Horse 3277 - The 'Gabba Is Fine As Is - Leave It Alone

Much has been made in the press about the many millions of dollarpounds which will be spent to knock down and rebuild the 'Gabba for the 2032 Olympic Games in Brisbane. Mostly the narrative has been one giant pile on from the Murdoch press; who seem to be more than a little bit embarrassed that the people of Queensland elected any Labor government at all, in spite of their best efforts to turn Queensland and Australia into their own private paradiso fascista.

One one hand the Murdoch press finds it acceptable to accuse Labor governments of wasting money; yet at the same time when the Andrews Labor Government in Victoria cancelled the Commonwealth Games in Melbourne, this apparently was unacceptable. Thus we have a pair of AND gates where whatever input goes in, if it is being done by a Labor Government it is bad, and if it is being done by an LNP Government it is good.

There simply isn't any point in linking to or quoting from the Courier-Mail article which I read this morning, because it requires you to deny several things about reality and assert three things which are blatantly untrue. Nevertheless, the base question that it asks about needing to knock down the 'Gabba is valid, irrespective of what they assert. 

I do not think that a knock down and rebuild of the 'Gabba is necessary. Here's why.

Australia has previously held two editions of the Olympic Games. When it came to the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney, they were held in a purpose built venue which would be be converted back into a multi-purpose stadium after the event. Sydney Olympic Stadium (which is probably called Super-Tele-Wobble-Cheese-Waffle Stadium for sponsorship purposes) is a weird venue which is overly too long for football and just a tad too large for cricket. 

However, the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne, were held in the Melbourne Cricket Ground; which by virtue of being a cricket ground was already adequate to hold the  Olympic Games in. Everything that I have seen to do with the 1956 Olympic Games, suggests that the only hitch had to do with quarantine for horses and this is why the Equestrian Events for the 1956 Olympic Games were held at the home of the previous Olympic Games in Helsinki. As the photograph here shows, the  Melbourne Cricket Ground did the job nicely.

In principle, I do not understand why anything needs to be done to the 'Gabba at all. The Brisbane Cricket Ground in Wollongabba (hence "the 'Gabba") is bigger than the Sydney Cricket Ground and whilst it isn't quite as massive as the Melbourne Cricket Ground, an 8 lane 400 metre running track will fit into the space without effort. Just like the MCG, the 'Gabba would need to have a temporary surface laid for that purpose, as well has having a long jump pit and the steeplechase water jump dug into the turf but those divots can be replaced, just as they were in Melbourne in 1956. 

The 'Gabba is not as small as people think it is. Yes, it is a 45,000 seat venue which does feel a bit like being at a big café ground at times, but that centre space is still pretty vast. The thing about the 'Gabba that nobody seems to remember is that the 'Gabba used to have a dog racing track around the perimeter. That dog track was also occasionally used for dirt midget racing, as it was rated at 460 yards; which is just over a quarter of a mile. That means that the inside track was 418 meters long; which is longer than the 400 meters required for an Olympic running track. If you can put an Olympic running track into a venue, then in theory you should be able to hold the Olympic games there; which is as true for a 120,000 seat stadium as it is for Tallawong Oval in Blacktown, which has Jimmy's Aussie Chinese Tucker on the other side of a car park.

This is where I ask what would be so terrible about holding the Olympic Games at the 'Gabba as it is now? 45,000 seats is not the biggest venue in the world but you can guarantee that it would be full for just about everything held there. As for the other venues which could be used, then Lang Park, Queen Elizabeth II, Ballymore, et cetera, would also be full for just about everything held there.

Sydney was massive. Athens was frequently quiet. Beijing always had everything filled to capacity. London struggled to fill some venues. Rio made use of some of the stadia being a little smaller than expected. Tokyo was the exception as that Olympic Games was held in not quite silence. Brisbane on the other hand, if it holds the Olympic Games at the 'Gabba as it is now, would be able to retain the flavour of Brisbane being a little bit café and friendly, while at the same time having every event heaving with spectators.

I have watched Australian Rules football at the 'Gabba when the Brisbane Lions have packed the place to the rafters and my experience tells me that it is as loud and electric as anywhere else you care to mention. That is the case now. So what if you can't get another 20,000 people in the place.

