Tuesday, 8 October 2024

In the matter of AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v COLES SUPERMARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED


By 2022-2023 Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd and Woolworths Group Limited collectively accounted for approximately 67% of national supermarket retail sales and over 57% of national take-home food and grocery sales.


According to the ACCC Supermarket Inquiry 2024-25 Interim Report (August 2024) the two groups have achieved this by increasing their number of stores, expanding their geographic coverage and increasing the number of supermarkets in existing coverage areas. They have also expanded their businesses into broader “ecosystems”, supplying an increasing range of products and services in related or adjacent markets. So that in rural and regional Australia either Coles or Woolworths supermarkets are sometimes the only source supermarket shopping.


COLES


On 27 August 2024 the company secretary released to the market the 2024 Full Year Results Presentation for Coles Group Limited


This presentation revealed that Coles 2023-24 reported group earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) totalled $2,057 million, with underlying EBIT at $2,175 million, and the group's total sales revenue came in at $43.57 billion.


Across its supermarket and liquor outlets online & e-commerce sales, growth reached +30.1% and +9.2% respectively. With Exclusive to Coles brand sales grew by 6.6%.


Highlighting the fact that it was "Delivering value":


✓ ‘Great Value, Hands Down’ campaigns, every day low prices, weekly specials and promotions

Launched >1,100 Exclusive to Coles and 244 Exclusive Liquor Brand products

National roll out of instant $10 off at checkout for Flybuys members


So proud was the Cole's Group of its Great Value, Hands Down’ campaigns that it even supplied a graphic:



The Coles Group net profit after tax in 2023-34 was $1.11 billion.


WOOLWORTHS


A day later on 28 August 2024 the Woolworths Group released to the market itsF24 Full Year Profit and Dividend Announcement.


In a more restrained presentation (no colourful graphics) it informed the market that the Woolworths Group 2023-24 reported group earnings before interest and taxes (EBIT) totalled $3,223 million, with an EBITA at $6,001 million ($4,821 million being assigned to Woolworths Food Retail), and the group's total sales revenue came in at $68.9 billion ($50.2 billion being Woolworths Food Retail sales revenue) .


In the 2023-24 financial year Woolworths Group sales were reported as growing by 3%, which included strong digital and e-commerce growth. While Food Retail sales growth came in at 3.4%.


The Woolworths Group reported in its presentation that:


"...inflation in our Food businesses and BIG W moderated significantly as we lowered prices and passed on lower cost prices to customers. Average prices in Woolworths Food Retail in Q3 and Q4 were down 0.2% and 0.6% respectively on the prior year",


and further into the document pointed out that:


"average prices in Q4 decreasing by 0.6% compared to the prior year".


The Woolworths Group net profit after tax in 2023-34 was $1.08 billion.


Both supermarket giants professed general satisfaction with their respective financial situations - despite the est. $1.6 billion in write downs affecting Woolworths bottom line - and to ordinary Australian households still experiencing cost-of-living headwinds these supermarkets appeared to be doing very well.


In Australia cost-of-living stress has been an ongoing issue for the last twenty months - when first the Russian invasion of Ukraine was followed by successive Australian Reserve Bank interests rate rises, along with domestic adverse weather events, which affected supply, transport and costs for a wide range of goods & services.


So when this made the news, it confirmed what many had begun to suspect.


AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v COLES SUPERMARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 004 189 708) and AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION & CONSUMER COMMISSION v WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED (ACN 000 014 675) currently before the Federal Court of Australia - Victoria Registry - filed 23 September 2024.


Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (ACCC), media release, 23 September 2024:


ACCC takes Woolworths and Coles to court over alleged misleading ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ claims



The ACCC has commenced separate proceedings in the Federal Court against Woolworths Group Limited (Woolworths) (ASX: WOW) and Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd (Coles) (a subsidiary of Coles Group Limited - ASX: COL) for allegedly breaching the Australian Consumer Law by misleading consumers through discount pricing claims on hundreds of common supermarket products.


