On Saturday night, March 20, visit here from 6pm Central Summer Time (6.30pm eastern, 3.30pm western) for live commentary and analysis on the South Australian election.

I will be reviewing and posting data from various sources for the country electorates of Flinders, Stuart, Frome, Finniss, Giles, Goyder, Hammond, Chaffey, MacKillop and Mount Gambier.

I would appreciate receiving booth reports and breaking news via email to mgorey @ gmail.com. If you would like to contact me by mobile or SMS, please email and I’ll give you a number.

Please also contact me if you’d like to be a guest “panelist” with full access rights on the night.

• UPDATE: My election preview for the 10 country seats is here.
• I’m pleased to announced that Mount Gambier media observer, political junkie and Labor supporter Adam Naiova will be a guest panelist on Saturday night.

Labor held the seat from 1958-75 and the town has a large number of working class voters and people on welfare.

Rory McEwen’s retirement opened the door for a popular, well-known Labor contender to give it a real shake.

That’s not disrespectful of candidate Viv Maher, whose Labor credentials are impeccable. I rather had in mind a community/business person being recruited from outside the party to stand.

A sporting identity or self-employed tradesman might have had broader electoral appeal.

Looking at some of the booth figures from the 2006 election, the Labor vote in the township of Mount Gambier was between 22 and 28 percent. The best was 27.7pc at Mount Gambier East.

At the 2007 Federal Election, Labor polled 47.23pc of the primary vote at Mount Gambier East and won the two-party preferred vote with 56.57pc.

It was a similar story at Mount Gambier North, with 43.38pc of primary votes, 55.54pc two-party preferred.

These are large booths and offset the Liberal bias in rural areas.

But even in Glencoe, for example, Labor polled 31.91pc at the federal poll (41.71 2pp) compared with 15.3pc at the state election in 2006.

The state results are skewed by having an independent MP (Rory McEwen), who is now retiring.

McEwen’s retirement created the opportunity for Labor to convert its promising federal result into state votes.

Even with a high-profile independent candidate (Don Pegler) the opportunity was still there.

Pegler is running a split ticket on Saturday, which means he is giving his supporters a choice of supporting Labor or Liberal with their second preference.

I expect the Liberals to get about 70pc of Pegler’s preferences if they are distributed.

With a gun Labor candidate, a winning scenario for the ALP might have been: Labor 38, Liberal 30, Independent 22, others 10.

Clearly if the Liberal and Labor figures were reversed, Liberal would win. However, we will never know, because Labor is more likely to poll about the same it did at the last state election (22pc).

Independent Don Pegler will need to finish ahead of Labor to win. To achieve that he will have to go close to replicating McEwen’s primary vote of 35pc, and personally I can’t see that happening.

Isobel Redmond and Karlene Maywald

Redmond was reported in The Australian saying:

“For the last term of the government, she’s been a member of the Labor government. I think it’s disingenuous to then try to paint herself as a National, when in fact she had to divorce the state Nationals here from the rest of the Nationals around the country since mostly they were in coalition with Liberals.”

When Maywald challenged her to a debate, Redmond replied: “I don’t debate candidates — I’m the Leader of the Opposition, I’ll debate the Premier.”

Maywald has consistently said she’ll support the government of the day, and in the event of a hung parliament she’ll support the party that offers the best deal for regional South Australia.

Given the Liberals have adopted the Nationals’ “royalties for regions” policy as their own, and Maywald has symbolically directed her own preferences to the Liberals, one might have expected Redmond’s rhetoric to be more friendly.

The Liberals may well need one or two extra votes to form government, and in ordinary circumstances, Maywald would be the first person they seek to enlist.

I disagreed with Maywald remaining in Cabinet when Labor didn’t need her vote. She knows my view, because we spoke at the “balance of power” forum last year.

I believe minor parties should only accept ministries when they hold the balance of power.

Karlene’s view, which I respect, is that she can achieve more for her electorate as a minister. Given the significance of water policy to her electorate, that’s a valid argument.

