequency) "third world" which is surely proof that the writer in question has never actually been to any third world country.


Of course there is massive room for improvement - but the base we have is not a poor one.


The obvious missing feature, however, is integrated ticketing.


Sydney's "T-card" was meant to be in use by the Olympics. The Olympics! The year 2000! That was the year we got the GST; the year we learnt the Y2K bug was a fizzer; and the year that the Airport Link opened.


THAT'S how long ago it was.


Since then, it has been delay after delay.


Nothing typifies the problem better than these little beauties (picture from this website).


I don't know how many stations have had these "things" erected, but anecdotally it appears to be a very large number.


A couple of years ago they appeared almost overnight.


For a while there was confusion as to their intended purpose. Eventually it was revealed that they were to be used to mount the machines that would read the T-cards and record the commuter's travel.


I have no idea what they cost to install, but given it was a government contract, and given the materials involved, it certainly would not have been a small amount.


These things have never been used. They still sit at stations unadorned - a constant reminder of the governments failure to actually accomplish anything.


Unsurprisingly, the Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian has announced today that Labor's timeline for imlementation of the T-card is wholly unrealistic, and that testing is unlikely to begin by 2014.


No doubt this is at least in part an exercise in lowering expectations so that any progress whatsoever can be a brilliant example of just how wonderful it is to have a Coaltion government, and another reason to give them 4 more years.


But, unavoidably, it means further delays and excuses.


The strangest thing is that the excuse that has been repeatedly proferred for the delays is that the pricing structure is the issue.


This seems plainly ridiculous, as pricing is probably the easiest thing of all for the government to amend. Just change the price. How hard is that?


The MyMulti system is an obvious example of how easy it is.


I have a ticket that gives me unlimited travel on any bus, train or ferry across the network. At train stations and ferry wharves I put it through the machines. On busses I flash it at the driver, not that they seem particularly fussed anyway.


I happen to know that CityRail records every use that multiple use tickets get (as long as, of course, the ticket is used in a machine).


So why is integrated ticketing such a massive step? How can it have taken so long?


A few responses spring to mind: constant inter-departmental bickering and buck-passing. A lack of political will. A tightfisted government only willing to spend money on things that will improve that sacred statistic, "on-time running".


Barry O'Farrell has declared his intention to be the man that "fixed" NSW public transport. That is why he has put one of his "most trusted" colleagues in charge of this vital area.


It will cost money, and will require recources, and political will. But if it is done, and done well, he can take a big first step to making an efficient and expanded public transportation system a part of his legacy.


It seems like there could not be a better place to start.

Council of War

A council's job is rates, rubbish and roads. As soon as a council loses sight of this, things start to go wrong.


I've refrained from commenting on the Marrickville Council boycott until now because it wasn't really a state issue, even though it sort-of became during the election.


Now that Barry O'Farrell has sent a letter to the council, I think the issue is fair-game.


O'Farrell wrote to the council recently saying that if the boycott was not dropped within 28 days, he would use his power under the Local Government Act to sack the Council.


News quoted O'Farrell on radio saying "We're happy to take whatever action is required to get Marrickville Council back focused on the needs of its ratepayers, not trying to engage in foreign affairs." 


Fiona Byrne (Mayor and Greens candidate for the state seat of Marrickville) appeared to back away from the boycott today after it was revealed that a full boycott would cost some $3.7 million.


Most of this cost would be in replacing the council Hewlett Packard computers, which are apparently used at Isreali military checkpoints.


Lee Rhiannon, Greens Federak Senator-elect, came out in support of the policy today but went on to say that "...it's not something we're taking to the federal parliament. There are clear priorities."


This last quote is the dumbest part of the whole thing, as it is only the Federal Government that has any prospect of making a tangible difference to Middle East.


Marrickville Council is a small council in a country that, on the global scale, is not exactly a power-house.  For anyone to think that a boycott makes a jot of difference to anything - well, frankly, it is silly and immature.


I was never involved in student politics back when I was uni, but I understand that many such bodies spend hour after hour agonising over their position on the situation in the middle east.  


The student bodies, like Marrickville Council, appear to fundamentally misunderstand their position in the global political climate.


No one cares what position the University X Student Council takes on Isreal except, I warrant, the people sitting on said council.  And no one would care what position Marrickville Council takes, except that their decision will affect the residents financially.


If the boycott costs the council money, I think the residents are entitled to be upset about this.


Symbols do serve a purpose, and yes, sometimes boycotts can be a good thing.  I think the long standing boycott many groups had on Nestle products because of their promotion of forumla over breat milk in developing countries is a great thing.  It hits Nestle where is hurts (their bottom line) and, if enough groups get involved, potentially makes a difference.