The ACCC’s allegations relate to products sold by each of Woolworths and Coles at regular long-term prices which remained the same, excluding short-term specials, for at least six months and in many cases for at least a year.


The products were then subject to price rises of at least 15 per cent for brief periods, before being placed in Woolworths’ ‘Prices Dropped’ promotion and Coles’ ‘Down Down’ promotion, at prices lower than during the price spike but higher than, or the same as, the regular price that applied before the price spike.


Following many years of marketing campaigns by Woolworths and Coles, Australian consumers have come to understand that the ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotions relate to a sustained reduction in the regular prices of supermarket products. However, in the case of these products, we allege the new ‘Prices Dropped’ and ‘Down Down’ promotional prices were actually higher than, or the same as, the previous regular price,” ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb said.


We allege that each of Woolworths and Coles breached the Australian Consumer Law by making misleading claims about discounts, when the discounts were, in fact, illusory.”


We also allege that in many cases both Woolworths and Coles had already planned to later place the products on a ‘Prices Dropped’ or ‘Down Down’ promotion before the price spike, and implemented the temporary price spike for the purpose of establishing a higher ‘was’ price,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.


The ACCC alleges the conduct involved 266 products for Woolworths at different times across 20 months, and 245 products for Coles at different times across 15 months. The representations were made on pricing tickets displayed to consumers in-store on supermarket shelves and online, usually with a ‘was’ price displayed showing what the price was during the short-term price spike and the date of that price.


The ACCC identified this conduct through consumer contacts to the ACCC and social media monitoring, and then conducted an in-depth investigation using its compulsory powers.


Many consumers rely on discounts to help their grocery budgets stretch further, particularly during this time of cost of living pressures. It is critical that Australian consumers are able to rely on the accuracy of pricing and discount claims,” Ms Cass-Gottlieb said.


We allege these misleading claims about illusory discounts diminished the ability of consumers to make informed choices about what products to buy, and where.”


The ACCC estimates that Woolworths and Coles sold tens of millions of the affected products and derived significant revenue from those sales.


The ACCC is seeking declarations, penalties, costs and other orders. The ACCC is also seeking community service orders that Woolworths and Coles must each fund a registered charity to deliver meals to Australians in need, in addition to their pre-existing charitable meal delivery programs.


Alleged conduct

The ACCC alleges that the supermarkets offered certain products at a regular price for at least 180 days. They then increased the price of the product by at least 15 per cent for a relatively short period of time, and subsequently placed it onto their ‘Prices Dropped’ or ‘Down Down’ program.


The ACCC alleges the display of the Prices Dropped and Down Down tickets was misleading, as the price of the products was in fact higher than or the same as the regular price at which the supermarket had previously offered the products for sale.


Alleged conduct by Woolworths

The ACCC alleges that Woolworths made false or misleading representations to consumers about the prices of 266 products during the period between September 2021 and May 2023.


Products affected include Arnott’s Tim Tams biscuits, Dolmio sauces, Doritos salsa, Energizer batteries, Friskies cat food, Kellogg’s cereal, President butter, Listerine mouthwash, Moccona coffee capsules, Mother energy drinks, Mr Chen’s noodles, Nicorette patches, Ocean Blue smoked salmon, Oreo cookies, Palmolive dishwashing liquid, Raid insect spray, Sprite soft drink, Stayfree pads, Twisties, Uncle Tobys muesli bars, and Vicks VapoDrops.


Example - Oreo Family Pack Original 370g






[A graph showing the pricing movement of Oreos Family Pack Original cookies from January 2021 to May 2023]


From at least 1 January 2021 until 27 November 2022, Woolworths offered the Oreo Family Pack Original 370g product for sale at a regular price of $3.50 on a pre-existing ‘Prices Dropped’ promotion for at least 696 days.