I also look to the legacy left behind by the Sydney Olympic Games and wonder. Super-Tele-Wobble-Cheese-Waffle Stadium (Sydney Olympic Stadium) is fine when it packs in 80,000 people but most of the time when there is just a rugby league game being played there, it sounds lifeless. The Western Sydney Giants don't even play there for this very reason. They play out of the Sydney Showground which is next door; precisely because the café stadium produces a better atmosphere. Now obviously the 'Gabba is bounded by Vulture Street and Stanley Street, so the ground can't grow terribly much more massive but still, would a 60,000 seat 'Gabba actually be worth the effort in 2037? Somehow, I just don't think so. Nor do I think that it is worth the effort to destroy the character of the area, which includes a primary school, just to expand something which is guaranteed to become a cultural dead zone during the day when no sport is being played.

Remember, this is me talking. This is me who thinks that Rosehill Gardens shouldn't be knocked down but replaced with a short track speedway; likewise for Randwick. This is me who likes the idea of getting rid of fibro low-density housing and replacing it with medium to high density developments provided we can add more football teams in the space. This is me who has called for the development of The Bogandome in Sydney's west. I am not anti-sport by a long shot. 

I think that the best way that everyone can double their money here is to fold it in half and put it back in their pockets. The outlay to make the 'Gabba just a little bit bigger for a two week event, seems like it came from the board room of Ill-Conceived Concepts And Half-Baked Ideas Ltd. This is action without thought of consequences. This is monkey idea, monkey do; but not monkey idea, monkey think before monkey do.

Horse 2183 - Sometimes, Specific Words Are Used For A Reason

The deaths of four people on the Thunder River Rapids ride at Dreamworld are a tragedy and devastating for the families affected. Sometimes accidents happen which change people's lives in an instant, forever. As a society, we assign the task of dealing with this sort of mess to people upon who we confer special responsibility and I think that we should also bestow respect upon these same people who work in difficult situations that I for one would not cope with.
This explains why I found the following tweet from journalist Mark Ludlow at The Australian Financial Review, so strange.

https://twitter.com/M_Ludlow/status/790809321768488960
Why ambulance and police officers use phrases like "sustained injuries incompatible with life" is beyond me. Such cold, impersonal language
- Mark Ludlow, 25th Oct 2016. (@M_Ludlow)

It's comments like this that make me wonder what the actual value of a journalism degree is. As little as a decade ago, journalists were at least somewhat concerned with the collection of facts as well as news for their reportage, but now when the news cycle has sped up so quickly to the point where the only thing that matters is getting copy out as quickly as possible, to ensure that your news organisation gets that first wave of eyeballs and clicks, then the idea that a journalist would do even ten minutes worth of research seems all too difficult.
I have not been blessed with a career in journalism; so perhaps I can look at this without looking at it through the fog of pressure from a newsroom but didn't it ever occur to the Brisbane Bureau Chief and Political Correspondent at The Australian Financial Review to be a little bit curious?

There are obviously reasons why people who are in highly responsible positions act in ways and say things in very singular ways. Granted that language is often used to obfuscate and confuse issues when it is used by politicians who want to avoid actually saying anything that they can be held to, but when people who act in their capacity as officers of the law and in matters severe legal consequence, then their language is going to be quite deliberate. If they don't use language which is deliberate, then we end up in wonderland and sleepwalking into the surreal.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. ... "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There (1871)

Forgive me but I would have thought that someone whose job lived in the land of words, was going to be at least a little bit careful in their use. I know that when I write a piece for my audience of tens, I will rewrite things, fact check things and sometimes cut things out if I can not find an acceptable answer. Especially when it comes to events of tragedy, the use of certain words might have legal implications, and in this case it does.

