Does Australia have a 'political crisis'?

By Don Aitkin
Posted Tuesday, 3 February 2015

This is my last reflection on what Paul Kelly has called 'the Australian crisis', his proposition that our political system is now unable to deal with reform of any kind, because the politicians find it just too hard. One cause is that our politics is almost completely adversarial, and another is that the electorate does not understand the realities of our political economy. We have become too used to annually increasing wealth.

I mentioned in one of the earlier posts that he argues that with respect to politicians we seem to move quickly from adulation to contempt. It may be that we are returning to an era of short-term governments, which enter on their term because of total dissatisfaction with their predecessors, and are in turn tossed out by an equally disenchanted electorate. Nothing much gets done at such times. What is it that has to be done, you ask. To that in a moment.

But we can notice, in support of Kelly, that the Baillieu/Napthine Government in Victoria lasted only one term, that the LNP in Queensland may have lost to the ALP that was thrown out of office only one term ago, and that the Coalition in NSW will probably get back in its coming election, but with a much reduced majority. Federally, the Coalition is way behind Labor, and is only halfway through its term. Is this a crisis?
Not really. There have been electoral phases like this before, and opinion polling is only a rough guide to outcomes. But we need to consider Kelly's point about the difficulty of undertaking reform. We are only fifteen or so weeks away from Joe Hockey's second Budget, and it seems that aspects of the first one are still in contention. What will happen to the second? Perhaps more important, what will the second Hockey budget be about?

I do think that there has been a marked reluctance by the ALP, the Parliament and the mass media to accept that the six-year Labor Government spent far too much, and that it committed future governments to a continuation of that spending. Yes, there was the global financial crisis, and some of that spending was necessary. But when that was over there was no return to economy or thrift. Instead, more was promised, as though the money-tree was having a second crop.

Instead, there was a rapid decline in our terms of trade, our export earnings and government revenue. For too long Treasury kept reassuring the Government that there would be an uptick. It never came. The first Hockey Budget was tough, but you would expect that. The response was that the Budget was unfair, because too much of its economies fell on those least able to afford them. The trouble is, that far too much of the Budget is a transfer system, exacting money from those able to pay taxes, and handing it over, in divers way, to those who don't, or who pay little. The following graph, which appeared in an earlier post, sets out the problem.

Societies have a choice in all this. You can ask the people who already pay 95 per cent of the income taxation to pay even more than they presently do, or you can reduce the transfers, or you can increase the GST level. You can increase company taxation. There is anguish whatever you do. Some people depend on the transfers. Those who already pay a lot of taxation (mostly wage and salary-earners, who can't offset easily) feel angry that they are to pay more. Increase company taxation and you reduce the incentive to create jobs. Increase GST? Well, the States would get it.

The Coalition is of the view that people pay too much tax anyway. Its position is that we are all expected to have a job and look after ourselves and our dependants. That is the responsible thing to do. The Government's task is to ensure that the economy is strong and that jobs are plentiful. It can tweak a bit, but tweaking is not the aim of the game. The expectation that tightening our belt is really unnecessary, because Australia is doing well in comparison to other countries, seems a tad on the loony side to me, whoever says it. And it is loonier still when you look at the great decline in mining revenue, and the number of companies in that sector that are closing down mines, laying off people or having other troubles.

The Greeks are congratulating themselves on the election of a government that is going to stand up for Greeks against the perfidious Germans and other Europeans who lent them lots of money, and want it paid back. No! say the Greeks, you're wealthy, so you can afford to wipe off our debt. I think that there are echoes of that sentiment across our country, and it's no more sensible here than it is in Greece.

There is, of course, a way out - for Australia, anyway. If we do not make appropriate reductions in public expenditure there will be a reluctance on the part of overseas lenders to provide loans, our interest bill will become an ever-larger proportion of our government's budget, and we will soon be back in the dark days. It happened in the late 1920s. it happened again in the stagflation period of the 1970s, and happened briefly in the early 1990s. It's a bit like war. We have generations now that have no memory at all of the Second World War, the Korean War of or the war in Vietnam. War sounds exciting to some, especially those who have never experienced it. We have had twenty years of continual prosperity. Affluence is seen by younger people as the natural order of things. If it is declining, then it must be the government's fault.

