Cheaper Petrol Party - Single Issue?

BBC News 1 Feb. 2007: Oil giant Royal Dutch Shell has reported record annual profits of $25.36bn (£12.94bn) for 2006. (30.81 billion Australian)

BBC news 2 Feb. 2006: The Anglo-Dutch energy giant generated profits of $22.94bn (£13.12bn) - up nearly a third on last year when it set a UK record with profits of $17.59bn.

BBC news 5 Feb. 2005: Shell, has announced record annual profits for a UK listed firm.
The group made $17.5bn (£9.32bn) after tax in 2004, partly due to the soaring price of oil.

Sydney Water paid an increased dividend to the NSW government of $193 Million (30 June 2006) But will need to “increase external loans to fund capital works.”

A desalination plant will cost up to 2 billion dollars and have on-going cost of 36.3 million dollars per year.

It would produce 125 megalitres of water per day. According to Sydney Water, losses or “system leakage” is about 171.8 Million litres PER DAY.

The desalination plant does not even cover the losses of "leaky pipes".

Read the (13 page) 2006 Sydney Water audit report.

Are we a Single Issue Party?

Around July 2005, when petrol prices again hit $1.05 per litre, from 87 cents only 5 months before (a 20% increase in 5 months), we decided to do something about it. A lot of people were hurting. From there the idea of a new political party grew.

We began researching and found that that there are in fact many taxes on fuel.

And when oil price increases, so does the tax the government collects.
Is it a surprise that no government will do anything about the petrol price?

At the time,( 25th of June 2005), Mr Howard acknowledged the pain fuel prices would inflict and conceded it could hit inflation in the longer term, but said his hands were tied. (Article SMH).

Do we need another party?
At the moment in Australia, we have 2 parties. The government and the rest. Normally, a government would put up a bill in the House of Reps, this would be debated and some amendments made, until the majority would support it and then the bill would go to the Senate. More amendments could be suggested, the bill would go back to The House and eventually the bill would pass.

Under the previous government we had a situation where the government had a majority in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. As a result, there was no need for any amendments, or indeed any debate. In fact "the rest" was quite irrelevant. So impotent that the government had effectively limited the debate to the absolute minimum necessary for the appearance of being democratic.

The fact is; it did not make a difference what the other parties think, want, do or say. Unless someone from the government party "crossed the floor". In other words: He or she voted with the opposition and minor parties, and in doing so defeats that bill. Unless that happened, the government had the numbers and 'the rest' might as well go home until the next election, because nothing they say or do would have any effect on the outcome of the vote.

So what can we hope to achieve?

If there are more parties it would be unlikely that a government would have a majority in both houses. A small party can have the balance of power and negotiate with the government for their vote. We would negotiate a better deal for the motorists and the pensioners.

We talked to the people, this is what they said:

We found that people were not just hurting on petrol but on a number of other things like:

Interest Rates:

When inflation goes up, so do interest rates. As Mr Rudd conceded and Mr Howard before him, increased petrol prices lead to an increase in inflation.

Does it then not make sense to now reduce the petrol price, by scrapping the GST and (part of) the excise?
When we get the petrol prices down, so will inflation and therefore interest rates can come down again.

Health Insurance Funds:

Those who were on the highest possible table in a private healthcare fund found that they were hit, with sometimes thousands of dollars, after having undergone an operation they thought would be covered by their fund.
In fact, some of them would have been fully covered by medicare, had they not been privately insured.
This does not make any sense.

Public Transport:

People wouldn't mind taking public transport to save fuel, but its not there. Trains and busses don't go at the times and to the places we want to go. Sometimes it is possible to take public transport to work, but you just can't get back.
We want safe, reliable, affordable and clean public transport. We need more, more often and on time.

Education:

We agree with the government that Australia should invest more money into education.

Education is not an expense, but an investment in the future. If you like, we pay now for the students of today and they in turn are paying for our retirement tomorrow.

However; we feel that education should be free. There is something immoral about putting a tax on knowledge.