On 28 November 2022, the price was increased to $5.00 for a period of 22 days. On 20 December 2022, the product was placed on a ‘Prices Dropped’ promotion with the tickets showing a ‘Prices Dropped’ price of $4.50 and a ‘was’ price of $5.00. The ‘Prices Dropped’ price of $4.50 was in fact 29 per cent higher than the product’s previous regular price of $3.50.


In this example, the ACCC alleges Woolworths had planned the temporary price spike to establish a new higher ‘was’ price for the subsequent ‘promotion’. Woolworths had decided (after a request from the supplier for a price increase) on or around 18 November 2022 to take the product off ‘Prices Dropped’, increase the price, and then put the product back on to ‘Prices Dropped’ three weeks later.


Alleged conduct by Coles

The ACCC alleges that Coles made false or misleading representations to consumers about the prices of 245 products during the period between February 2022 and May 2023.


Products include Arnott’s Shapes biscuits, Band-Aids, Bega cheese, Cadbury chocolates, Coca Cola soft drink, Colgate toothpaste, Danone yoghurt, Dettol multi-purpose wipes, Fab laundry liquid, Karicare formula, Kellogg’s snack bars, Kleenex tissues, Libra tampons, Lurpak butter, Maggi two-minute noodles, Nature’s Gift dog food, Nescafe instant coffee, Palmolive shampoo, Rexona deodorant, Sakata rice crackers, Sanitarium Weet-Bix cereal, Strepsils lozenges, Sunrice rice, Tena pads, Viva paper towels, Whiskas cat food, and Zafarelli pasta.


Example Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon 16 pack 




[A graph showing the pricing movement of Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon 16 pack from January 2021 to May 2023]


From at least 1 January 2021 until 11 October 2022, Coles offered the Strepsils Throat Lozenges Honey & Lemon 16 pack product for sale at a regular price of $5.50 (on a pre-existing ‘Down Down’ promotion) for at least 649 days, including one seven-day short-term special.


On 12 October 2022, the price was then increased to $7.00 for a period of 28 days. On 9 November 2022, the product was placed on a ‘Down Down’ promotion with the tickets showing a ‘Down Down’ price of $6.00 and a ‘was’ price of $7.00. The ‘Down Down’ price of $6.00 was in fact 9 per cent higher than the product’s previous regular price of $5.50.


In this example, the ACCC alleges Coles had planned the temporary price spike to establish a new higher ‘was’ price for the subsequent ‘promotion’. Coles had decided (after a request from the supplier for a price increase) on or around 7 October 2022 to take the product off ‘Down Down’, increase the price, and then put the product back on to ‘Down Down’ four weeks later.


ACCC Supermarkets inquiry

The ACCC was directed by the Treasurer in January 2024 to conduct an inquiry into the Australian supermarket sector, pricing practices and the relationship between wholesale, farmgate and retail prices.


The ACCC’s investigation into the conduct which is the subject of these proceedings pre-dates this inquiry. The inquiry will not consider the issues in dispute in these proceedings.


Note to editors

The ACCC does not regulate supermarket prices.


The ACCC has taken proceedings in respect of alleged breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, which provides that businesses must not make false or misleading statements about prices.


Separate proceedings are brought against Woolworths and Coles, and the ACCC is not making any allegation of any collusion or anti-competitive conduct by Woolworths and Coles as part of these proceedings.


The ACCC is not alleging any contravention of the ACL by any of Woolworths’ and Coles’ suppliers in these proceedings.


The maximum penalty for each breach of the Australian Consumer Law increased on 10 November 2022, part way through the period of the alleged conduct. For contraventions from 10 November 2022, the maximum penalty is the greater of:


  • $50,000,000
  • if the Court can determine the value of the 'reasonably attributable' benefit obtained, three times that value, or


Any penalty that might apply to this conduct is a matter for the Court to determine and would depend on the Court’s findings. The ACCC will not comment on what penalties the Court may impose.


