Craig Ingram MP - Independent Member for Gippsland East

  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
  • Craig Ingram Banner Slide
Craig's Comments
Making YOUR vote count Print
Wednesday, 18 August 2010 00:00

One of the most common questions that I get asked in the lead-up to an election is regarding preferences and their distribution. To make the most of your preferential vote it is essential to that you understand the basics of how preferences flow.

What is particularly confusing and complex are the party preference deals and flow, notably in the proportional voting in the Senate or Legislative Council where a simple ‘1’ above the line has given all of the power of preferences to the political parties.

Most of the political preference deals are focussed on these Upper House arrangements.

While voting is both a right and a responsibility, some voters too easily throw away the opportunity to have a real influence on the outcome by slavishly following a party’s How To Vote Card or taking the easy option of voting above the line in the Upper House. What voters should know is that if you make a mistake you should ask for another ballot paper. A mistake, unfinished number sequence or even an illegible or scrawled number can have that ballot paper ruled informal.

The only way you can guarantee that your vote will not go to a particular candidate, party or group is to put them last on the ballot paper.

You may, of course, support one party or individual, but the way in which each candidate’s preferences have been allocated may not give the result you really prefer.

Understanding preferences may seem complicated – but don’t throw away your rights because of that.

Every household has received, or soon will, an election 2010 pamphlet from the Australian Electoral Commission in preparation for the Federal election on August 21, providing broad information on the when, where and how of voting.

On the last page it states ‘How to make your vote count’ – and it’s worth making sure you understand not just the procedure, but the implications.

After running the ‘How To Vote Card gauntlet’ and on entering the polling place you’ll be given two ballot papers, a green one for the House of Representatives and a white one for the Senate.

The green paper is quite straightforward, with its list of candidates determined by a draw organised by the Electoral Office.

You simply put a consecutive number in each box starting with 1. Each box must be numbered for your vote to count. If you follow the directions of a party’s How To Vote Card (handed to you on your way into the booth) be certain that the number order is actually your preferred order – that the candidates are in the order of your preference. You do not have to follow the How To Vote Card for your vote to go to your preferred candidate.

After the close of the poll, the primary votes are counted and then preferences are allotted if none of the candidates have won an absolute majority – which must be greater than 50 per cent plus 1 of the total vote.

The number 2 votes of the primary vote cards of least favoured candidate are allocated to the other candidates on the basis of your numbers or preferences.

The electoral officers continue allocating and excluding the next lowest candidates until one of the candidates wins an absolute majority of primary secondary and other preferences. In some areas that allocation can be very close – a handful of preferences can make all the difference between winning and losing.

The purpose of it all is so that while some voters do not get the candidate they most preferred, every voter gets a say in electing the preferred candidate.

The white Senate ballot paper can appear daunting.

You have a choice – write above the line for a party or group of candidates, or below the line where you must number every box.

Because of the great number of candidates listed below the line, many people feel intimidated and unfortunately throw away their opportunity to influence the way preferences are allocated by simply voting 1 in the box above the line.

It’s not really that hard to give some thought to how you number those Senate hopefuls. Take a little time and consider voting below the line for a more fully effective vote.

Talk about preferences can be confusing. For example this election there is much discussion about Labor relying on the Greens preferences to get across the line, yet the Liberals have also done deals with the Greens and are preferencing them in the city electorates, potentially gifting them seats.

I have always stood by the importance of the individual’s choice. That’s why, as an Independent, I always run on a split ticket, as they are not my preferences to distribute - they are yours. You can make the choice of the party or candidate you wish to have your second and third preference.

Whether it’s Saturday’s Federal election or the State elections in November, don’t ignore the power you own to determine the direction in which preferences flow.

 

 

 
My voting record is clear Print
Wednesday, 04 August 2010 00:00

It’s no surprise that in an election year candidates sometimes resort to misinformation to get attention, but recent comments in the Snowy River Mail by Liberal candidate for Gippsland East, Sonia Buckley, need correcting.

Firstly, on my voting record in Parliament, Sonia claimed that I mostly vote with Labor, which is totally incorrect. A Member of Parliament’s voting record and actions in Parliament are publicly accessible and a simple, basic check would have shown Sonia’s claims to be totally based on ignorance.

As an Independent, I vote on the merit of the issue and its impact on my constituents -- not at the direction of a Melbourne-based political party.

Unlike party MPs, I am not required to put my constituents a distant second, or as is often the case, last, behind the party, a leader’s ego, political donors, marginal seat deals and, most often, just politics, when they vote on important issues.

My voting record speaks for itself. In the current term of Parliament, I have actually voted with the Liberal and National parties 80 times and with Labor 33 times. On another 14 occasions I have voted alone against all other members of the Legislative Assembly on important matters of principle and policy including when the Nationals, in coalition with the Liberal party, broke their election pledge and abandoned East Gippsland timber workers for the establishment of new national parks.

I have also voted on seven occasions with the Liberal party against the Labor and National parties and on one occasion I voted with the National Party against both Labor and Liberal.

These votes exclude a number of debates where the parties declared a conscience vote, which begs the question - on the rest of the occasions did these MPs vote without conscience?