I feel like many others with whom I've talked. I would be most apprehensive about any return of the Labor Party, given the dysfunctional ALP government of 2007-2013. But I confess to a deal of disappointment with the actions so far of the Coalition Government. I had hoped for a lot better. I accept that the Senate has made things difficult, and there will be many more who find the position and actions of some of the cross-benchers juvenile and almost intolerable.

But that is where leadership comes in, and we haven't seen much of it. Yes, we have a crisis, but I think it is a short-term one. Unless there are substantial changes in the Government's leadership, the outcome will be unpleasant.

Don Aitkin has been an academic and vice-chancellor. His latest book, What Was It All For? The Reshaping of Australia was published by Allen & Unwin.

This article was published in On Line Opinion.

First, understand the history of the Vasse and Wonnerup Estuaries and the Lower Vasse River. Only then can you better manage these waterways.

It's important for people to understand what the environment of the Vasse and Wonnerup estuaries and of the Lower Vasse River were like prior to European settlement and how we've changed their environmental character in the years that followed.

The Vasse and Wonnerup estuaries were fresh in winter and saline to brackish in summer. The Capel River flowed into the eastern end of the Wonnerup estuary, with the Ludlow also contributing its water to the system. Today, the Capel River flows direct to the sea at Peppermint Grove Beach, so the total amount of freshwater entering this estuary is probably less than 25% of what it was.

The Vasse estuary received water from the Abba, Sabina, Vasse and New Rivers, with water from the latter two watercourses now mostly diverted to flow direct into the sea. Overall, it's likely that less than 50% of the original winter water flow is now entering this estuary.

The Lower Vasse River was, according to Pioneer of the Year award recipient Les Peaker nothing more than a winter-flowing creek that meandered through dense tea-tree thickets. It contained small permanent pools along its course in which fish and marron could always be found. When the Butter Factory floodgate was put in, the check boards turned this meandering creek into a large permanent pool which, because of the very low gradient in the river bed, extended for 2 or more kilometres upstream. It thus formed a very artificial but attractive entrance into Busselton.

Water quality problems in all these waterbodies are ultimately caused by excess nutrients. While fertiliser run-off from farms was the largest and initial source of these nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen), urban development around Busselton has added extra nutrients via septic tanks polluting the groundwater and garden fertilisers washing off and also adding to the groundwater.

As a result, we today have 3 legacy issues which have to be dealt with. First, excess nutrients are still coming from farming land, although the amount is reducing as farmers improve their land management practices and as genuine farmers are being replaced by hobby farmers. Second, nutrients from urban areas are also reducing thanks to better fertiliser management by the City and by septic tanks being replaced by deep sewerage. Third, in the bed of the Lower Vasse River and in the Wonnerup Inlet, there is a thick layer of black, organic- and nutrient-rich sludge that has accumulated from when the floodgates were first installed. While the then Shire under Beryle Morgan dredged some of this sludge out of the Lower Vasse River in the 1980s, most of the pre-dredging sludge remains and it continues to accumulate.

What to do? In the Lower Vasse River, there is absolutely no alternatives but to remove the sludge and to work with farmers in the catchment of the Vasse River to reduce their nutrient losses. Cost: many millions of dollars and it will take another 10 or more years for this to happen. In the meantime, there are some cosmetic actions that can be taken - fountains that aerate the river water and vegetated floating islands - see www.fiatechnology.com.au (warning: I'm a director of this company) - but they will only ever treat the symptoms, they won't cure the illness.

In the estuaries proper, a return to hydrological conditions similar to those that prevailed prior to the installation of the floodgates is critical, together with removal of the sludge in the bed of the Wonnerup Inlet. Allowing more 'fresh' seawater into the two estuaries over the summer and autumn months will improve water quality, allow fish to move to parts of the estuary system where they won't die of low oxygen levels or bacterial/algal poisoning, while also providing food habitat for the 30,000+ waterbirds that use the estuaries over the summer. Cost of better floodgate management: a few 1000 dollars per year. Cost of dredging: a million or more dollars.