Background

Woolworths runs the largest supermarket chain in Australia, with about 1,140 Woolworths supermarket stores across the country.


The ‘Prices Dropped’ Program is promoted by Woolworths as a shelf price reduction program designed to offer Woolworths’ customers consistently low prices over a prolonged period. The objective of the Prices Dropped Program was to lower the standard shelf price of a product from its previous standard (or regular) shelf price.


Example of a Prices Dropped ticket


Coles is the second-largest supermarket chain in Australia, operating more than 840 stores nationally.


Coles introduced the ‘Down Down’ Program in June 2010 and marketed it as a promotional campaign designed to reduce the regular shelf price of commonly purchased products — thereby offering customers predictable and reliable value on the items they purchased the most and reducing the cost of their shopping basket.


Example of a Down Down ticket


Separate to these proceedings, in December 2023, following a complaint by CHOICE and an investigation by the ACCC, Coles announced refunds for thousands of customers after it raised the price on 20 products that it had promised would remain ‘locked’ for a certain period of time as part of Coles’ ‘Dropped and Locked’ promotion.


Concise statements


ACCC v Coles - Concise Statement ( PDF 662.68 KB )


ACCCv Woolworths - Concise Statement ( PDF 727.3 KB )


These documents contain the ACCC’s initiating court documents in relation to these matters. We will not be uploading further documents in the event these initial documents are subsequently amended.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


The Guardian, 23 September 2024, excerpt:

Coles sought to strike an appropriate balance between managing the impact of cost price increases on retail prices and offering value to customers through the recommencement of promotional activity as soon as possible after the establishment of the new non-promotional price.”

Woolworths said it would “carefully review the claims”.

Our customers are telling us they want us to work even harder to deliver meaningful value to them and it’s important they can trust the value they see when shopping our stores,” Woolworths said.



Monday, 7 October 2024

So how would the proud new homeowners in Clarence Property Corporation Limited’s Wallum ‘Enviro Development’ residential estate feel if before the house mortgage is even paid off the ground is turning to swamp beneath their feet?

 



Lot 13 DP 1251383 15 Torakina Road and environs, Brunswick Heads NSW. IMAGE: Clarence Property Corporation Limited


Readers will catch a glimpse through dense tree cover of Simpsons Creek, which connects with the Brunswick River not far from the river's mouth.


On this mapping presented to Byron Shire Council on 8 February 2024, the reader can see that coastal wetlands and Simpons Creek adjoin the approximately 30.5ha development site and at times the creek comes within est. 200 meters of the proposed residential lot grid.




Wallum Estate, Torakina Road, Brunswick HeadsLot 13 DP 1251383, Revised Wallum Froglet Management Plan


Vegetation mapping with residential lot grid 


In August this year the NSW Government agency AdaptNSW released the NSW and Australian Regional Climate Modelling (NARCliM 2.0) which contain regional snapshots outlining climate projections for different NSW regions. These provide a summary of plausible future climate change in NSW relative to a baseline of average climate from 1990–2009. The projections for 2050 represent averaged data for 2040–2059 and projections for 2090 represent averaged data for 2080–2099.


The North Coast Climate Change Snapshot at

https://www.climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-08/NARCliM2-Snapshot-NorthCoast.pdf

clearly states volume ranges for sea level rise across the next 26 years (2024-2050) and across the following 40 years (2051-2090). The report expects seawater inundation heights of between 0.23m (2050) and 0.59m (2090) above the current mean sea level.


Climate Central, Coastal Risk Screening Tool, Simpsons Creek at a 0.5m sea level rise


In this mapping the projected sea level rise has already brought the ocean nearer the development site and the Simpson's Creek overflow to an est. 230m of the northern boundary of the residential lot grid by 2050. While saline creek water has entered the full length of the development site between 2051-2090 and is within less than est. 200m of the lower eastern boundary of the residential lot grid.