Hospital waiting lists:

The beds are there, just not enough nurses to staff them. We thought nurses were not paid enough and that's why there is a shortage of nurses. "Young people don't want to become nurses."
The opposite is true: In 2002, nearly 3,000 qualified applicants missed out on a nursing place at Australian universities.
In 2004, 3,760 students were turned away from university, not because they were not smart enough, not even because they could not afford their HECS fees ( $3,920 for first year), but simply because there are not enough places.

The full transfer of nurse education from hospital based training to the university sector was completed in 1993. In 1996, 12,451 students commenced their nursing studies at university. However, by 2004, the number of commencements, along with the number of funded university places, had dropped to 8,803 while the demand for nurses in our hospitals has increased dramatically. (Full text)

In the meantime various State Governments are recruiting nurses from the UK, Sweden, Thailand and other countries. The New South Wales Government has adopted a recruitment program similar to one operating in Queensland. In 2006 a team from the NSW Govt travelled to the UK to hire 400 nurses, with another 600 being sought from Canada and other parts of Europe.(Full text)

An international campaign targeting doctors, nurses and allied health professionals from the UK, Germany, Canada, South Africa and New Zealand was launched around the same time. (Full text).

Why aren't we training them here? The cost of their 4-5 or even 6 year training would well and truly be covered by the taxes they would be paying over their lifetime. It's called "Thinking Ahead".

Childcare:

We feel childcare should be tax-deductible.

Drought / water:

Sydney's water supply is currently sourced from a network of dams in five major catchments occupying an area of 16,000 square kilometres: Warragamba, Upper Nepean, Woronora, Shoalhaven and Blue Mountains catchments. This land extends north of Lithgow and Blackheath in the upper Blue Mountains, south to the source of the Shoalhaven River near Cooma, from Woronora in the east and west to the source of the Wollondilly River near Crookwell. The catchment area supplies water to around 60% of the state's population. The last two dams have been the completion of Warragamba Dam in 1960 and the Shoalhaven Scheme in 1977.
Since 1977 the population in NSW has increased from 5 million to 6.77 million in 2005. No new dams have been build or planned. (ABS) The last time Warragamba dam was full was in 1998 after a 6 year drought. It filled and it overflowed. A pity that the dam was not a bit higher.

We are saving water. In fact, Sydney has reduced its water consumption from 506 l per day per person in 1990-91 to 342 litre in 2005-05. A reduction of 32.4 %.

What has the government done? The government has "developed a demand management strategy" and has set "a target". And it has produced a report: Water Conservation & Recycling Implementation Report 2004-05. And of course there is a plan: the Metropolitan Water Plan.

No new dam, to capture the rain when it does rain, No cloud seeding, to increase rainfall.
But it has commissioned a system, supplying recycled water to Liverpool Golf Course which is expected to save 60ML per year of drinking water. (By the way, according to Sydney Water, losses or system leakage during the year was 171.8 ML per day. That's right, no printing error, 171.8 Million litres PER DAY. That's about 62,727 Million Litres per year.)

But the NSW Goverment did commit the State to a 2 Billion dollar desalination plant.

Cross City Tunnel:

Although this is a locale (Sydney) issue, it is symptomatic of a government's arrogance.

Global Warming:

A lot of the people we spoke to expressed a growing concern about global warming.

The government's reaction?
11 September 2006: Ian Mcfarlane's (Federal Industry and Resources Minister) comment on Al Gore's documentary 'An Inconvenient Truth' and Al Gore's call on the Australian Government to do more to fight global warming: "Well, Al Gore's here to sell tickets to a movie, and no one can begrudge him that. It's just entertainment, and really that's all it is." And "It's one man's interpretation of fact, and I guess whilst that can be classed as non-fiction, it can also be classed as not correct."

Go to our "Global Warming" page, and see what we think. Then let us know what you think. Send us some feedback.

Industrial Relations:

We agree that the AWA's (Australian Workplace Agreements) are here to stay. Ripping up existing AWAs would be disruptive. Forcing employers to involve the unions in AWA negotiations when only one or not even one employee wants that, is unrealistic.

However, we also believe that if a reasonable proportion of the employees wants the union involved then that should be available to them. It does not mean that it should invalidate already signed contracts or that other employees cant negotiate on their own if that is what they want.