The picture is more complicated than this, of course, but state govt funding of an organisation such as GeoCatch which has almost 20 years' experience in land and water management is critical. Sadly, the announcement by water minister Mia Davies last October was a non-event, as the money promised to various bodies was far too small to make any real difference. The minister's commitment to a committee to report on what actions are needed next, while commendable in some ways, can also be seen as a way to defer any serious funding commitments until after it reports in about a year's time, coincidentally just before the next state election. You'll have to excuse my cynicism but GeoCatch has studied what needs to be done in the catchment - have a look at the various River Action Plans that are available online - and they simply need the money to implement these actions.

Four reasons I won’t have a prostate cancer blood test - Prof Ian Haines

5 December 2014

Four reasons I won’t have a prostate cancer blood test

Ian Haines

Adjunct Clinical Associate Professor & Senior Medical Oncologist and Palliative Care Physician at Monash University

For many men, the down sides of PSA testing outweigh the benefits.

Cancer Council Australia and the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia yesterday released new draft guidelines to help GPs counsel men who ask about prostate cancer tests. They advise GPs to explain the pros and cons of testing and, if the man wants to proceed, to give him a prostate specific antigen (PSA) blood test every two years between the ages of 50 to 69.

Over the past few decades public health messages have drummed into us that early detection and treatment of diseases are key to good outcomes. Add to this the celebrity testimonials for prostate tests and non-celebrities who tell us their PSA test “saved their life” and it’s easy to see why men think the tests are beneficial.

While some prostate cancers are harmful and require treatment, many are not. So the prevailing wisdom – that early detection and treatment is best – doesn’t necessarily apply. At least 70% of men over 70 have prostate cancer detected in autopsies, and only 3% of men die because of prostate cancer.

I’m a 60-year-old male oncologist who has practised full-time for 36 years. Having “skin in the game” I’ve followed the testing debate closely since PSA was first used for screening in the early 1990s. Based on the evidence, if I was asymptomatic, I would not choose to have PSA test. Here’s why.

1. PSA is a poor testing tool

Prostate specific antigen (PSA) is an enzyme secreted in large amounts by normal as well as cancerous prostate cells. Only small amounts of PSA leak into circulation from a normal prostate, but this increases with any prostatic disease, benign or malignant.

An elevated PSA very often does not indicate cancer. Just one in four men with a positive PSA test will have prostate cancer.

PSA tests also miss many cancers. A 2003 study found that 21% of men who had a “normal” PSA of 2.6 to 3.9 at the end of a seven-year study did, in fact, have prostate cancer. Of the men with a PSA of 2.5 or less, 15% had cancer.

2. Prostate cancer isn’t like other cancers

The point of a cancer screening test is that it can reliably detect lesions that, if removed, will reduce the chances of that patient later developing a life-threatening cancer.

This is certainly true for polyps and bowel cancer screening. It is also powerfully true for precancerous lesions of the cervix and cervical cancer. It is somewhat true for mammography and precancerous or early invasive breast lesions.

It is not at all true for prostate cancer screening. In the majority of cases, prostate cancer behaves more like an indolent condition and does not pose any threat to the patient’s natural life span. This proportion of men dying of other causes continues to increase in the PSA era.

The only prostate screening study showing an advantage for screening has very serious flaws, which have also been noted by the head of the American Cancer Society Professor Otis Brawley and Professor Richard Ablin, who discovered the prostate specific antigen in the 1970s.

3. Surgery won’t always cure you

The only study comparing radical surgery with no treatment found equivalent outcomes. It concluded:

Among men with localized prostate cancer detected during the early era of PSA testing, radical prostatectomy did not significantly reduce all-cause or prostate-cancer mortality, as compared with observation, through at least 12 years of follow-up. Absolute differences were less than three percentage points.

Radical surgery “cures” six in seven cases of prostate cancer. But this does not remove the uncertainty and doubt for men with prostate cancer, as most of the six in seven who are “cured” did not require treatment and most of the one in seven with dangerous cancers requiring cure will not be helped by the treatment.