It doesn't take much imagination to realise that high rainfall events and storm surges will in future have a greater impact on Wallum ‘EnviroDevelopment’ Estate and with land, incapable of natural drainage likely to continue with poor drainage issues with or without climate change impacts, also likely to have the natural water table raised by persistent saltwater incursion into the Wallum wetlands, the outlook is not the rosy, bright 'sea change' life many prospective Wallum land purchasers believe they are buying.


Echo, 2 October 2024:


What’s under the hood of the environmental certification that the Wallum Brunswick Heads greenfield development relies on for its environmental credentials?


Like many developments across the nation, developer Clarence Property’s Wallum urban estate has been certified as an ‘EnviroDevelopment’.


It is clearly marked on www.wallumbrunswick.com.au, and it has been awarded accreditation across all six of its categories – water, energy, waste, materials, community and ecosystems.


A leaf is awarded for each category that has passed the technical standards.


Paid-for accreditation

This paid-for accreditation is awarded by the Sustainability and Research division of the Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA), based in Queensland.


UDIA describes EnviroDevelopment certification (www.envirodevelopment.com.au) as ‘a scientifically-based branding system designed to make it easier for purchasers to recognise and, thereby, select more environmentally sustainable homes and lifestyles’.


To be accredited with an EnviroDevelopment certification, developers need to, ‘demonstrate that an ecological net gain will be achieved for the project in relation to local native vegetation communities and fauna habitat resources.’


Yet throughout the Save Wallum campaign, ecologists, councillors, MPs and residents have raised issue with the claims that the development will produce an ecological net gain, and say instead that threatened ecological communities (TEC) are in danger.


Frog habitat claims. According to www.envirodevelopment.com.au/projects/wallum, ‘2.6ha of high-quality endangered wallum froglet habitat will be created as part of the early site works, which is monitored and protected during subdivision construction works to ensure success’.


Yet ecologist and Save Wallum campaigner, James Barrie, says, ‘The expectation that the threatened species of “Wallum” tolerate the contentious offset arrangements such as the machine-dug ponds (that are well known to fail for these rare acid frogs), poses a very real risk of local extinction of these species’.


There has been considerable outcry from several notable ecologists since, with detailed reports about why this is misleading, and does not constitute a ‘ecological net gain’ in practice by any standards.’


Stormwater design

The EnviroDevelopment website also claims of Wallum: ‘The site is also subject to an innovative stormwater design outcome which utilises the drainage characteristics of the existing sandy material on the site to treat stormwater without the need for extensive networks of underground concrete pipes and pits.’


Former Byron Shire Councillor, Duncan Dey, who is also a civil engineer specialising in flood hydrology and stormwater design told The Echo, ‘Clarence Property are relying on an “innovative” concept of recharge (my term for it). This is usually just to save money, but in this case, it is because the site is too flat to drain’.


The lack of hydraulic gradient is bizarrely even noted in the DA Consent Conditions of May 2023, just beneath Condition 11b).


The site simply doesn’t offer sufficient fall to drain correctly. Hydraulic gradients of less of one per cent are generally unacceptable. This project proposes a channel way flatter than that.


Several eminent local ecologists have developed outstanding knowledge of the Wallum site over recent decades’, says Mr Dey.


They have watched this development progress down the conveyor belt of NSW Planning, and found issues with most of the ecological reports.


The developer’s consultants omitted entire species, as well as coming up with proposals to recreate unique habitat to replace that which will be destroyed.


The Echo asked NSW Fair Trading if they ‘had any interest in ensuring the EnviroDevelopment certification is fit-for-purpose, or if not, can you please direct The Echo to who can?’


A NSW Fair Trading spokesperson replied, ‘Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to track down and confirm a NSW agency who may be able to provide you with commentary on your request’.


ACF comment

When presented with the draft story, Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) investigator, Martine Lappan, told The Echo, ‘It is difficult to assess the integrity of an accreditation system when the application documents property developers submit are not made publicly available’.