I counter it by saying she is the Nationals leader and has a responsibility to all of regional South Australia that would be better served from the cross benches.

It’s a circular discussion and there is no right answer.

What’s driving Redmond, I suppose, is her genuine desire for victory in Chaffey and Flinders to enhance her prospects of forming a majority government.

The Labor vote is unlikely to pass 15 percent in either seat, where the real contest is between Liberal and National.

However, Redmond should study what happened in Western Australia before escalating her anti-Maywald rhetoric.

Liberal leader Colin Barnett basically ignored the Nationals during the 2008 election campaign. He refused to negotiate preferences and effectively ruled out Brendon Grylls’ ambitious royalties policy. But his manner was one of indifference, rather than aggression.

It left the door open for talks when the outcome was a hung parliament.

Karlene Maywald probably doesn’t feel too well disposed towards the Liberals just now, as she fights for her political survival.

However, I suspect she will be true to her word and do what’s best for Chaffey if she holds the balance of power after March 20.

It’s mainly about allegations of bias against The Border Watch by the Liberal Party.

The story is based on the fact former editor Frank Morello has been assisting independent candidate for Mount Gambier, Don Pegler, with his media releases.

Frank’s wife Sandra is a senior journalist at The Border Watch and was effectively the chief political reporter.

When the Liberals discovered Frank’s connection to Pegler’s campaign they complained that Sandra had a conflict of interest. They had earlier claimed Sandra’s reporting was biased (before they knew of Frank’s connection).

ABC Radio interviewed Pegler about the allegations on Friday.

He has claimed the surfacing of this story is part of a Liberal muckraking campaign.

The story in the Sunday Mail was factual (UPDATE 17/3: see Don Pegler’s comment below) and reasonably balanced, although I would have liked my denial of bias to have been reported.

I appreciate the reporter, Renato Castello, didn’t cross the line between what I told him as background and my position on the record. I wrote some notes after the interview and these were the points I tried to convey:

• I believe the newspaper’s coverage was unbiased (I explained my thinking on how leader Isobel Redmond’s visit was reported);
• There was no directive from the company to support a particular candidate;
• The Liberals had raised their concerns and revealed Frank’s involvement with Pegler;
• Sandra should have disclosed Frank’s involvement, but hadn’t;
• It was arguable if there was a conflict, but the connection should have been disclosed;
• Sandra was stood down from political reporting the day the facts were known;
• There was no connection between my departure and the election.

I thought the Liberals had reasonable grounds to highlight the link between Sandra’s husband and the Pegler campaign, but I continue to deny the allegation of bias.

It’s the editor’s responsibility to ensure balance and the Liberals made it clear to me they weren’t challenging my integrity.

My view of their perception was that Pegler had the better of early press coverage because he hit the mark with his public statements.

I felt the Liberals took at least a week to get into gear. Their opening salvos were negative attacks on the government and a $12 million promise to duplicate a highway that nobody else had been urging, at least during my 20 months at the paper.

The Liberals got more “on message” when Redmond visited and they released some popular commitments.

Now that I’m one step removed I don’t have a problem with something like this getting into the public arena.

It reflects the intensity of the election campaign, which is shaping to be a nail biter, and a competitive media environment.

It’s no surprise their preferences will go to Liberal ahead of Labor, but I expected them to favor independents in some key seats.

I met the Family First candidate for Mount Gambier, Henk Bruins, a few weeks ago and he expressed his admiration for Don Pegler, who is the independent with a chance of winning the seat.

In The Border Watch today, Bruins conceded the decision had been made at state executive level.

I actually think it’s a decision that could shape the outcome.

Bruins is an excellent candidate for Family First and could be expected to build on the 4.1 percent they polled last time.

If most of his vote transfers to the Liberal candidate, Steve Perryman, as could be expected, it will be that much harder for Pegler to get past Labor on primary votes and possibly win the seat.

At this stage I’m tipping a Liberal victory.