4. Detection and treatment comes with side effects

One in six men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer during his lifetime. Their lives will be profoundly changed by this cancer diagnosis, whether or not they proceed with treatment.

I do not want the anxiety, depression and relationship changes that follow diagnosis, radical surgery, active surveillance or any regular monitoring. I do not want to be impotent, which is very likely after radical treatment, or have urinary incontinence.

Even before treatment commences, after an abnormal PSA result, men are referred for a prostate biopsy: a surgical procedure that, even though it can indicate cancer, cannot give reliable information about how that cancer will behave.

I do not want the 1-2% risk of life-threatening infections caused by prostate biopsies.

Bottom line

I’m happy to take active positive steps to improve my health where it is proven that the benefits of the intervention outweigh the costs. But I’m not prepared to have my life ruled by a regular blood test like PSA that has no advantage.

First published in The Conversation

What do the Greens support as alternatives to the burning of fossil fuels?

The recent China/US agreement to reduce CO2 emissions prompted Martin Ferguson, former Labor Minister for Resources and Energy, to publicize a few "energy" facts which raise the question of whether emissions reduction is the real objective for "The Greens". Here is the reaction from my retired financial advisor friend AP to the former Minister's criticism:

"China and US have shown they will act," cheered The Greens' leader, Christine Milne. "The Australian Greens are congratulating the US and China on their agreement to act on global warming and say it's not too late for Australia to get on board."

It's fair to say the Greens and their boosters have used the USA-China accord as a stick with which to beat pretty much anyone outside of the renewable energy sector.

Their rhetoric is symptomatic of a broader malaise; our increasing inability to listen to, analyse, and properly understand the words and numbers underpinning complex policy.

Slogans should not be a substitute for serious discussion or critical thinking.

The question I would like answered is whether the Greens and the wide array of energy dogmatists who cheer them on actually understand - let alone support - any of the energy technologies that underpin the capacity of the two global superpowers to enter into the "Climate Pact" in the first place?

The People's Republic of China has 22 nuclear power reactors operating and a further 26 under construction.

Additional reactors - enough to triple nuclear capacity to at least 58 gigawatts by 2020 - are planned. As a rule of thumb, a typical new-build reactor will generate about 1 gigawatt a year, so it appears there are quite a few new Chinese nuclear power plants on the drawing board.

This will raise the percentage of China's electricity produced by nuclear power from the current 2 per cent, to more than 7 per cent, by 2020. Thereafter, another threefold increase in nuclear capacity (to about 150 gigawatts) is planned by 2030; and then more again by 2040.

Not only does nuclear power offer an enormous opportunity to Australia's uranium exporters, it clearly has a central role to play in China's decarbonisation. Yet the last time I checked, the Australian Greens were trenchantly opposed to the use of - let alone the further development of - this major energy source. Of course, they are not the only people in Canberra to hold such a view.

Hydroelectricity is also incredibly important to any future reduction in China's emissions.

Hydro is the world's leading source of renewables-based electricity and in
2012, it produced more than twice as much power as all other forms of renewables combined. In China, hydropower has long been the single most important source of renewable energy and it will remain so in 2040. China last year brought online a record 31 gigawatt of hydropower.

And while the country's investment in hydro will fall after 2020, this is simply because most of the suitable hydro sites will have been by then developed, not because better or cheaper renewable technologies will have become available. Hydro will still account for about 40 per cent of total energy produced by renewables in China in 2040.

As a party who owes its parliamentary advent to an anti-dam campaign, it is hard to see how the Australian Greens could change the party's opposition to China's - or anyone else's - dam-building.

Now let's look at the USA; a country that is already leading the world in the field of carbon reductions; with emissions today back to levels last seen in the mid-1990s. It is an astounding achievement, but not one born of a carbon price or a Renewable Energy Target. Rather, it has been the rapid and dramatic discovery and use of cleaner burning indigenous natural gas supplies that has cleaned up the American power system.

The scale of the USA shale gas expansion is immense. In the few years immediately following the technological advancements in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling that made vastly more resources commercially available, the price of gas fell from more than $13 per gigajoule in 2006, to less than $4 today.