A grand claim about protecting the environment may serve as a marketing tool, but that doesn’t make it scientifically accurate or even something that can be held to account under the law’, Ms Lappan added.


CP replies

Clarence Property was offered an opportunity to comment on this story.


Its CEO, Simon Kennedy, replied, ‘there are numerous factual errors in the story provided, and we dispute the ecological assessments made by Save Wallum Inc through its ecological interpreter both publicly, and those recently made under oath at the NSW parliamentary inquiry into the environment’.


We have followed all required environmental and bio-diversity requirements under the statutory approvals given to us to proceed with this project that will provide much needed housing for the Byron Shire’.


This story was provided to UDIA in draft form for comment numerous times, but no comment was forthcoming. [my yellow highlighting throughout this news article]


Sunday, 6 October 2024

The most immediate climate change scenario for New South Wales coastal zone 2024-2050 has been refined by AdaptNSW using NARCliM 2.0 data

 

The Earth is beginning to periodically exceed an annual global air-sea temperature of 1.5°C - the first 12-month period to exceed 1.5°C as an average was February 2023 to January 2024 when the EU Union Copernicus Climate Change Service stated the annual average as 1.52°C above pre-industrial levels.


According to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology the national temperature dataset covering the last 114 years since meteorological observations began to be collated in this country reveal that by 2024 Australia's average temperature over the continental land mass has already warmed by 1.5°C plus or minus 0.23°C since 1910.


The NSW and Australian Regional Climate Modelling (NARCliM 2.0) released in August 2024 states:


NSW and the ACT have already warmed by

1.4°C since national records began in 1910.

This local warming figure represents surface air temperature over land in NSW and is not directly comparable to average estimates of global warming which include surface air temperature over both land and ocean. Surface warming occurs faster over land than the ocean. Significant impacts from climate change are already occurring in NSW and are expected to be felt more widely in the future.....


The NARCliM "New South Wales Climate Change Snapshot" (August 2024) can be found at:

https://www.climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-08/NARCliM2-Snapshot-NSW.pdf


and


NARCliM "North Coast Climate Change Snapshot" (August 2024) covering the coastal zone from the Port Macquarie district up to the Tweed district on the NSW-Qld border at:

https://www.climatechange.environment.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-08/NARCliM2-Snapshot-NorthCoast.pdf


The bottom line is that based on climate science and recorded data to date, across the the next 26 years to 2050 the NSW North Coast and its communities are predicted to experience:


  • Average temperature increase of 1.7°C;


  • Hot days per year will increase by 8.6 days;


  • Severe fire weather days per year will increase by 0.5 days;


  • Average annual rainfall will be reduced by somewhere between -0.6% to -11.5%. The rainfall ensemble range would see fluctuations of between -12.1% to -26.1% & +10.9% to +11.9%.

  • Sea level will rise by 23cm [0.23m].


In this NARCliM scenario sea level rise is expected to have a major impact on NSW's coastal communities in the coming decades with seawater inundation expected to continue to rise for centuries and last for millennia.



Modelling predicts that north-east NSW sea levels will rise ahead of the remainder of the state's coastal ocean and North Coast low lying coastal flood plains and coastal settlements will experience this sea water inundation.



BACKGROUND


NSW Government, AdaptNSW, August 2024:



For over a decade, the NSW and Australian Regional Climate Modelling (NARCliM) project has provided robust climate change projections to support government, business and communities to mitigate and adapt to climate change.


NARCliM2.0 offers 150 years of continuous climate model data, including historical data and future projections, spanning from 1951 to 2100, at a 4km resolution across NSW and south-eastern Australia.


Friday, 4 October 2024

So you think a minority government is the answer?

 

In May 2022 the first-time Albanese Labor Government secured seventy-seven seats in a House of Representatives having 151 members.

With a floor majority of two that subsequently rose to four majority after the April 2023 Aston by-election win.