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/92868/m-osc-fs-information-for-health-professionals.pdf
Under section 30 of the Births, Deaths and Marriages Act 2003, a doctor must issue a cause of death certificate if they can form an opinion about the probable cause of death. It is not necessary for the doctor to have treated the person as they can consider other information such as the person’s medical history.
However, section 26(5) of the Coroners Act states that a doctor must not issue a cause of death certificate in relation to an apparently reportable death unless the coroner authorises it. Penalties apply for a breach of this section.
- Information for Health Professionals, Queensland Courts - Office of the State Coroner Queensland

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/ca2003120/s26.html
(5) A doctor must not issue a cause of death certificate for a person if—
(a) the death appears to the doctor to be a reportable death, unless a coroner advises the doctor that the death is not a reportable death; or
(b) a coroner is investigating the death, unless the coroner authorises the issue of the certificate.
- Section 26(5), Coroners Act 2003 (Qld).

Quite clearly, it is Doctors and Coroners who have the legal power to declare someone dead; NOT Ambulance and Police officers. Being dead, has specific consequences from a legal perspective; for instance, I can tell you that far far more people die on July 1st than June 30th and the reason has to do with taxation purposes. Even though first responders and initial caregivers such as Ambulance, Police and Fire Officers are all people in respected positions of authority, for them to declare someone legally dead would represent a clear and very present conflict of interest. Police have sometimes been accused of racism and by giving Ambulance and Fire Officers the ability to declare someone dead, this might remove the impetus for them to save certain people's lives; that isn't the sort of power that should be given out if that kind of accusation can be levelled.

The reason why we get "cold, impersonal language" is precisely because we have professionals who are dealing with serious and grave circumstances and doing so under the gaze of others, such as those in the media like the Brisbane Bureau Chief and Political Correspondent at The Australian Financial Review, Mark Ludlow.

I will freely admit that as an accountant I know diddly squat about a great deal many things. I will tell people openly that I know diddly squat about a great deal many things and the reaction that that sometimes gets can vary from the incredulous to the abusive. I can not give legal advice, financial planning advice; nor can I give people specific advice on which shares, bonds or debentures to buy and sell; nor can I give advice on when to do so, other than for taxation purposes. If I don't know the answer, or if I do know the answer but am legally compelled not to tell the answer, then I will positively not give that answer. If for technical reasons, an official in a responsible position can not legally give an answer, then you shouldn't be surprised when they do not give that answer.

The accusation that the language which is being used as being "cold" and "impersonal" is also strange when you consider that it is coming from someone at The Australian Financial Review. People in finance and economics often use language which acts more like a thieves cant than an attempt to impart knowledge. It's also somewhat hypocritical when you consider that the single greatest catastrophe in finance and economics, The Great Depression, was triggered by a single stock trader in the New York Stock Exchange who in making a trade yelled "we have a panic over here" across the crowded trading floor.

Words are important, they have the power to hurt and the power to heal. Words also have the power to confer the legal status of being dead or alive upon someone. When ambulance and police officers use phrases like "sustained injuries incompatible with life", they do so because there are specific legal constraints upon them. As people, they feel joy, sadness and hurt like anyone else; so it behooves journalists whose job it is to think about news as well as report it, to be a little bit more curious.

Horse 2128 - Queensland: The 30 Screaming Kids At The Back Of The Plane

Everyone has been one of those flights where you have a screaming child, who throughout the whole flight yells to such a degree that everyone on board including the child’s parents, suddenly wishes to go temporarily deaf. Despite everyone’s best efforts and even though the flight stewards bring the child excessive amounts of chocolate and fizzy drink, the child will simply not be quiet.

I want you to imagine that we’re on board flight HR2016 which is bound for Canberra and will land on July 2. There are 150 passengers on board and most of them are seated comfortably. Some have never switched seats in their whole life and then there’s Queensland which are the 30 screaming kids at the back of the plane.

Some time ago, Queenslanders worked out that if they yelled loudly enough and acted really childishly (in some cases even going so far as to elect some real wingnuts), that they could get the plane flight that is the House of Representatives, to change direction just by having everyone simultaneously switch sides of the place at once.

This was a trick that they’d learned with their own state parliament. In the last 100 years, Queensland has only really had 8 broad changes of government. Even so, it was only really after the Premiership of Peter Beattie that the steady ride of Queensland state politics became broken and since then it’s been lurching ever since.