The Senate was established as a “state’s house” with equal numbers of Senators from each of the six colonies that formed the Commonwealth of Australia.

Our founding fathers wanted to protect the less-populated states from domination by Victoria and New South Wales.

At the time of Federation, governments were formed by alliances between groups of independents. The Labor Party was in its infancy and there were no other political parties.

The alliances were formed around strong personalities or issues like trade and immigration.

The two-party system became entrenched early in the 20th century, although the Country Party retained a degree of independence as a third party until the Second World War and later in Victoria.

Although the DLP, Democrats, Greens and independents have at different times held the balance of power in the Senate, it has largely has failed as a state’s house.

That failure is clearly evident in relation to the tissue-dumping fiasco.

The only South Australian Senator who has spoken publicly on the issue is independent Nick Xenophon.

Senior government minister and South Australian Senator Penny Wong told Parliament she understands the concerns which have been raised by workers and industry.

However: “The reality is that Customs concluded that the injury suffered by the applicants was caused more by competition in the industry, not dumping,” Senator Wong said.

Sympathy, but no action.

As for the other Labor Senators, they are missing in action:

• Don Farrell
• Annette Hurley
• Anne McEwen
• Dana Wortley (duty Senator for Barker)

Wong’s remarks were disappointing, but as a Cabinet minister she has a role in government that potentially limits her parochial advocacy, ie she needs to look at the big picture and govern for the whole country.

As for the other Labor Senators, if they were true to the Constitution they would be advocating strongly to protect South Australian jobs.

If they are, the silence is deafening.

Many of those jobs are in the South East of South Australia where Kimberly-Clark Australia (KCA) manufactures tissues and toilet paper at Millicent, near Mount Gambier.

KCA is a subsidiary of the US-based Kimberly-Clark Corporation.

The Customs Department, which comes under the Attorney-General’s portfolio, last year allowed the importation of cheap tissue paper from Asia.

KCA and workers say this contravenes anti-dumping policies, but the government persists in saying the issue is a competitive one, rather than dumping.

That’s my summary of the following text, beginning with a media release issued by KCA on February 10. That sets the context for the complete Hansard record of a Senate question asked by Nick Xenophon on February 25, answered by Penny Wong for the government.

• Jobs at risk
• Union launches campaign
• Xenophon: Dumped below domestic value
• Wong: Caused by competition
• Premier writes to the Prime Minister
• Workers back independent candidate

The Sumatran tiger is threatened by Indonesian rainforest being cleared to manufacture paper products, which are being dumped in Australia, threatening Australian jobs.

According to the paper workers union (CFMEU), one Asian competitor destroys Indonesian rainforest and logs illegally, threatening endangered species such as the Sumatran tiger; employs children as cheap labor, forcibly removes indigenous people and is financially inept.

Apart from that, they are good corporate citizens.

MEDIA RELEASE (February 10)
Kimberly-Clark calls for a fair deal on Australian tissue manufacture

The Australian Government’s removal of dumping duties on imported toilet paper from Indonesia and China puts local manufacturing of product under serious threat.

“Kimberly-Clark has invested more than $300 million in tissue manufacture for its Kleenex®, Wondersoft® and Viva® Towel brands in Australia since 2000,” said company spokesperson, Ross Hearne.

“The growth in imports will likely result in further major investment ceasing. This could, in turn, eventually jeopardise 650 direct jobs in South Australia, long term, and indirectly around 1500 jobs in the South East of the state.”

“We are not asking for special treatment, simply that the Government maintain fair competition between imported toilet tissue and our locally manufactured Kleenex® and Wondersoft® products,” said Ross.

“We are asking the Government reinstate the dumping duties on toilet tissue from Indonesia and China immediately and to reinvestigate the case which, in the final appeal, we believe was flawed.”

