Q&A with candidate Clinton Mead

QUESTIONS and the answers with Outdoor Recreation Party candidate Clinton Mead.

1). What is your policy on a second bridge over the Clarence River at Grafton. Where would you prefer it to be located and when will it be built?

I think we should question whether a parliament composed of a majority of Sydney based MPs, or a Sydney based RTA bureaucracy, should be making this decision? The state government's discretionary power in this regard should be limited to major interstate highways. I would support a democratically composed regional body, which is funded to make these decisions based on the wishes of the people of the region, not based on 51% of representatives across NSW, most of which are from Sydney. I would further support statehood for Northern NSW to remove this entirely from the jurisdiction of the State government.

In the short to medium term, however, my focus in the parliament would be on the following:

(1)  Ensuring the people of Clarence get to keep more of their earnings and work in the community, both by eliminating state taxes and decentralising revenue raising and spending.

(2)  Ensuring the people of Clarence get their fair share back of their earnings they are forced to send to Macquarie Street.

Regarding the location of the bridge, this is something I will take on the advice of the community, and in particular, local councillors. Local councillors are elected representatives whose job is to stay in touch with the views of the community. I don't think any one state politician, who will be spending half their time in Sydney, should assume that they know better than elected councillors or the community at large on such a local issue.

2. What will you do to ensure the Pacific Highway is upgraded to dual Carriageway. When do you expect the upgrade to be completed?

If elected, I would push to reduce and eliminate state bureaucracies that manage services which are locally delivered, such as schools and healthcare. These will then be democratically accountable at the local level, instead of schools in Clarence only being accountable to a majority of MPs in Sydney.

This would free up the government to focus on major infrastructure issues like the Pacific Highway, and the reduction in waste will help fund them.

In addition I believe being governed from Sydney is inefficient, ineffective and not accountable to the people of Clarence.I would support a move towards a new state in Northern NSW, so that these regional infrastructure decisions are no longer in the hands of NSW government.

In the shorter term, I will do my best to ensure that the earnings of the people of Clarence that are sent to the NSW Government are both well spent, and that a fair amount of that is spent on projects which benefit them.

3. How many new police do you hope to deliver to the Clarence Valley and Casino? Where will they be stationed and when will that happen?

I believe that, like health, education and infrastructure, issues like policing should be more controlled and prioritised at the local level. I would support local councils, regional bodies, and eventually statehood to ensure that the people of Clarence have more say in these decisions, instead of Sydney members of parliament.

4) The current increase and interest in the mining of Coal Seam Gas seems to be paramount in the electorate of Clarence as the large mining companies are coming into our area and carrying out their operations by stealth all in the sake of greed.

Are you for it or against it? And are you prepared to accept the blame if their actions contribute to the pollution of the Mighty Clarence and Richmond Rivers through "Run Off," because of the chemicals that have to be used in "Fracturing?"

The Outdoor Recreation Party and I both strongly support property rights. We believe that in many cases the best way to conserve the environment is not through bureaucracy and government control, but though giving land owners and the community ownership. With that ownership they directly reap the benefits of good management, so they are more likely to care for the environment.

The issue of coal seam gas involves a balance between land owners and the state's interest in profiting from the resource. However, I believe it is an important tradition in our legal system and democracy to put private land holders first. Indeed, this was so important to the framers of the Australian Constitution that they inserted the "just terms" provision, which is one of the few explicit constitutional restrictions on government action in our Constitution.

Whilst I support environmentally responsible mining, I think the government should be able to put in place measures that ensure that the community and land owners are compensated if any damage is caused, immediately or in the future. This may involve forcing mining companies to pay for insurance for future damages, or to lodge a large bond with the government. Such a system would encourage environmentally responsible behaviour, as those companies that are not responsible would face higher insurance premiums and/or lose their bonds. I would prefer such an approach instead of further regulation, as further regulation increases the cost of doing business responsibly, and when regulations are avoided or simply ineffective, property owners and the community are left in the cold.

Furthermore I would support statehood in Northern NSW, so that the people of Northern NSW can have their own say on mining.

5). Could the candidates for the Clarence By-election please give their preferred location for a second bridge crossing for Grafton and provide an explanation as to why they reached their conclusion?

I would refer this to the community and local government, as discussed in the first question.

6).Would you go against your political party's policy to protect your electorate from any threat to, say, pure clean drinking water?

I believe that the provision of water should be regionally controlled, not dictated by state government. If state government regulations or bureaucracy was the cause of the threat to Clarence's drinking water, then I would stand against it, as would my party's policy.

7). I would like to know about your interest in the manner in which "Cooperate greed" is increasing at such a rapid rate and wether you consider it is now time to act to stop its increase. Or do you favour it as most of our retired politicians seem to be getting involved in it through becoming members of mining company boards?

I think on this discussion we have to distinguish between two types of "corporate greed".

I don't want to bring a stop to the free enterprise that is the best economic system ever known to humankind. I do, however, want to bring a stop to the "crony capitalism", that is, government funding corporations.

I also want to stop government subsidies to all industries. Often people say this will hurt jobs, but it's quite the contrary, taking resources out of a growing business that will hire more people and giving it to an unprofitable business costs many more new jobs than the old jobs it saves.

And I'll be clear from the start - no corporate bailouts, so both companies and lenders know they have to be responsible.

There should also be no special immunity from procesution for corporations, if the hurt people or destroy their property, those corporations should have to pay for the damage.

Retired politicians would be much less employable if businesses could not get unfair corporate protection and subsidies through their political connections.

I want to stop bad greed, the greed that feeds off the taxpayer. The good greed, the greed that encourages people to make a profit by providing a valued good or service for others, is what has made our society prosperous, and I will try to encourage more of this through elimination of unnecessary regulations and taxation.

8). When you make a promise, will you actually keep it?

Politicians often don't really make promises themselves. All they do is make a promise on the behalf of the taxpayer. It is the taxpayer making these promises, as they have to pay for them.

In the end, everyone in NSW gets a bunch of their earnings taken away to Sydney, have them shuffled through bureaucracy and, if they're lucky, they might get some of it back through a 'promise'.

This system hurts everyone. I'll promise to do my best to reform this system, so you have to part with less of your money, and the money you do part with, you'll have more control of in your community. 

9). Sports and tuition tourism is the fast growing tourism areas for rural Australia. What do the candidates feel need to happen to improve this for the electorate?

As in my previous answers, I support more local control. Locals are going to have a much better idea of how to attract tourists than a Sydney bureaucracy.

10). With support for some of our long running festivals beginning to dwindle due to a change in demographics, should we also be putting more money into tuition events such as the heavily underfunded Artsfest?

Again, locals and the region should be able to prioritise these issues with their own revenue raising and spending powers. This is why I support more local control and statehood for Northern NSW.