This boycott against companies that do business with Israel by one council some 15 000 km away - it's just silly.  And a waste of everyone's time and money.


The fact that someone was asked to calculate what it would cost to dissasociate the council from any company that has a relationship with Israel means that the council was at least considering making tangible financial decisions based thereupon.


It wasn't even companies based in Israel, or companies in which the Israeli government has a financial interest - ANYONE who has a business relationship with Israel was a target.


Now, in fairness, Fiona Byrne has apparently pulled back from that above position, but the whole thing is still ridiculous.


The worst thing is that the situation is the Middle East is not a binary issue.  it's hardly like that Council's other major boycott (Burma) - the situation in the Middle East is murky, to say the least.  it's picking sides in an issue that is complex beyond belief.


Rates, rubbish and roads.  it's not that hard, is it?


**Before you flame me in the comments - I have no fixed position on the Middle East.  Both sides have been wronged, both sides have done the wrong thing, and neither side has my support.  There is no good guy and there is no bad guy. OK?**

All Hans On Deck?

A lot was written in the lead-up to the final distribution of Legislative Council Preferences about the fate of Pauline Hanson. There was also a lot of finger-pointing about who would be to blame if she was elected (which I have written about here).


The count has now been released by the NSW Electoral Commission, and it's an interesting read (if you're into that kind of thing).


I'm not going to explain how preference voting works here - if you want to know more, read the many excellent articles Anthony Green has written on the topic.


The first thing I noticed as I looked through the "First Preference by Group and Candidate"  is this. Pauline received 20 004 first preference votes. That is more than ANY OTHER candidate.


Now that is kind of an unfair statement, because as usual most people voted above the line. For example, the Coalition received 1 923 914 votes above the line.


That said, the number 1 spot on the Liberal ticket (Mike Gallagher) only received 12 582 votes.


Let's put it another way. Of all the people who were bothered to vote below the line, Pauline was the OVERWHELMING leader on first preferences.


Pauline was the number 1 spot holder for Group J (that being a ragtag bunch of independents), and that group received 77 926 first preferences, which was no doubt propelled in part by Pauline's presence at the top.


That's a solid 6th place amongst the groups, behind the Coalition, Labor, the Greens, the Shooters and Fishers, and the Christian Democrats. That's ahead of Family First and the Democrats.


Of course, first preference doesn't count for much when you're scrabbling for a seat. A quota is 185 274 votes, so even with that good start (97 930 first preference votes) Pauline still had a long way to go.


As you will know, candidates are eliminated one at a time and their votes distributed to the candidates left in the count.


The Electoral Commission has provided the full count and distribution on its website. 


After 300 counts, the remaining candidates (and their votes, including allocated preferences) are in the table below.


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 151 878
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 127 682
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99 172
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 90 215
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 84 996
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 60 729
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 55 228
John Hatton (Independent) 53 415
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 50 544
Andrew Ferguson (Labor) 41 444
Arther Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) 35 140
David Leyonhjelm (Outdoor Recreation) 31 818


At this stage, there were 17 candidates already elected:


Coalition 10
Labor 5
Greens 2


This meant that there were 4 spots left to fill. Of the remaining candidates, Pauline is in 3rd place, or in 20th overall (counting those already elected).


On Count 301, David Leyonhjelm (Outdoor Recreation) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 153,106 (+1,228)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 127,953 (+271)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,290 (+118)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 91,213 (+998)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 85,648 (+652)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 61,227 (+498)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 56,374 (+1,146)
John Hatton (Independent) 53,631 (+216)
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 51,931 (+1,387)
Andrew Ferguson (Labor) 41,926 (+482)
Arther Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) 35,271 (+131)


You'll notice that Pauline was distributed 118 votes, which is the least of any of the remaining candidates. Nonetheless, she remains in 3rd (20th) place.


On Count 302, Arther Chesterfield-Evans (Democrats) was excluded and his preferences distributed. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 153,355 (+249)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 128,234 (+281)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,528 (+238)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 92,542 (+1,329)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 88,960 (+3,312)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 61,521 (+294)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 56,723 (+349)
John Hatton (Independent) 54,165 (+534)
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 52,234 (+303)
Andrew Ferguson (Labor) 43,358 (+1,432)


Pauline again receives the least preferences of any candidate, but remained in 3rd (20th) place.


On count 303, Andrew Ferguson (Labor) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 153,576 (+221)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 128,482 (+248)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,686 (+158)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 93,374 (+832)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 92,698 (+3,738)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 61,924 (+403)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 56,968 (+245)
John Hatton (Independent) 54,428 (+263)
Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) 52,602 (+368)


Pauline again receives the least preferences, and with Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) receiving a big chunk of the preferences from the Labor candidate, the gap to the 22nd (and, therefore, first losing) candidate is narrowing.