CFMEU media release (February 22)
Union Pressures Rudd Govt to Act on Dumping as Jobs Put at Risk

Unions have launched a concerted campaign to force the Rudd Government to overturn a decision to allow millions of rolls of toilet paper to be ‘dumped’ in Australia, threatening local manufacturing jobs.

The products from China and Indonesia, which were sold up to 45 per cent cheaper than in their home countries, have caused serious concern among timber and paper workers around Australia.

Several unions have written to Attorney-General Robert McClelland warning that the Federal Government had set a “dangerous precedent” that poses a threat to Australian workers and industry and requesting an urgent meeting.

CFMEU Forestry and Furnishing Products Division National Secretary Michael O’Connor said the union would also campaign on the issue in the lead up to the South Australian election, where manufacturer Kimberly-Clark has already flagged the potential loss of 1,500 jobs as a result of this decision.

“There is a groundswell of concern in regional Australia over this decision, which threatens to open the flood gates to foreign companies saturating the Australian market with cheap products in a deliberate attempt to destroy local industry and competition through predatory pricing,” Mr O’Connor said.

“With up to 20 ‘timber seats’ around Australia, where forestry, paper and timber products are big employers, the Federal Government would be wise to move on this issue now, rather than allow it to become an election issue.

“Exporters from China and Indonesia are hurting the tissue making industry by selling product at a lower price than is charged in their home markets, a price significantly below what the WTO antidumping agreement regards as constituting ‘normal price’.

“Even the Government’s own Customs and Border Protection Service has admitted that this dumping of 20,000 tonnes of toilet paper has caused injury to local industry.

“All we are asking is for the Government to implement an antidumping system which prevents the targeting of Australian jobs and guarantees local industry’s right to compete on a level playing field.”

SENATE HANSARD (February 25)
Trade: Dumping Duties

Senator Nick Xenophon

However, aggrieved domestic parties were constrained by providing submissions and providing evidence even though the basis for analysis was changed by the Trade Measures Review Officer. My question to the minister is: why does the reinvestigation not include consultation with domestic parties, especially in circumstances where the basis for analysis is changed?

In such cases, does it not seem reasonable that the entire investigation be reopened?

Senator WONG (Minister representing the Attorney-General in the Senate)— I understand Senator Xenophon had a detailed discussion with the Attorney-General this week in relation to this matter. Obviously the government gives very serious consideration to any antidumping issues and is concerned to ensure that Australian jobs and Australian industry are protected when dumped imports cause or threaten to cause material injury.

In terms of the facts of the particular case, the former Minister for Home Affairs published a dumping duty notice in respect of toilet paper from China and Indonesia in December 2008 following recommendations from Customs and Border Protection. Applications to review the former minister’s decision were accepted by the Trade Measures Review Officer, who subsequently conducted a review and recommended that all findings be reinvestigated. Pursuant to those recommendations, the Attorney-General in June of last year directed Customs to reinvestigate all findings. In December, the Attorney-General accepted the Customs and Border Protection recommendation from that reinvestigation that these antidumping duties be revoked.

I note that in the senator’s question he asserted that the basis for analysis from the original investigation was changed by the Trade Measures Review Officer.

This is not the advice of the government. We believe that is an incorrect assertion. There was no change to the basis of the analysis. Customs and Border Protection was directed to reinvestigate all findings of the original investigation, and that occurred within the relevant legislative framework.

I do note that the senator, in the context of this discussion and also in estimates, has raised concerns about that legislative framework. I would advise the senator, through you, Mr President, that that is a framework that has been in place for many years, well preceding the election of this government, and under that framework no new submissions were considered nor could be considered. As the senator is aware, the reinvestigation found that the toilet paper exporter was not the cause of, nor the likely cause of, material— (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON— Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Does the government not consider the possible loss of up to 4000 jobs nationally as a result of this one decision, including 1500 in the south-east of South Australia alone, to be ‘material injury’?

Senator WONG— As I said in my earlier answer, of course the government is concerned to ensure that Australian industry and jobs are protected where dumping of imports causes or threatens to cause material injury.