In 2012, Campbell Newman’s Liberal National Party won government with the then single biggest swing in Australian electoral history at any level; with a 13.7% swing towards the Liberal National Party. Three years later in 2015, Annastacia Palaszczuk’s Labor won government with and even bigger swing to set the new biggest swing in Australian electoral history at any level; with a 14.0% swing towards the Labor Party.
With Queensland’s state parliaments lurching one way and then the other, it should come as a surprise to no-one that this week, both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten made trips to Queensland, to try and satisfy the 30 screaming kids at the back of the plane and hopefully get then all to sit on the same side and make the plane flight that is the House of Representatives, tilt in their preferred direction.

This isn’t a new phenomenon. In the 2004 election Labour won 6 seats to the Coalition’s 21 seats in Queensland. In 2007, there was an 8.1% swing to Labor and they won 15 seats to the Coalition’s 10 seats in Queensland and with them, government. In 2010, there was a 9.3% swing away from Labour and they went from 15 to just 8 seats while the Coalition picked up 11 extra seats to bring them to 21 again.

In 1972 when Gough Whitlam was swept to power, his Labor government won 8 seats to the Coalition’s 10 seats in Queensland but three years’ later in the December election following The Dismissal in 1975, Labor almost suffered total electoral annihilation with Bill Hayden remaining as the sole Labor MP in Queensland to the Coalition’s 17 seats.

Mike Murphy of the The Weekly Standard in Washington, declared back in March this year that 2016 was the “Year Of The Howling Moron”, which reference to the way that the media in the United States had a collective pile on for Donald Trump. We in Australia perhaps aren’t a lot better but given that both Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten are mostly entirely reasonable chaps (despite the partisanship of the media), I don’t think that applies in Australia. A sobriquet that might apply for our own 2016 Federal Election could be the “Year Of The Screaming Children” but looking at the long game of Australian politics, I’m tempted to think that every election cycle in Australia has the potential to be the “Year Of The Screaming Children” depending on which side on the plane that the 30 screaming kids at the back decide to run towards.

I fully expect that on July 2, Labour will win 8 seats to the Coalition’s 21 seats and Bob Katter’s 1 seat in Queensland but the thing is that you never know with Queensland. This is the state that can give double digit swings for no discernable reason other that the 30 screaming kids at the back of the plane want more fizzy drink.

Aside:

There are about 20 different  pages that I used to compile this; they are all found from this jumping off point. 

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/FedElect

Horse 1831 - Law Expert Says X; I Say Y? (QLD Election 2015).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-30/campbell-newman-could-remain-premier-if-seat-lost-expert-says/6056538
But the possibility is now being raised that even if he loses Ashgrove, Mr Newman could potentially stay on as Premier.
Professor of Constitutional Law Anne Twomey said if Mr Newman were to lose his seat, but the LNP won, he would have two options.
"One is he can resign as Premier and let somebody else take over and just drop out of politics," she said.
"The second choice is the more controversial one, and that is to stay on as Premier and seek a new seat, perhaps by persuading one of his loyal members to resign and make way for him so that there's a by-election in a new seat.

"If Campbell Newman took a period of time, say under 90 days, in order to become a Member of Parliament by way of a by-election, then that would probably be okay. But if he pushed his luck too far and wanted to just be Premier without a seat full stop, then I think you'd probably see legal action in the courts."
Professor Twomey said there was no express provision in the Queensland Constitution requiring the premier to be a member of parliament, so if Mr Newman lost his seat it would not automatically vacate his office as premier.
The same is true for the Australian Constitution.
- ABC News, 30th January 2015

I live in a world where looking at the law and its consequences is commonplace. As someone who works in an accounting firm and has to know about tax law, I find discussions like this interesting. At the same time, taxation law is so incredibly complex than no-one can expect to know it all by heart because it's constantly changing and being re-written as people try to find ways to subvert and circumvent it.
So whilst I find the above discussion interesting, I also find it so brilliantly pleasing because ultimately it is totally pointless.

