My favorite quirk though is the Official Monster Raving Loony William Hill Party.

The Loonies, as they are generally known, added William Hill to their name in recognition of the bookmaker’s sponsorship.

Founded in 1963 by Screaming Lord Sutch, the Loonies add a touch of color and humor to election campaigns.

In 1987, the party won its first seat on Ashburton Town Council in Devon, when Alan “Howling Laud” Hope was elected unopposed. He subsequently became Deputy Mayor and later Mayor of Ashburton in 1998.

Hope stood in the general election against Conservative Party leader David Cameron and was the first to congratulate him at the declaration of the poll (pictured above, Hope on the right).

At one stage during the 1990s there were 16 endorsed Raving Loonies holding council seats across England and one in Scotland.

Howling Laud Hope jointly succeeded Screaming Lord Sutch as Loony leader in 1999 with his ginger tabby Cat Mandu.

Cat Mandu died as a result of a traffic accident in July 2002.

The Monster Raving Loony Party’s official policy statement is known as a “manicfesto”.

Policies for the 2010 election included:

• Health & Safety: We propose to ban Self Responsibility on the grounds that it may be dangerous to your health.
• The speaker in the House of Commons will be replaced by the latest audio equipment.
• To help the Israel/Palestinian problem, we will get rid of the old road map, and replace it with a new sat nav instead.
• Education: We will increase the number of women teachers throughout the education system as we are strong believers of female intuition.
• We will ban all forms of greyhound racing. This will help stop the country going to the dogs.

A long-running Loony policy has been to introduce a 99p coin “to save on change”. I rather like that one.

The Loony candidate in Amber Valley, Sam Thing, wanted to legalise cannabis production and tax it. “My stance is usually lying down,” Thing said.

Hackney candidate Knigel Knapp proposed that young offenders should be superglued together. “If you can’t beat them – you’re not allowed to – join them.”

Knapp polled 182 votes, which was considerably more than the Magna Carta Party, which managed just 26 votes.

The declaration of the poll is another quirk of British politics.

In Australia it takes place a week or more after polling day because postal votes have to be counted and preferences distributed in many seats.

In the United Kingdom it happens on polling night, often in the early hours of the next morning, because the polls don’t close until 10pm.

The declaration gives minor party candidates a platform alongside the “big three”. Hence the picture above of Howling Laud Hope with Cameron.

Hope polled 234 votes compared with Cameron 33,973.

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.

Van Onselen claims: “… it would be absolute folly for the conservative side of politics if the Coalition were to disintegrate, and it would hurt the Liberal Party at least as much as it would the Nationals.”

He makes some spectacular leaps of logic, most of which are so fanciful I don’t know where to begin in pointing out how ridiculous they are.

I’ll work through them in his order.

1. The Nationals would lose a share of power incumbency brings.

Why? They’re in opposition, they don’t have any power. Quitting the Coalition would not preclude them from sharing power after a future election, not to mention the influence they could exercise from the cross benches like the Greens.

2. The Nationals are a political force able to disproportionately deliver for regional communities because they are regularly part of a Coalition in government.

The Federal Nationals are in terminal decline because of the Coalition. People can’t distinguish them from the Liberals. It’s arguable how much they delivered under the Howard Government.

3. The Western Australian standalone model is high risk.

Van Onselen claims the Nationals would have been sidelined if Colin Barnett had won an absolute majority. That’s wrong because there was no way the Liberals could have won control of the Upper House. Brendon Grylls admits his luck in holding the Lower House balance of power, but always expected to hold it in the Upper House.

4. If the Coalition splits, Barnaby Joyce would become Nationals leader and take the party down a regional populist route.

Yes. I can’t see the political downside to this for the Nationals.

5. The loss of support for the Liberals if Nationals run against them in a large number of electorates would be fatal.

I don’t imagine the Nationals would be serious contenders in city fringe seats. If they did stand in seats like McEwen to bolster the Senate vote, chances are preferences would flow to the Liberals anyway. The Liberals have won marginal seats in three-cornered contests, eg McMillan.

6. The Nationals may offer voters double-sided how-to-vote cards with the option of preferencing either of the main parties.

I’d like this to be true, but it’s pure fantasy as far as the eastern states are concerned. If there is a Coalition split, preferences will still go to the Liberals.

7. Frome is an example of why a split would be political suicide.

The Liberals can thank themselves for the Frome debacle. See point 6 for the more realistic scenario in the eastern states.

8. A Federal Coalition split would cost the New South Wales Coalition victory in 2011.

Why? The NSW Coalition is solid and the government is in terminal decline.

9. Different coalition arrangements at the state and federal level would be “nothing short of dysfunctional”.

Van Onselen should read some political history. The Victorian and Queensland Country Parties stood alone during many years of a stable Federal Coalition. The Victorian Nationals contested the 2006 state election independently. It wasn’t their fault the Liberals didn’t win.

10. A federal break-up would destabilise the WA Government.

It would have no impact.

11. The Nationals would probably try their hand in Tasmania.

Fanciful. If they did it would be unlikely to succeed and would not damage the Liberals.

12. The alternative to coalition is electoral oblivion.

The Federal Nationals are staring down the barrel of electoral oblivion if they stay in coalition, especially while in opposition.

I had to check the byline on van Onselen’s article. It reads like something John Howard might have written.

Howard was masterful at massaging National Party egos to keep them on a short leash. I may be wrong, but I don’t think Howard ever needed the Nationals to form a majority government.

However, like Jeff Kennett in Victoria, bringing the Nationals into the tent by offering white cars silenced a potential critic in the bush.

Quitting the Coalition would enable the Nationals to articulate their own policies in the lead-up to the next federal election.

There is no reason an alliance or coalition could not be formed after the election.

The first announcement was by Peter McFarlane on StumbleUpon. I was surprised today when the live site counter showed there were 74 people online at the same time, until I detected the stumble link. Thanks Peter.

Country Voice SA contains news, views and discussion about issues relevant to regional South Australia.

Regular contributors include former SA Nationals president Wilbur Klein and yours truly.

The views are purely those of the authors as individuals, and do not necessarily represent any organisations we may be involved with.

The site is intended to be non-partisan in terms of traditional two-party politics.

I felt there was a need for an independent site that’s unaligned ideologically with either Labor or Liberal that floats country issues for discussion.

I don’t expect the site to be a forum for anti-government rants, but rather to identify issues and discuss ideas.

I have a lot of respect for Wilbur Klein and his focus on community values. Hopefully other writers and commenters will join us there.

For the information of regular readers, I have disabled OzComments in favor of this new site, which will have a narrower focus and be more ideas oriented.