The reality is that Customs concluded that the injury suffered by the applicants was caused more by competition in the industry, not dumping. I understand the concerns which have been raised by the senator and also by employees and some members of the industry.

The fact is that the government made its decision on the basis of advice and that decision was made on the basis of the cause of any injury. The fact is that the international antidumping system requires dumped goods to have caused material injury to the Australian industry. That was not the finding of Customs nor the advice— (Time expired)

Senator XENOPHON— Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. Under section 269TAG of the Customs Act, will the Attorney-General order a new investigation into this case, opening up the review to allow the domestic industry to present its case and issue a stay of lifting of duties to ensure no impact on the domestic industry while a fresh decision is being considered? Wasn’t the competition caused by the dumped goods in the first place?

Senator WONG— I think the second assertion is not consistent with the advice that I have read out in terms of explaining what the findings of Customs and Border Protection were. Also, in relation to the first supplementary question, I did not have the opportunity to make the point that Customs, on my advice, did consider price, volume and profit effects as well as other economic factors, including employment. That is in response to your earlier assertion. I am advised the Attorney- General does not have the power to direct Customs to undertake another investigation. There are avenues of appeal available to parties. I am also advised that a new application for dumping duties can be made by Australian industry at any time. In addition, under the section in the Customs Act to which the senator refers, it is possible for the Attorney-General to initiate an investigation. Justification of such investigation would require a written application on behalf the Australian industry, and— (Time expired).

STATE ELECTION ISSUE
Premier writes to the Prime Minister
(from The Border Watch)

Premier Mike Rann has stepped into the fight for Millicent’s Kimberly-Clark Australia mill, calling on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to reconsider a decision that threatens hundreds of South East jobs.

More than 200 senior managers, union leaders, contractors and workers at the KCA mill gathered last week in an unprecedented rally to voice opposition to a Federal Government Customs decision that could pave the way for cheaper tissue imports.

Workers took the step of writing to Mr Rudd to call for dumping duties to be retained, while Member for MacKillop Mitch Williams called on the Premier to intervene.

After calls from The Border Watch this week, Mr Rann’s advisers yesterday released a letter the Premier sent on Wednesday to the Prime Minister.

“I have recently received representations in relation to a decision by the Commonwealth Government to remove anti-dumping duties from certain tissue papers exported to Australia from the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of Indonesia,” Mr Rann wrote.

“I am advised that the issue as to whether dumping occurred is not in dispute.

“I understand that the decision to remove the duties was made on the basis that the impact on Australian firms from the dumping had not been material.

“This issue has caused widespread concern, as industry considers that material injury has been caused by the dumping and significant harm to Australian manufacturers could occur, should the decision stand.

“Kimberly-Clark Australia employs 640 people at Millicent in South Australia and supports a further 830 people in the local economy, or 6.3pc of employment in the South East region.

“Without protection from products imported at subsidised cost, the South Australian operations of Kimberly-Clark will find it difficult to secure further investment, putting these jobs at risk.

“On this basis, I ask that you look into this matter and take all reasonable steps to have this decision reconsidered.”

Media release from the CFMEU
Union backs independent candidate

Paper workers have voted to back independent Darren O’Halloran to stand as a candidate in the electorate of MacKillop in the South Australian State election to highlight the hundreds of local manufacturing jobs put at risk after the Federal Government allowed foreign-made toilet paper to be dumped in Australia.

The Millicent sub-branch of the CFMEU Pulp and Paper Division this week agreed to provide financial and practical support for Mr O’Halloran’s campaign.

“After lengthy discussion and debate the committee unanimously endorsed a motion that commits financial assistance to Darren’s campaign which highlights this important issue,” sub-branch secretary Kevin Millie said.

“The committee did not take this decision lightly, but based on the threat to our jobs and the sites future the committee felt that this action is appropriate in the current circumstances.”

Up to 20,000 tonnes of imported tissue products from China and Indonesia have been dumped on the local market, sold up to 45 percent cheaper than in their home countries, in a deliberate attempt to undercut local producers.