Whilst it is true that Professor of Constitutional Law Anne Twomey says that was no express provision in the Queensland Constitution requiring the premier to be a member of parliament, which means that if Mr Newman lost his seat it would not automatically vacate his office as premier, this conveniently ignores the one person in Queensland who has the last say on who is Premier - The Governor.
To that extent, it matters not if there is no provision requiring premier to be a member of parliament, Not even a single iota, not a jot, not a tiddle, not a speck, not even a fig on-board QF2540 from Brisbane to Longreach.

See below:
https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/LEGISLTN/CURRENT/C/ConstofQA01.pdf
34 Power of Governor—Ministers
Ministers hold office at the pleasure of the Governor who, in the exercise of the Governor’s power to appoint and dismiss the Ministers, is not subject to direction by any person and is not limited as to the Governor’s sources of advice.
35 Power of Governor—removal or suspension of officer
(2) To the extent that it is within the Governor’s power and if the Governor considers there is sufficient reason, the Governor may remove or suspend a person holding an office or place under an appointment made in the name or under the authority of the Sovereign.

Two things here: firstly that it is the Governor who appoints and dismissed the Ministers under Section 34 of the Queensland Constitution and secondly hat it is the Governor who may remove or suspend a person holding an office under Section 34 of the Queensland Constitution.
I am not a constitutional lawyer but because I have been bestowed with the power of literacy, even I can say that if Campbell Newman lost his seat and then the Governor dismissed him as Premier, which seems fair and reasonable to me as he would then not be a member of the parliament, then that would be constitutionally watertight.

There'd be no argument whatsoever and unlike the set of circumstances which led to the dismissal of a Prime Minister in 1975, the powers of the Governor of Queensland are in this case, specifically defined by the highest law in the state, Professor Twomey's conjectures in this case collapse like a soufflé.

Aside:
Professor Twomey said there was no express provision in the Queensland Constitution requiring the premier to be a member of parliament, so if Mr Newman lost his seat it would not automatically vacate his office as premier.
The same is true for the Australian Constitution.

This technically correct - the best kind of correct (sort of).

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Senate/Powers_practice_n_procedures/~/media/AC79BBA0B87A4906A6D71ACCEEF10535.ashx
64. Ministers of State
Ministers to sit in Parliament
After the first general election no Minister of State shall hold office for a longer period than three months unless he is or becomes a senator or a member of the House of Representatives.

Technically if you look through the Constitution, there is no mention of the Prime Minister. There is an Executive Council and there are Ministers (of which the Prime Minister is presumably one) but the office of the Prime Minister is conspicuous by its absence.
Apart from this, if a sitting Prime Minister had lost his seat in the Federal parliament, he would not immediately lose his job as a Minister but after three months, he would.

Horse 1826 - "Just Bin Your Vote" Is What Campbell Newman Actually Means

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland-state-election-2015/queensland-election-2015-campbell-newman-warns-of-hung-parliament-urges-just-vote-1-for-lnp/story-fnr8vuu5-1227189376669?nk=0c0e0fef03e21b86e6e9c5d7f442fafd
PREMIER Campbell Newman, promising to slash water bills for a million households in southeast Queensland, has implored voters to “Just Vote 1” at the January 31 election.
...
“If you number every square you are voting for a hung parliament,’’ he said.
- Steven Wardell, Courier Mail, 19th Jan 2015

In the 2015 state election campaign for Queensland, Premier Campbell Newman has launched a slogan to tell voters to "Just Vote 1" on their ballot. Owing to the fact that Queensland has Optional Preferential Voting, this isn't illegal. However, owing to the way that preferential voting works, it is basically telling less educated and vulnerable people, to throw away their vote. If it isn't actually illegal then I suppose that a case cannot be mounted against it but it is scurrilous - I bite my thumb at this knave.

Preferential voting works quite simply. Voters are asked to rank their choices from most favoured to least favoured.
All of the votes numbered 1 are tallied. If no candidate has achieved 50%+1 of the votes, then the smallest pile is taken and they then look for the 2s on those ballot papers and allocate then accordingly. If still no candidate has achieved 50%+1 of the votes, then the next smallest pile is taken and they look for the 2s or the 3s if they were 2s and allocate them accordingly. This process is repeated until one candidate had achieved 50%+1 of the votes. Thus under a full preferential system, the candidate who does finally win, has the actual authority of at least half of the voters.
This would be the same as having a series of run-off votes and eliminating one candidate each round. By numbering preferences, these rounds happen instantly; hence the other name for Preferential Voting: Instant Run-Off Voting.

