The federal electorate of Richmond (Tweed, Byron and Ballina Shires) apparently tops the nation for high-risk properties impacted by climate change, according to a new report by www.climatecouncil.org.au.
Climate Council is a publiclyfunded body that includes ‘influential experts, powerful communicators and passionate advocates’. Respected climate scientist and author, Dr Joëlle Gergis, is a fellow of the organisation, and has spoken locally.
The new Climate Council report, which dropped on Tuesday, says nearly a third (28.88 per cent) of all Richmond properties are at high risk of riverine flood, surface flood and bushfire. Overall, the report claims two million properties are in the ‘firing line’.
Claims of climate-induced chaos by academics will no doubt be dismissed by a cohort of minor parties running for the May 3 election (see page 3).
While the term ‘libertarian’ or ‘right-wing populists’ could apply to them, if politics has done anything in recent years, it has become ‘up and down’ rather than ‘left and right’.
Given these parties/independents appear to share very similar values and aspirations, The Echo asked Pauline Hanson’s One Nation candidate, Ian Mye, what is the point of difference between his party and the rest.
His regional campaign manager replied that One Nation ‘started the real drift away from the coalition when it became obvious that the Libs/Nats were no longer the party of Menzies centred on limited government, small business and rewarding personal initiative and effort’.
‘The Nats don’t bat for the struggling farmers, and seem to be more city based. Libs, Nats and other parties were happy to see our car industry and small farmers go down. They don’t value even an Australian passport as demonstrated by their abandoning of Julian Assange’.
The One Nation campaign manager continued with their stance against ‘excessive immigration’, which of course is a playbook for libertarians.
Another talking point for One Nation was nation building with dams. They added, ‘We encourage a more dirigiste [state controlled] approach to the economy to safeguard the wellbeing of the Australian public as opposed to the current ‘market forces’ laissez faire corporate welfare regimen’.
So the question around a point of difference between One Nation and the other smaller parties, it seems, is not much.
Original libertarians
One Nation started in 1997 and could be considered the original Aussie libertarian/right-wing populist party. It erupted into our culture with the cult of Pauline Hanson.
She was quick to surround herself in unedifying controversy and the media loved it.
But if you dig a little, there are other blotches on the party’s history (and no political party is perfect).
This month alone, serious allegations emerged regarding the financial management of the NSW branch of One Nation. Two MPs, Rod Roberts and Mark Latham, resigned from the party, claiming that officials had improperly funnelled state funds into federal party accounts.
It’s a party that for 28 years has faced multiple allegations and scandals related to corruption, financial mismanagement, and chaotic internal party governance.
It’s just worth considering if you think bucking the system is what is needed on May 3. Such parties don’t seem to offer much in the way of stability within their own party, so can they be trusted to act on our behalf?
Hans Lovejoy, editor
News tips are welcome: [email protected]
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