CFMEU Pulp and Paper Division Federal Secretary Alex Millar said in Millicent alone, home to the Kimberly-Clark mill, up to 1500 jobs are threatened by the decision.

“Many workers in regional Australia are worried by the Federal Government’s decision to allow this to happen, which is why we think it is important to support Mr O’Halloran’s campaign to have the policy overturned,” Mr Millar said.

“All we want is a fair system that creates a level playing field by preventing this kind of predatory dumping.

“The SA election is a warning to the Rudd Government that if they fail to act and protect these jobs the union will be forced to expand the campaign around the country in the run up to the Federal Election later this year.”

• External link: CFMEU anti-dumping campaign

He should not have said Australia may default on its sovereign debt, but in The Australian today he clearly articulated a logical opposition to the government’s spending splurge:

Debt is less of a problem when it is backed by an asset that is readily exchangeable to restore the wealth of the public coffers. However, I do not know how exchangeable the ceiling insulation will be when we need to repay the debt.

I’m not quite certain what the international market is like for second-hand school halls if we need to send them back. I suppose we could have a crack at getting the $900 cheques off the public, but I don’t like our chances.

We have, approximately, a $90bn package of eclectic economic trinkets, noted as stimulus, that would look good hanging from any rear-vision mirror in a car doing hot laps on a Friday night in downtown Dubbo.

Did we get something substantial, clearly identifiable in the form of the Snowy Mountains Scheme, or inland rail or massive water infrastructure to alleviate the problems of future droughts? Did we invest in a method to encourage people in a growing population to settle away from the crowded capitals of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane? No, we didn’t.

What we did get were big contracts to big firms with big price tags, to make big statements that didn’t deliver big outcomes.

What we got was appalling management of programs and costs as seen in the ceiling insulation fiasco, the biggest flop since the Leyland P76.

Economists may argue over the merits of the government pumping money into thousands of small projects instead of several big ones.

Australia avoided recession, but I suspect too much was spent too erratically for too little long-term gain.

They were great lines by Joyce about Dubbo and the Leyland.

Peterson describes his brief time in the “public service rabbit hole” writing ministerial speeches for the Health Department.

There were whoops of joy in the office when the boss came in and said the section was under budget.

“Oh, so that’s good? You’ve saved money?”

“No, no,” her smile turned to ash as she gave me that pitying look I usually received when I asked a question. “It means training.”

Peterson then recounted attending a conference of dubious relevance, staying in premium accommodation with all expenses paid.

It’s more cringeworthy because it’s the Health Department. If a section can save money for whatever reason, surely it should be channelled into services?

The writer talks about the hierarchy, with the Prime Minister at the pinnacle, followed by his advisers, then ministers and their advisers.

Everyone is expected to be enthralled and active when the PM’s latest thought bubble floats into their personal orbit.

In the Health Department, that meant policy on the run, with websites and marketing materials to promote it.

Peterson wraps up with: “The next time I spend eight hours waiting in emergency, I will be thinking of unused speeches, cancelled events and weeks of wasted organisation and research. I will be thinking of expensive television advertising campaigns and T-shirts and golf balls with little slogans. I will be thinking of websites and a consultation process driven by photography. I will be thinking of training.”

It was a well-written article, entertaining and insightful.

The Herald Sun says the entourage could produce up to 500 tonnes of greenhouse gases.

The Australian contingent includes nine media advisers, five bodyguards and 12 staff from the Prime Minister’s office, according to a provisional list of participants produced a week ago.

The size of the delegation totally astounds me. And I struggle to imagine what nine media advisers could possibly do that’s useful.

One should be able to handle the job, three at most.

Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said the size of the Australian contingent was over the top.

“Kevin Rudd’s mega-delegation is generating a carbon footprint visible on the moon,” he said.

Not to mention the financial cost.

Rudd’s reputation as a bureaucratic policy wonk grows bigger.