After boundary adjustments by the Australian Electoral Commission this year redistribution will reduce House numbers from 151 to 150, so seventy-six will remain the magic number for an absolute majority at the 2025 federal general election.


For the last twelve months I have noticed quite a bit of chatter discussing the supposed benefits of voting to reduce the Albanese Government to a minority federal government at the next general election.


For some reason there appears to be a view forming that a minority government would inevitably deliver positive and lasting environmental, social & economic policy change with the aid of The Greens & Independents.


Nothing is set in stone and, given how volatile the global climate and international politics are in 2024 and predicted to be going forward, perhaps it's time for a gentle reminder of what happens to duly elected governments during periods of widespread uncertainty.


One punter's view of Australia by way of example.....


There have been 47 Australian Parliaments since 1901.

From 1901 to 1910 federal elections had resulted in what were essentially minority governments and the prime ministership changed hands six times across those first three Australian Parliaments.


The Cook Free Trade and Liberal Association Government, with a one seat majority, was first federal government in Australia that did not even last one full term. It went for 1 year & 55 days from July 1913 to September 1914 when it lost a double dissolution election. Britain and her dominions declared war on Germany & her allies on 4 August 2014.


The Scullin Labor Government was the second and last federal government that did not last one full term. It went for 2 years & 79 days from October 1929 to January 1932 after failing to win a second term. The Wall Street Crash which triggered the decade long Great Depression occurred on 28 October 1929 at the very beginning of this Labor Government's term.


During the terms in office of five consecutive Coalition prime ministers over 23 straight years from December 1949 to December 1972 there was one major issue which increasingly exercised Australian society between 1962 to 1972—the Viet Nam War and Australia's active participation in progressing that war.

Opposition to that war was a significant factor in the Whitlam Labor Government winning the 1972 federal election by 67 seats (with a positive two-party-preferred swing of 2.50%) to the Coalition's 58 seats (with an adverse two-party-preferred swing of 2.50%). The new government inherited a Senate where both Labor and the Coalition held 26 seats each, the Democratic Labor Party 5 seats & an Independent 1 seat.


In May 1974 the first-term Whitlam Government called a double dissolution federal election on the basis that a hostile Senate had unreasonably obstructed the first term government by returned 6 Bills to the House, in addition to the matter of another 21 bills covering government promises taken to the 1972 general election which been rejected, stood aside or deferred by the Senate.

After which the Labor Party remained in government in the House of Representatives with 66 seats and a positive two-party-preferred swing of 1.00%, to the Coalition's 61 seats and an adverse two-party-preferred swing of 1.00%.

In the Senate both Labor and the Coalition held 29 seats with the balance of power held by one Independent & one Liberal Movement senator who on past history would vote with the Coalition.


After the election, the six Bills that had formed the basis of the double dissolution – the Commonwealth Electoral Bill (No. 2) 1973, the Senate (Representation of Territories) Bill 1973, the Representation Bill 1973, the Health Insurance Commission Bill 1973, the Health Insurance Bill 1973, and the Petroleum and Minerals Authority Bill 1973 – were passed at a historic joint sitting of both houses of parliament.


In what can only be described as a silent coup encouraged by the Liberal & Nationals political parties, big business and Buckingham Palace, in October 1975 the Coalition Opposition deferred voting on supply bills in the Senate in an attempt to force Whitlam to call yet another election for both the Senate and the House of Representatives. In response, Mr Whitlam decided to ask the Governor-General to call a half-Senate election to resolve the situation. Instead the Whitlam Government was pre-emptively dismissed by the Governor-General on 11 November 1975 after two years & 341 days.


Malcolm Fraser was invited to form government and the Coalition won the subsequent 1975 federal election 91 House of  Representative seats to Labor's 36 seats. This appears to be the highest majority ever held by an Australian federal government.


The Australian Labor Party did not form federal government again for almost another eight years when it again held government for thirteen years before the Coalition regained government in 1996 and with John Howard as prime minister held it for 11 years & 269 days until December 2007.


