A wise and frugal government which leaves men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement. This is the sum of good government. - Thomas Jefferson
Tony Windsor won his seat of New England from the National Party’s Stuart St Clair at the 2001 federal election. Prior to Windsor’s victory, the National Party had held the seat since the 1920’s. Given that, one would immediately expect someone like Tony Windsor to express similar views to those of Bob Katter. However, when you first hear the bloke talk, you get quite a shock.
When, in recent days, he has been asked to express what issues are important to him, he rattles off what sound like a series of Green party talking points. He likes to talk about ‘Renewable Energy’ and has said he is in favour of a price on carbon. He also speaks positively on Labor’s debt-monster, the National Broadband Network (NBN), a re-nationalisation of the telecommunications industry.
Further digging reveals some very disturbing trends. It appears Windsor has, for many years, had an obsession with spending taxpayer’s money on ethanol production and bio-fuels, and has spouted global warming as the justification, outdoing Labor in pushing economy-crippling carbon emissions reduction targets. Also disturbingly, Windsor seems to have waged a long-term campaign against coal mining in the Liverpool Plains of NSW. He claims he is not “anti-coal mining” in his July 2009 electorate newsletter, and justifies his position on grounds that the coal mining will affect farm water management.
In his opposition to coal in the Liverpool Plains, Windsor has even appeared at rallies with NSW Greens Party extremist (and now Federal Senator), Lee Rhiannon, whose father, W.J. Brown, was a proud member of the communist party (he even wrote this).
Anti-Coal: Tony Windsor appears with Green Extremist Lee Rhiannon
If you look through the National Party Press releases, you’ll find a steady stream of attacks on Windsor, and for good reason. In November 2008 Mr. Windsor introduced his Climate Protection Bill into Parliament and proclaimed that Australia needed to cut Greenhouse emissions to 30 percent below1990 levels by 2020, and by 2050 up to 80 percent below the 1990 emission levels. A Nationals press release in December 2008 titled “ETS must be mindful of jobs” said that Windsor’s policy was “ridiculous” and would “be the death knell for many industries and severely affect farming and regional communities.” Adding that Windsor was “spending so much time with the Greens he is now sounding like one”.
On the ABC’s Q&A recently, he was asked about the global warming scam:
QUESTIONER: My question is to Mr Windsor. Are you a climate change believer and will you support an ETS or carbon tax and why?
TONY WINDSOR: Well, I think there'll be a price on carbon eventually. I can't see the questioner, I'm sorry.
TONY JONES: He's right up the back there.
WILLIAM BLAKE: I'm over here.
TONY WINDSOR: I'm sorry. I think there eventually will be a price on carbon. I doubt whether...
JANET ALBRECHTSEN: Do you support that, though, Tony?
TONY WINDSOR: Yes, I do.
Windsor was clearly put off by the question, and attempted not to answer directly. The Australian’s columnist Janet Albreshtsen, then forced him to clarify. It seems he is getting worried that his constituency is getting the message on the crippling effects carbon taxes will have on agriculture, raising food, electricity and fuel prices (and therefore everything). If the Nationals actually targeted him on this issue, they could take back his seat at the next election.
His little converse on Q&A then continued:
TONY JONES: No, sorry, excuse me, I'm just going to jump in here for a moment. You think there should be a price on carbon?
TONY WINDSOR: I think there eventually will be...
TONY JONES: But Tony Abbott, for example, doesn't want a price on carbon. Does that cause difficulties in your negotiations?
TONY WINDSOR: No.
MALCOLM TURNBULL: But you see, but Tony...
TONY JONES: It's a critical thing, isn't it, because it does seem that some of the independents have quite strong views on climate change, including Rob Oakeshott, from what I understand. He was disappointed that the Garnaut report wasn't acted upon. So the big question for the independents is going to be is this an issue you go to the wall on or not? It sounds like you said "No"?