On count 304, Charles Matthews (No Parking Meters) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 154,886 (+1,310)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 128,997 (+515)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 99,916 (+230)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 96,570 (+3,196)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 95,188 (+2,490)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 63,458 (+1,534)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 58,751 (+1,783)
John Hatton (Independent) 55,276 (+848)


Pauline again gets the least preferences, and more than 10 times less than 21st and 22nd.


On count 305, John Hatton (Independent) was excluded. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 155,309 (+423)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 130,322 (+1,325)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 102,199 (+2,283)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 101,454 (+6,266)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 99,838 (+3,268)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 64,267 (+809)
Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) 59,150 (+399)


On this distribution, Pauline did not receive the least - in fact, she was the 3rd most of the remaining 7 candidates. The gap to 22nd is still smaller yet - only about 2000 votes.


On count 306, Bob Smith (The Fishing Party) drops out, and the preferences are distributed. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 164,719 (+9,410)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 130,483 (+161)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 102,466 (+267)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 102,276 (+822)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 101,183 (+1,345)
Gordon Moyes (Family First) 64,738 (+471)


This time Pauline received the 2nd least preferences. The gap to 22nd is now a touch over 1000 votes.


On count 307, Gordon Moyes (Family First) was eliminated. The new table was as follows:


Robert Brown (Shooters and Fishers) 166,112 (+1,393)
Paul Green (Christian Democrats) 134,804 (+4,321)
Jeremy Buckingham (Greens) 105,472 (+3,196)
Sarah Johnson (Coalition) 104,341 (+3,158)
Pauline Hanson (Independent) 103,035 (+569)


And with that, Pauline drops to 5th (22nd place), having again received the least preferences, and by some margin. Upon her being eliminated, there are only 4 candidates remaining. As there are only 4 seats left to fill (21 seats available, and 17 candidates already elected) the remaining 4 are immediately elected.


In other words, leading up to the last count, Pauline was 2 spots clear of missing out. On the VERY LAST distribution, she dropped 2 spots and missed out.


So, if you're wondering how close it was, the answer is very. Very, very, very close.

Jumping at Shadows

In the lead-up the election there was a great deal of joking about the number of seats that Labor would win.  

When polls came out that suggested Labor's total seat count being in the low teens, many people wondered aloud whether Labor would even have a backbench once their shadow ministry was announced.

On Friday Robertson announced his new shadow cabinet that, we were assured, boasted "a mix of new faces and experience."

Almost every shadow cabinet member has more than one posting, although that is not unusual.  Unsurprisingly, the shadow minister for Education and Training (Tebbutt) and the shadow minister for Transport (Sharpe) are the only two with only one shadow ministry - clearly, these roles are more than enough for any one person to handle.

The full list can be seen here. 

The list is for the most part unremarkable.  Rees has made a comeback to the front bench in the not insubstantial role of police and emergency services as well as the arts.  Burney was, as expected, confirmed as deputy leader.

Robertson's statement that there is a mix of new and old is evident when their experience in the Lower or upper house s reviewed:

Robertson - LA, 2 years

Burney - LA, 8 years

Daley - LA, 6 years

Kelly - LC, 14 years

Tebbutt - LA, 6 years

McDonald - LA, 4 years

Sharpe - LC, 6 years

Lynch - LA, 16 years

Rees - LA, 4 years 

Foley - LC, 1 year

Perry - LA, 10 years

Furolo - LA, 3 years

Veitch - LC, 4 years

Cotsis - LC, 1 year

That said, none of the new appointees are taking their seats for the very first time.

Something I hadn't seen reported that I was interested to find out was who had missed out on appointment, so I've spent a little time trawling the internet trying to work out who is left.

I came up with the following list, which I think is interesting:

Tania Mihailuk - LA, newbie, member for Bankstown.

Nick Lalich - LA, 3 years, member for Cabramatta.  

Clayton Barr - LA, newbie, member for Cessnock

Gaetano Zangari - LA, newbie, member for Fairfield

Keneally - LA, former premier, 8 years, member for Heffron

Ryan Park - LA, newbie, member for Keira

Richard Amery - LA, 18 years, 8 years as a minister (but not since 2003), member for Mount Druitt

Anna Watson - LA, newbie, member for Shellharbour

Sonia Hornery - LA, 4 years, member for Wallsend

Greg Donnelly - LC, 6 years

Amanda Fazio - LC, 11 years

Luke Foley - LC, 1 year

John Hatzistergos - LC but just announced retirement, 12 years, multiple previous ministries

Shaoquett Moselmane, LC, 1 year

Eddie Obeid - LC, 10 years, 4 years as a minister (but not since 2003)

Peter Primrose - LC, 15 years, multiple previous ministries

Eric Roozendaal - LC, 7 years, multiple previous ministries

Lynda Voltz - LC, 4 years

Helen Westwood - LC, 4 years

First of all, all the brand new LA members didn't get a ministry, which was expected given that Labor managed enough seats to be a little bit picky.