Gas use has soared and gas has displaced coal as the country's leading energy source.

The United States today has 487,286 gas wells in production; a staggering number. And throughout 2014, more than 300 drill rigs have been drilling for gas across the US. The International Energy Agency (IEA) says that in 2040, gas will provide more energy to the USA than coal, wind and solar combined.

And what do The Australian Greens say on natural gas development? They oppose it.

Lastly, the IEA forecasts China will remain the world's largest coal user in
2040 - with consumption three times that of India, the world's second-largest user. Not surprisingly, the IEA says carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an essential mitigation technology.

As part of their "Climate Pact" the US and China aim to use advanced coal technologies, including a major CCS project in China.

The Australian Greens? In 2011, they insisted CCS be excluded from the $10 billion Clean Energy Finance Corporation, set up with the Gillard Government.

Frankly, it is hard to see what Senator Milne was referring to last week when she said: "The Greens will continue to push for true leadership and real action to address the greatest challenge of this century - global warming."

Energy security and climate policy are areas of complex policy. "True leadership and real action" is indeed required.

But it actually consists of sophisticated thinking and rigorous debate; not opportunism"

Just how toxic are the chemicals used in fracking?

Major class of fracking chemicals no more toxic than common household substances

November 12, 2014

The “surfactant” chemicals found in samples of fracking fluid collected in five states were no more toxic than substances commonly found in homes, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis by researchers at the University of Colorado Boulder.

Fracking fluid is largely comprised of water and sand, but oil and gas companies also add a variety of other chemicals, including anti-bacterial agents, corrosion inhibitors and surfactants. Surfactants reduce the surface tension between water and oil, allowing for more oil to be extracted from porous rock underground.

In a new study published in the journal Analytical Chemistry, the research team identified the surfactants found in fracking fluid samples from Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Texas. The results showed that the chemicals found in the fluid samples were also commonly found in everyday products, from toothpaste to laxatives to detergent to ice cream.

“This is the first published paper that identifies some of the organic fracking chemicals going down the well that companies use,” said Michael Thurman, lead author of the paper and a co-founder of the Laboratory for Environmental Mass Spectrometry in CU-Boulder’s College of Engineering and Applied Science. “We found chemicals in the samples we were running that most of us are putting down our drains at home.”

Imma Ferrer, chief scientist at the mass spectrometry laboratory and co-author of the paper said, “Our unique instrumentation with accurate mass and intimate knowledge of ion chemistry was used to identify these chemicals.”  The mass spectrometry laboratory is sponsored by Agilent Technologies, Inc., which provides state-of-the art instrumentation and support. 

The fluid samples analyzed for the study were provided through partnerships with Colorado State University and colleagues at CU-Boulder.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a technique used to increase the amount of oil and gas that can be extracted from the ground by forcing fluid down the well. Fracking has allowed for an explosion of oil and gas operations across the country. In the U.S. the number of natural gas wells has increased by 200,000 in the last two decades, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Among the concerns raised by the fracking boom is that the chemicals used in the fracking fluid might contaminate ground and surface water supplies. But determining the risk of contamination—or proving that any contamination has occurred in the past—has been difficult because oil and gas companies have been reluctant to share exactly what’s in their proprietary fluid mixtures, citing stiff competition within the industry.

Recent state and federal regulations require companies to disclose what is being used in their fracking fluids, but the resulting lists typically use broad chemical categories to describe the actual ingredients.

The results of the new study are important not only because they give a picture of the possible toxicity of the fluid but because a detailed list of the ingredients can be used as a “fingerprint” to trace whether suspected contamination of water supplies actually originated from a fracking operation.

The authors caution that their results may not be applicable to all wells. Individual well operators use unique fracking fluid mixtures that may be modified depending on the underlying geology. Ferrer and Thurman are now working to analyze more water samples collected from other wells as part of a larger study at CU-Boulder exploring the impacts of natural gas development.

Thurman notes that there are other concerns about fracking—including air pollution, the antimicrobial biocides used in fracking fluids, wastewater disposal triggering earthquakes and the large amount of water used—that are important to investigate and ameliorate. But water pollution from surfactants in fracking fluid may not be as big a concern as previously thought.