According to political pundits almost every first-term government since the World War Two has suffered an adverse two-party-preferred swing at the next election.


In the case of the federal Rudd-Gillard-Rudd Labor Government which began life on 24 November 2007 by winning 83 of the 150 seats with a two-party-preferred positive swing of 5.4 % it all looked like smooth sailing. The Liberal Party having only won 55 seats, the National Party 10, and Independents 2.

However by June 2010 the accepted story is that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had lost the confidence of the national electorate after the federal government appeared to lose its way on a number of issues (including Senate rejection of its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in November 2009) and walked away from a strong policy push for climate change mitigation measures following the collapse of UN COP climate summit in Copenhagen in December 2009. The Labor parliamentary party replaced him with the Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard in June 2010.


Following the 21 August 2010 federal election, the Australian Labor Party (with an adverse two-party-preferred swing of 2.58%) won 72 seats, the Coalition 72, Independent Nationals 1, Greens 1 & Independents 4.

With the support of the Greens member (Bandt) and three of the Independents (Wilkie, Windsor and Oakeshott), Prime Minister Julia Gillard was able to form a minority government which could muster 76 votes to 74 in the House of Representatives.


Under relentless disruptive attack from the Abbott-led Coalition Opposition that number fluctuated over the course of the next 3 years & 16 days (going as low as 75 to 73), when a last minute change of party leadership meant that Kevin Rudd had the dubious honour of leading that Labor federal government to defeat in September 2013 winning only 55 of the 150 House of Representative seats (its lowest primary vote in 100 years) with an adverse two party preferred swing of 3.61% and, the Coalition winning government with 90 seats.


From 2010 to 2013 the Gillard Labor Government had passed a range of bills including the:

> two National Broadband Network acts in 2011 (significantly & adversely altered by subsequent Coalition governments);

> Clean Energy Act 2011 (a carbon emissions trading scheme repealed by Abbott Coalition Government);

> Tobacco Plain Packaging Act 2011;

> Mineral Resources Rent Tax 2012 (repealed by Abbott Coalition Government);

> National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (rolled out by successive Coalition governments); and

> The National School Reform Agreement (passed by Senate on Gillard's last day as prime minister. Under successive Coalition Governments & current Labor Government has never lived up to expectations).


Thursday, 3 October 2024

Results of the 2024 Clarence Valley Council local government election declared on Wednesday 2nd October

 

In the case of the Clarence Valley Local Government Area 35,061 eligible residents, out of a possible 41,897 residential and non-residential electors enrolled in this area on 5 August 2024, cast their ballots for the nine vacated councillor positions. A total of 9.20% of all ballots cast were deemed Informal and excluded from the count.


Listed in the order in which they reached the required quota or otherwise became eligible, the following nine candidates were declared elected on 2 October 2024:


Cristie YAGER (IND) - elected at the first count


Peter JOHNSTONE (IND) - elected at the first count. Served on the previous council


Greg CLANCY (GRN) - elected at the second count. Served on the previous council


Ray SMITH (IND) - elected at the ninth count


Allison WHAITES (IND) - elected at the eleventh count. Served on the previous council


Shane CAUSLEY - elected at the eleventh count


Lynne CAIRNS (IND) - elected at the fourteenth count


Debrah NOVAK (IND) - elected at the fourteenth count. Served on the previous council


Karen TOMS (IND) - elected at the sixteenth count. Served on the previous council.


The gender breakdown of the new council is five females to four males and the returning councillor breakdown is five to four.


The newly elected Clarence Valley councillors are expected to begin a training bloc re Council’s policies and procedures, Code of Conduct and Code of Meeting Practice for three days between 4 and 9 October.


Councillors will vote to install a mayor for the next two years at the 17 October first council meeting of this new term.

 

Hopefully Ray Smith will resist the urge to put his name forward for mayor. Being a former general manager of Grafton City Council is rather a poor recommendation in my opinion.