There are, by my count, 8 LA members who don't have a ministry. Contrary to the jokes doing the rounds, Keneally will have plenty company.

Keneally announces when she resigned that she wished to serve from the backbench, and that is the job she will have.

The names Obeid and Roozendaal are poison for Labor, so no surprise that they missed out.  Hatzistergos is going so was never a factor.

Amanda Fazio has served as President of the LC for the last year and a half, and will most likely have a leadership role of sorts there.

As for the rest - well, I suppose some people had to miss out.  Amery and Primrose have been around for so long it may be that they are not figured to be a factor for long.

The rest have 3 to 6 years experience each, and may well be disappointed to see people with far less experience getting a guernsey.

It will be fascinating to see Robertson try to keep this group, unaccustomed as they will be to opposition, focussed on the difficult task they have ahead.

PS I've probably made an error or two in the above summary, what with being human and all.  Plus, I'm writing this after midnight on a saturday night.  Cut me some slack?

Flying into Trouble

Sydney's second airport will surely never be built.

For over 60 years governments have been talking on and off about building it, but it seems clearer now than ever before that it is just never going to happen.

Too many governments have made plans, identified sites, spent millions on studies and surveys, and then shelved the plans as soon as it was politically convenient to do so.

Barry O'Farrell has shown himself to be no exception.

Rather than float a site, and then "respond to community feedback" by shelving it, he has hopped straight on the high-speed rail line bandwagon.  

This also seems like a nice idea that will almost certainly never be realised.  The investment required would be enormous, and would require not only cooperation but also funding from a diverse number of government bodies.

That's before we even begin the discussion about where it will cut through Sydney and where it will tip out its passengers.  There's certainly no space at the CBD stations, and what good would it be to abandon the passages at an outer suburbs station like Campbelltown or Penrith?

It seems like Sydney has missed the boat on this one entirely (if you'll forgive the pun) - with Western Sydney seats being so crucial to any state election, no government is going to risk building an airport out west - that is, unless 16 years in opposition sounds like a good deal.

So, the result?  Sydney airport will get more crowded.  The government will be forced to choose between relaxing the curfew or accepting that the number of passengers moving through the airport will have to be capped.

The restrictions will be relaxed, but probably not before an "independent, non-partisan committee" decrees that to be the solution, to minimise the political fall-out.

If only the government had had the foresight and courage to make the call all those years ago, so we could have a functional and eminently useful airport like Melbourne have in Avalon.

This "high-speed rail" - well, i'll believe it when someone explains to me where it will go and how it will be paid for.  Not holding my breath on that one.

Developing a Position

The NSW Labor government was a government characterised, rightly or wrongly, by corruption.

That corruption was, to many people, most evident in the field of development. Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 was amended in 2005 to allow the government to seize, from local councils, control of applications that were "state significant".

This was widely perceived as being the government ensuring that their large developer donors were looked after - no planning application could be stymied by a shortsighted, selfish local council.

In this context, just about every large development approved under Part 3A was labelled by the media and the public as being a political decision to appease the developer.

Whilst I don't pretend to be an expert in the area, one would expect that many of these developments deserved to be approved on their merits.  Nonetheless, the manner in which they were perceived by the public was a pretty clear indication of the public's opinion of the NSW Labor government.

At its very first meeting, the new Coaltion Cabinet has voted to repeal part 3A.  This appears to be a very clear effort from O'Farrell to show that under him things will change.

The difficulty is that when it was introduced in 2005, O'Farrell and the Opposition supported the amendments that brought part 3A into existence.

Luckily for him, few voters will recall or care that he previously voted another way.

The real difficulty is that, in principle, part 3A was a good law.

There can be little doubt that the provision was used too liberally (to the detriment of Labor) and that the law gave too much power to the Minister to take control of larger matters.

That said, there is also little doubt that there are developments for which the significance to the state mandates that it be dealt with at a higher level.

For this reason, most parties appear to agree that some level of minister oversight or control is necessary.  As Stephen Albin of the Urban Development Institute of Australia said, "Everyone in the debate acknowledges that we need to have a system in place that treats major projects differently from a DA for a new house." 