“What we have learned in this piece of work is that the really toxic surfactants aren’t being used in the wells we have tested,” he said.

GOVERNMENT COMMITS VIRTUALLY NO FUNDS TOWARDS IMPROVING WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE VASSE WONNERUP WETLAND SYSTEM

GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THE INDEPENDENT EXPERT'S  REPORT ON IMPROVING WATER QUALITY WITHIN THE VASSE WONNERUP WETLAND SYSTEM VERY DISAPPOINTING

The public announcement by the Minister for Water Mia Davies about the state government's response to the independent expert's report on management of the Geographe Bay catchment was a great disappointment.

Her presentation on October 31 to a large crowd of local people vitally interested in preventing further fish deaths contained three main initiatives. These were:

* $200,000 to be given to the Geographe Catchment Council to assist the government in community consultation
* the establishment of a ministerial taskforce to "oversee a long-term strategy to improve water quality and the ecosystem" and
* $4.8 million dollars to connect 126 properties in Quindalup to deep sewerage.

All three initiatives are disappointing for a number of reasons.

The one-off allocation of $200,000 to GeoCatch is not to allow any on-ground works to be implemented, but only to consult and communicate with the local community.

The taskforce will, for the most part, be reinventing the wheel, since the management actions needed to improve water quality have been outlined in documents and reports prepared by GeoCatch over the last 10 years.

The money for deep sewerage connections in Quindalup is equal to $38,000 per property with only minor improvements in water quality to be gained by Toby's Inlet and Geographe Bay.

I was a former member of the GeoCatch board and the former member for Vasse from 1996 to 2005. I'm highly critical of all three initiatives because they lack substance and any long-term commitment to improving water quality in the Vasse Wonnerup wetland system.

GeoCatch has been given a one year allocation of funds with which it has to tell the community what a great job the government is doing. Not one cent of this money is to be spent on water quality improvement, even though GeoCatch was set up in 1997 to be the coordinating body for on-ground improvements.

The ministerial taskforce appears to be an exercise in delaying for a year - until much closer to the next state election - any commitment of funds to allow catchment management actions to be implemented.

The $4.8 million for sewerage connections is more about providing the Water Corporation with a new source of income via wastewater treatment from the 'lucky' 126 properties. As well, deep sewer connections will allow more of these properties to be rezoned for tourist accommodation or higher urban density, so the City of Busselton will be a financial beneficiary of this initiative through an increased rate base.

$4.8 million equals $38,000 being spent per property on deep sewerage, when instead the government could have installed $17,000 Aerobic Treatment Units (ATUs) at each property and given the unspent $2.6 million to GeoCatch or the City to improve water quality in the Vasse Wonnerup wetland area.

Professor Barry Hart, formerly from Monash University in Victoria, was the independent expert called in by the state government in 2013 to provide a review of management needs in the Geographe Catchment.

His report contains 14 recommendations, the first of which - for the state government to establish a single catchment management authority to manage all wetland assets - has been rejected by the state government.

Recommendation 13 - that the government provide $30 million of funding over 10 years for management - has resulted in just $200,000 being committed, less than 1% of the recommended amount.

Dr Hart's review report was welcomed by the local community as it gave them reasonable grounds for hoping that the state government would do something meaningful to better manage water quality in the Vasse Wonnerup wetland system.

Instead, we have had scraps of money offered to GeoCatch, a one year delay before the taskforce reports and money being spent on deep sewerage, a relatively lowly ranked management action.

My relevant background to water quality issues in the Geographe catchment include:
Former president, Geographe Bay Advisory Committee
Former member, Vasse Wonnerup Land Conservation District Committee
Former member, Geographe Catchment Council
Councillor, Busselton Shire Council, 2009-2010
Member for Vasse 1996-2005, including shadow minister for the environment 2001-2004

Shooting Up on Heroin at your Local Polling Place

I'd forgotten how backward and unhelpful the WA Electoral Commission were at election time. Over my almost 30 years of involvement at polling booths on election day, attempts to recycle How To Vote (HTV) cards have become increasingly frustrated by the silly decisions of the Electoral Commission.

