Bill’s by- election bonus
I DISAPPROVE with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it!
This noble sentiment has been quoted by many this week, including Federal Government ministers, as controversy rages over the sacking by James Cook University of its former professor of physics Peter Ridd.
Based on what has been published so far, I agree with those who say the university’s response has been excessive, though one wonders if there is more to the story.
Professor Ridd has been forthright, accusing other scientists of exaggerating the impacts of climate change on the reef, getting their data wrong and misinterpreting results.
He also says we can no longer trust organisations like the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, both based in Townsville, and has called for better quality assurance in all areas of science.
Strident stuff, perhaps even offensive to some, but he has a right to say it.
He is a noted physicist with interests in coastal oceanography and geophysical sensing of dredging around coral reefs.
But to be honest, I am more interested – and concerned – about Mr Ridd’s position he is “not convinced humans are causing climate change”.
This is challenging science in his own area of expertise. It would be good to hear about his reasons for this, together with some quality assurance from his colleagues as to whether his ideas have merit.
Also interesting is the recent budget announcement by the Federal Government that it will give $ 444 million to a private organisation, the Great Barrier Reef Foundation, to “tackle crown- of- thorns starfish, reduce pollution into the reef and mitigate the impacts of climate change”.
The foundation has links with leaders of big corporations, some of whom advocated against climate science and donated to the Liberal Party.
Evidently, the Government does not trust our own agencies either and will channel funding for research through an organisation based in Brisbane.
It sounds like there is definitely a need for some quality assurance. THE decision to delay the Super Saturday by- elections until late July was intended to box Bill Shorten in, but instead it has let him off the hook.
By having the elections then, it clashes with the planned ALP national conference where Shorten would have to battle the party’s left who are committed to debates about moving Australia Day, walking away from Israel and, worst of all, giving boat people a waiting period on Nauru before coming to Australia.
These ugly fights illustrate how far the party is being pulled to the Left and are poison to anyone thinking of changing the government.
But now the by- elections fall on the same date, Shorten can delay or even cancel the conference sweeping these ugly truths of the party’s more extreme wing under the carpet.
As for the by- elections themselves, it’s worth noting the Liberals aren’t standing in two of the five seats.
Their best chance of winning one is off the now defunct NXT in South Australia, or using One Nation preferences to get up in the seat of Longman, north of Brisbane.
Braddon in Tasmania is even too close for the bookies to call after the Liberals won the state election there earlier in the year.
“Super Saturday” will be fascinating.
If the Libs win nothing, while that’s the way it’s supposed to go in government, it’s a problem for the PM; if Labor go backwards, Shorten is under the gun with plenty in his own party ready to turn on him the moment the polls or these seats give them the chance. not let the government or parliament pick the head of state.
This is the worst possible form of a republic.
To vote for a President means an election; if that happens the parties have candidates and in the end half of the country will feel shut- out if their candidate doesn’t win.
Like the current GovernorGeneral, the President would have the power to sack governments, and don’t tell me there wouldn’t be pressure on a Liberal President to sack a minority Labor government anytime a scandal erupts, and vice versa.
Now, most of the people who push a relic say the office will have no real power in day- to- day government and will be largely ceremonial.
So how will that election campaign look? Vote for me because I’m better at hosting garden parties. No, it will inevitably be like any other election and come down to a way of viewing the world, and unlike the PM of the day, we would be giving a personal mandate to the President.
I can be swayed on the case for a republic, but never if we get to pick the President.