TONY WINDSOR: Well, I don't think either side are going to go to the wall on a price on carbon in this term.
To top it off, Windsor has run anti-nuclear power material in his newsletter and has even called for the butchering of federalism and the Australian Constitution, with his advocacy of abolishing the states.
This bloke is very bad news.
Rob Oakeshott - Ignorance with a smile
Oakeshott is, by far, the most mistaken of the lot. He is a former National representing a largely rural constituency, but who is also an extreme green sympathiser prone to ludicrous policy prescriptions. Mr Oakeshott is disturbingly jolly in his radio and television interviews. I say ‘disturbing’ because his grinning and laughing is persistent to the point of appearing forced.
These two men are a danger to Australia's future prosperity
Oakeshott is clearly naive and/or ignorant with regard to the agenda of the United Nations. He speaks as if the UN is some sort of godly organisation whose every recommendation should be followed by the sovereign Australian government. He wants the UNHCR to be the guiding light for how Australia deals with immigration policy. In fact, Oakeshott, despite his waffle about 'democracy' seems hell-bent on implementation of any recommendation from any unelected committee of anything, whether its the United Nations, the Ross Garnaut climate gaggle or Ken Henry's Keynesian Treasury dictatorship. The man is clearly intellectually limited and has no independence of mind whatsoever.
He also seems to think it’s important Australia have a House of Reps majority that can work effectively with the Senate to pass legislation. No! The more legislation that goes through the parliament the worse this country gets. Gridlock is therefore, an immeasurably better outcome than efficiency. Kerry Packer once articulated this very succinctly, suggesting that parliament repeal a piece of legislation for every piece it passes.
The problem here is that alot of people vote on personality and familiarity, even when their vote is not in their best interests. On the surface, Oakeshott appears to be a nice reasonable bloke. Hence, someone needs to subject him to some tougher questioning and explain to the people voting for him, that he wants to institute policies that massively increase food, electricity, gas and petrol bills, resulting in the shutting down of untold numbers of rural industries. It seems all the feckless National can do is write up a bunch of impotent press releases attacking Oakeshott’s lunacy. They’ll need to do better than that.
Bob Katter - Semi-sensible
Bob Katter is the only one of the three with anything decent to say.
The first thing to note is that Katter seems to have no understanding of ideology. He doesn’t seem to understand that his rhetorical support for property rights is paradoxical, when compared with his anti-free market babble. After all, the very basis of free markets are private property rights. Perhaps one of the feckless journalists in the Canberra press gallery should ask him how his stance on property rights is consistent with his want of agricultural subsidies. What about the property rights of tax-payers to keep what they earn Bob?
Nevertheless, the most critical thing to me is that Bob is vehemently opposed to ‘Green’ policies. With regard to the future of economic liberty and the Australian standard of living, this anti-green bent is overwhelmingly crucial. Katter has referred to himself as the “most anti-green member of parliament” and in 2006, while speaking on the development-crippling Wild Rivers legislation, spoke of: "enviroNazis hiding in their concrete jungles in the big cities”. As recently as Sunday, Katter told reporters that he feels “nothing but contempt" for the Greens.
Bob is also a North Queensland secessionist, very sensibly identifying the toxic green influence of the Brisbane-centred elite.
Yet another positive attribute is Bob’s history of opposition to the United Nations gun control agenda, which hit Australia in 1996. Katter vigorously opposed the Howard government’s national gun control scheme. In a newspaper interview at the time, he said he was "just the epitome of people who feel very strongly about guns".
He says "I was a weapons instructor in the army reserve; own a stack of rifles as my grandaddy did and my great-grandaddy before him. If you come and see my house, it's built like a fortress. You retreat through one set of locked doors and another set of locked doors and there's a siren and three locks on the door and every bed has a rifle, so if we're out and the kids are at home, they can protect themselves. To leave my wife and kids unprotected because I'm away is absolutely appalling. I believe in it as an article of religious faith."