On Saturday October 18, I was reminded of the Commission's silliness when I attempted to recycle HTV cards at the Vasse Primary School polling place. As electors left the school assembly area where they were crossed off the electors' list, handed a ballot paper, directed to a booth to mark the paper and then directed to the ballot box, next to the only exit was box for rubbish such as HTV cards. When I asked Lorraine, the person in charge of the polling booth, if I could recover HTV cards from the rubbish box so that I could recycle them on behalf of all the parties who had volunteers handing out HTV cards, I was told that she could not allow me to do so. When I politely but resolutely protested and asked the basis for this ruling, she directed me to her boss Phil who I phoned with the same request. In turn, Phil advised he'd talk to the WAEC's by-election manager and get back to me.

A few minutes later, Phil phoned me back and confirmed that permission to empty the rubbish box would not be given. When I asked him to explain why, he declined to elucidate the WAEC's concerns, other than saying there could be a ballot paper accidentally discarded in the box. When I pointed out that Lorraine has said such ballot papers would not be allowed to be placed in the ballor box, he ceased attempting to explain the decision, instead reiterating the Commission's refusal to allow access to the rubbish box.

So why is the WAEC opposed to anyone - their staff or political party volunteers - recycling HTV cards? As strange as it may seem, they appear to believe it's a occupational health and safety issue. If you think back 15 or so years when heroin was one of the most popular recreational drugs, the WAEC warned that drug users might inject themselves in the privacy of a booth, even though these booths then as now were open and barely concealed a ballot paper, let alone any drug-taking paraphernalia. So, after injecting themselves with heroin, drug users were expected to dispose of the used needles in the rubbish boxes near the polling booth exits.

How many times were heroin users found shooting up in polling booths? None. How many discarded needles were found in rubbish boxes mixed in with HTV cards? None.

But the OHS concerns don't stop there. People coming into the polling booth could bring glass drinking containers in with them, drop them on the floor and the broken glass would have to be cleaned up and disposed of in the rubbish boxes. Of course this could happen, expect that you can't buy non-alcoholic drinks in glass bottles any more.

OK, what if people used the rubbish boxes to dispose of soiled nappies or food scraps? For recent elections, pre-polling has allowed people with reasonable reasons for not being able to vote on polling day to cast a pre-poll vote. Invariably, almost all nursing mothers will find a suitable time to pre-poll rather than run the risk of standing in long queues on polling day with babies in nappies, often under a hot burning sun during a summer election.

Please, WAEC, come clean (excuse the pun!) on why you won't allow polling booth volunteers to empty the rubbish boxes at polling booths so that HTV cards can be recycled. If someone puts a HTV card in the ballot box and throws their ballot paper in the rubbish box , that's not an action that WAEC staff should be held responsible for. If volunteers are happy to run the risk of being cut or injected by a sharp piece of rubbish or putting their hand into a soiled nappy, that's their problem, not yours.

Is it worthwhile trying to recycle HTV cards? Let's do the numbers (but round them off for simpilicity's sake). In a normal state election, there are probably 1.5 million electors. If the four major parties -Liberal, Labor, Nationals, Greens - print enough HTV cards so that, in a worse case scenario, every elector going into a polling booth has a HTV card, then that's six million pieces of paper printed and distributed during the election campaign. Add in an extra million or two to take account of the minor parties' HTV cards and the total could easily hit seven million HTV cards. Forgetting about the number of trees that have to be cut down to meet this need for paper, the cost of printing out seven million, one sided colour A4 pages is probably three cents per page. Total cost - $210,000. If the political parties could reduce their HTV card print run by 50%, in the knowledge that they can recycle HTV cards from the polling booth's rubbish box, that's a worthwhile financial saving for the political parties and their candidates and, thanks to taxpayer funding of election campaigns, the savings could be passed on to taxpayers through reduce public funding.

The WAEC needs to explain why it maintains this absurd ban on the recycling of HTV cards. The risks it perceives to volunteers involved in recyling are non-existent and the financial and environmental benefits are worthwhile.