#stop csg

This election is host to a massive amount of single-issue parties and here’s another one of them: Stop CSG. As their name indicates, they want to stop coal seam gas and fracking. The campaign against CSG is an interesting one that unites rural constituencies who typically vote National with inner city Greens supporters hipsters supporters like me. Whether a single-issue party devoted to CSG will gain traction is another matter.

What do they offer the progressive voter?

I imagine most progressive voters have concerns about CSG and would at least like to see stricter measures taken and more scientific research and community consultation before the go-ahead is given to CSG projects. If you think the practice should cease entirely, then you will be in good company with Stop CSG, as they are seeking a ban. Yeah, a revelation I know; you never would've guessed that from their name! (Personally? I’m not fully across all the literature but I support at least a moratorium as there are clearly major issues – scientific and social – that need to be resolved first.)

What else? Stop CSG support alternative energy and investment in renewables, including subsidies for them to promote jobs. They aim to de-incentivise fossil fuel energy to help phase it out, with negative subsidies implemented to expedite the process. As far as I can tell they support some sort of price on carbon but do not give specifics. They desire a policy on clean water, including limitations on industrial use to avoid a decline in water quality, and for corporations that cause damage to land to be legally responsible for its rehabilitation. As you can see, these policies all come back to CSG in one way or another.

What problematic policies do they have?

They are a true single-issue party, even if their policies are formulated a bit more broadly than others, so their Senators will be complete unknowns on other issues. According to their FAQ page, on non-CSG issues “[a]ll decisions are taken on merit after consideration of the pillars of ecologically sustainable development: ‘Is the decision right for the Environment, the Society[,] and the Economy?’” I consider this to be empty sentiment – positive sentiment, but empty. It tells the voter very little. Both supporters and opponents of, say, marriage equality could frame their issue as “right for … society”. I am also concerned with their application of the precautionary principle, which I am sure some theorists would also contest. It is a justification for measured action taken in small and reversible steps, not a justification for inaction or no action.

Where are their preferences going in Victoria?

I think Stop CSG have engaged in a bit of preference harvesting – I hope that’s the only reason why Family First are so high anyway. This is a worry in a state where Family First have done a very good job preference harvesting; it is genuinely concerning how many scenarios lead to a Family First Senator in Victoria if you use Antony Green’s calculator. Most of the other highly ranked parties are single-issue types such as Bullet Train and Drug Law Reform. Wikileaks and the Pirates are also pretty high, with the first major party being the Greens at 38th to 43rd. The Greens are immediately followed by the ALP, with the Coalition much further down – their candidates are intermingled with Smokers’ Rights and One Nation candidates in a way that puts the Nationals’ candidate highest. Right down the bottom are crazies such as Rise Up Australia, the Liberal Democrats, Democratic Labour, and Stop the Greens.

Up to 200 anti-coal seam gas mining protesters gathered outside NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell's address to the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce & Industry luncheon on February 13.

This action brought together people from across greater Western Sydney (from Ingleburn to Blacktown to the Blue Mountains) and beyond.