A spokesman for O'Farrell said "The NSW Liberals and Nationals policy has recognised there will always be a need for a reserve power to deal with genuinely state-significant developments, but that such a power must be exercised transparently with clear guidelines and clear public accountability

Having now repealed Part 3A, it is likely that when O'Farrell (inevitably) introduces an amendment to allow some upper-level oversight and control he will be subject to vicious attack from opponents.

The solution may be to allow Part 3A type developments, but only in a open transparent way.  This could be achieved by long and thorough consultation processes - processes that do, from time to time, lead to rejection of applications so that the public perceives that their protests have some effect.

This is not radically different from the system under the previous government. But given that O'Farrell will be given the benefit of the doubt for at least a period of time, it may be the political solution.

The donation reform that he has promised will also assist to dispel accusations of being bound to the donations from developers, especially if they forbid any large donations and publicly fund election campaigns.

But no matter what O'Farrell does, every large development will upset some people, and will therefore be the subject of accusation.  How he deals with these accusations may well be the first real test of his leadership and ability to win the media debate.

A Labor Tantrum

We always knew that Hanson being involved in the NSW election would produce some drama - it just wasn't in the way we expected.

In the event, her "campaign" was barely a blip on the radar.  Whether the media deliberately ignored her or not is difficult to say, but after her position on the ballot was determined she was fairly anonymous.  

In the wash, it looks like she will miss out on the last remaining upper house seat (see Anthony Green's blog for updates).  That seat looks likely to go to the Greens.

The interesting part has been to see the Labor reaction to the possibility of Hanson's election.

The reaction has no doubt been coloured by the fact that, despite the Coalition not getting an absolute majority in the upper house, (the Coalition look set to hold 19 of the 42 seats), along with the Shooters (2 seats) and the Christian Democrats (2 seats) the conservative side of politics will have a majority.

To say Labor and the Greens have been vexed by this result would appear to be an understatement.

The worst thing for Labor is that whilst next time round they will no doubt win more than the 5 they won this time round, they will be defending the 9 they won in 2007, so will be unlikely to gain much, if any, ground.

Anthony Albanese, Federal member for Grayndler, was quoted on SMH Online today. Exactly why Federal members are making comments on the NSW election is unclear, but we'll put that aside.

Albanese appears to blame the Greens for Labor losing half a dozen seats in the lower house.  This may be true - of course, the Greens I'm sure had their own very good reasons for doing what they did.  Perhaps if they preferenced Labor in the seats they had no chance of winning, they would have, by association, damaged their chances in the two seats they actually had a chance of winning (Balmain and Marrickville).

That said, the "estimate" of 6 seats would seem to be stretching the truth just a little.

Albanese was then quoted as saying "It is possible this week Pauline Hanson could be elected to the NSW upper house because of the failure of the Greens party to do a preference swapping deal with NSW Labor in the upper house."

Now this is a little ridiculous.  For a start, it seems inconceivable that many Greens voters would preference Hanson above Labor, preference deal or not.  Anthony Green says (speaking of the 2003 results, when Hanson last ran for the Upper House) that Hanson "did much worse than Labor and the Greens on the distribution of preferences from just about every other party on the ballot paper."

It appears that Green voters did not need to be told to preference against Hanson in 2003, and there is no reason we should expect any different tin 2011.  

Even if the chips had not fallen the way they have, it shows breathtaking arrogance from Labor to tell the Greens off in relation to this.

Even if the Labor pundits (Luke Foley has gotten involved as well) were right (they're not), who are they to lay into the Greens for not preferencing the way Labor told them to?

The Greens are their own party.  They are entitled to preference exactly who they want.  They are not a subset of the Labor party, and the disgruntled Labor pundits would do well to be reminded of that. No deal was broken, no lie was told - the Greens simply formed the view that it was not in their interests to preference Labor.

Just because Labor and the Greens have a convenient ability to work together and have policies that are at least partially in sync does not mean that the Greens need to preference as if the parties are in a formal coalition.

That is especially so when the Labor government have, over the last 4 years, delivered a master-class in how to infuriate an electorate.

More likely, if Labor had not so thoroughly balls-up the last 4 years then the election would have been a real competition between 2 viable alternatives, and the voters would have been less likely to vote for a Queenslander whose candidacy could at best be described as "opportunistic".

In any event, it's doubtful that anyone is particularly interested in Labor's attempts to write the history of the NSW election long these lines.  The election will be remembered for a great big thumping given by the Coalition, and given that Hanson will now most likely not win a seat, Labor won't have the chance to trot out an utterly implausible "I told you so" any time Hanson stymied one of their plans.