In Australia, voting was made compulsory for a very good reason. The very point of parliamentary democracy is that those who govern do so with the consent and authority of the governed. Democracy itself comes from the two Greek words "demos" which means "the people" and "kratos" which means rule. 50%+1 of votes where some of them have been thrown away just doesn't seem like democracy to me.

Full preferential voting was introduced in 1919. The by-election for the Western Australian Division of Swan in 1918 illustrates perfectly why preferential voting is important. All.elections in those days were conducted under the first-past-the-post system: whoever had the most votes won.

http://psephos.adam-carr.net/countries/a/australia/1917/1917repsby.txt
Edwin Corboy - ALP - 6,540 - 34.4%
William Hedges - Nat - 5,635 - 29.6%
Basil Murray - CP - 5,975 - 31.4%
William Watson - 884 - 4.6%

Corboy  won the election with only 34.4% of the vote. This means that 65.6% of the electorate didn't vote for him. How can you call it democratic when almost two-thirds of the electorate didn't approve of the winning candidate. If you have ten people at a dinner party and four people like fish but the other six absolutely hate fish, then you've just served something unpalatable to more than half your guests. The decision of who has the consent of the people to govern them is more important than having fish for dinner and if it goes badly, the result stinks for more than just one evening.
Under Optional Preferential Voting, the number of votes required instead of 50%+1 of all votes, is now reduced to only 50%+1 of all still active votes; when votes have been discarded, it becomes far far easier to achieve a result.

So what happens in Optional Preferential Voting? Suppose for instance that a vote with only a single number 1 on it is in one of the smaller piles. What happens to it when that candidate is eliminated? With no number 2 where does that vote go? The answer is nowhere. Throw the vote into the bin for all the difference it makes. Use it for toilet paper. What's the thickest tissue in the bathroom you can issue? Unmarked voting paper.
Campbell Newman's "Just Vote 1" campaign is asking voters to do precisely that. It would probably suit his party if there was such a thing as optional voting because generally poorer people will tend to vote against nominally conservative political parties. If you can encourage them to throw their voting paper into the rubbish bin, then these parties benefit; I think that Campbell Newman knows this.

The real irony is that the whole preferential system itself was introduced for the 1919 General Election following that Swan by-election. What happened was that under the first-past-the-post system, the conservative vote was split between the Country Party and the Nationalist Party. PM Billy Hughes introduced preferential voting so that the two conservative parties wouldn't put each other at risk in the same electorate. That doesn't happen in Queensland anymore because their successors of the National Party and the Liberal Party have formally united in Queensland to form the Liberal-National Party (LNP).

Three years ago the tactic worked perfectly and caused possibly the biggest landslide in Australian political history at any level of government. The statement that “If you number every square you are voting for a hung parliament,’’ is I think an outright lie because a hung parliament is caused by the lack of a majority of members; not the method by which they were elected and the 2010 UK General Election is proof of that.

Actually it was The Australian who stated in plain English, why Campbell Newman wants people to "Just Vote 1":
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/state-politics/just-vote-1-and-youll-be-right-urges-lnp/story-e6frgczx-1225955208738?nk=0c0e0fef03e21b86e6e9c5d7f442fafd
THE conservatives in Queensland are set to turn the tables on state Labor and the Greens at the next state election.
The Queensland Liberal National Party will exploit the "Just Vote 1" option to dilute preference flows from Left-leaning voters.
In a strategy that will appeal to the Coalition in NSW, gearing up for a March poll, the LNP will urge supporters not to give a preference beyond a primary vote 
for the LNP under Queensland's optional preferential voting system.
- Sarah Elks, The Australian, 18th Nov 2010

The great Liverpool FC manager Bill Shankly once said that: "If a player is not interfering with play or seeking to gain an advantage, then he should be." Tactically Campbell Newman is interfering with and seeking to gain an advantage, which makes sense because he wants his party to win the election, but it makes a mockery of democracy and in a state where there is no house of review, that's a bad thing.