Clearly any political candidate who cannot even get basic facts right is not up to the job or more likely on this occasion Sonia has shown she is quite prepared to play fast and loose with the truth to push a particular political agenda or view.

Snowy River Outcomes

The Liberal Party seems committed for political reasons to downplay the Snowy River environmental flow outcomes and it is disappointing that Sonia and her mentor, Philip Davis MLC, continue to choose to misrepresent the facts.

Yes, there are issues that still need to be resolved and I will continue to work to have those issues addressed, but in the main, while important, they do not take away from the significance of the Snowy outcomes and achievements

that have been delivered to date. They are:

  • Investment of $350 million in water savings. This project, managed by Water for Rivers, is on target to deliver the 21 per cent environmental entitlements by 2012, has currently secured water savings of 230 gigalitres (gl) out of the target of 282 gl by 2012 and is expected to meet all its water savings targets for the Snowy and Murray rivers, including 140gl high security water;
  • Willow control is 85 per cent complete and removal from the Victorian section of the Snowy River Catchment and NSW has completed its 186 km length of the Snowy River below Jindabyne as well as significant works within its catchments;
  • The Snowy Scientific Committee is in place providing crucial advice on managing and delivering the Snowy environmental flows;
  • Significant works have been undertaken on the dam outlets to deliver environmental flows;
  • Rehabilitation of the floodplain reach of the river - 98 per cent of the river is fenced to exclude stock, with 260ha of plantations restoring the native vegetation on the river bank and significantly, 450 log structures placed in the river.

These achievements are significant and the combination of flows and catchment works will deliver a major long term benefit to the environmental health of the Snowy River.

It appears Sonia is now mimicking Philip Davis MLC - now the so-called ‘Voice of the Snowy’ in Parliament, who, for the record, never raised the Snowy River environmental flows issues once before my election in 1999. His silence on this important issue when he was parliamentary secretary and arguably had some ability to influence government left many who fought for the Snowy extremely disappointed - he clearly had limited commitment to this issue.

The Snowy environmental flows are being returned based on water savings in the irrigation areas. These water savings are being secured from the Murray, Murrumbidgee and Goulbourn river systems.

Unfortunately water savings are based on the level of water security in water actually delivered to irrigators in the last water year, i.e. if there is limited water in the basin because of drought the Snowy environmental entitlements are also reduced.

If the Liberal Party has an alternative plan to make environmental water more secure I would congratulate them as this would bring them in line with my long-held view that the environmental entitlements should be the most secure after critical human needs.

I think it’s time the Liberal Party sets the record straight and answers a simple question. Do they support, as I do, the Snowy River’s environmental allocation being given full 100 per cent security even in drought years? If so, they should put it up as an election policy.

What East Gippslanders want from all sides of politics is a clear election commitment on these issues. Ill-informed criticism is no replacement for sound commitment.

 

 

 
The worst kept secret Print
Thursday, 08 April 2010 11:53

In the lead-up to the 1999 election, the (then) Labor Member for Morwell-- at a well attended public rally -- promised that under a Labor government the Gippsland region would receive a greater share of the Thomson River water, as was originally promised when the dam was constructed. This is an issue that had been a sore point for decades as Gippslanders were arguably sold-out to Melbourne when the dam was constructed.

This policy commitment from the senior Labor member, who was also a shadow minister, received attention in the local media and many Gippslanders rightly expected this commitment to be honoured. The problem was that this public commitment was not actually Labor Party policy and was designed purely for the local audience – “just tell them what they want to hear and deal with the consequences later”.

In the lead-up to this year’s state and federal elections, this tactic is being repeated again -- now by the coalition -- on a range of issues. A classic example is the Mitchell River catchment dam being touted by the National Party.

In a recent debate in Parliament, both the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party spoke combined on a Mitchell catchment dam for over 40 minutes, but would not say when and where the dam would be placed. The Nationals’ grand dam plan is fast becoming the region’s worst kept secret.

I am the first to agree that there needs to be water security for the farmers on the Mitchell River flats, but a dam is not the answer. Any dam or storage on the Mitchell River or one of its tributaries will further damage the fragile Gippsland Lakes system and become an attractive option in bolstering Melbourne’s water supply, as we have seen with the Thomson River. To say that it will not damage the Gippsland Lakes is wrong.

Either the promise to the irrigators by the Nationals to build a dam is a cruel hoax or the local Liberal party members are being misled by their leadership. One thing is clear -- in a coalition agreement you can’t bet on the Nationals to deliver as they just will never have the numbers.

We must all work together to find solutions for this vital industry, but this must be investigated sensibly and transparently. A dam is not the answer.

 

 

 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  7 
  •  8 
  •  9 
  •  10 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »


Page 1 of 32
audio_feed
Click the icon above to listen to live audio from the Victorian Parliament. Click here to view sitting dates.
Click here to subscribe to news from craigingram.com via RSS
Media Release from Craig Ingram MP - Member for Gippsland East

SUBSCRIBE TO CRAIGINGRAM.COM

Want to keep up with the latest news from Craig Ingram? Subscribe to our news feed.

You are here  : Home Blog