Bass Coast Post
  • Home
    • Recent editions
  • News
  • Point of view
    • View from the chamber
  • Contributors
    • Anabelle Bremner
    • Anne Davie
    • Anne Heath Mennell
    • Bob Middleton
    • Carolyn Landon
    • Catherine Watson
    • Christine Grayden
    • Daryl Pellizzer
    • Dick Wettenhall
    • Dyonn Dimmock
    • Ed Thexton
    • Etsuko Yasunaga
    • Frank Coldebella
    • Gayle Marien
    • Geoff Ellis
    • Gill Heal
    • Harry Freeman
    • Ian Burns
    • Joan Woods
    • John Coldebella
    • Julie Paterson
    • Julie Statkus
    • Kit Sleeman
    • Laura Brearley >
      • Coastal Connections
    • Lauren Burns
    • Liane Arno
    • Linda Cuttriss
    • Linda Gordon
    • Lisa Schonberg
    • Liz Low
    • Marian Quigley
    • Mark Robertson
    • Mary Aldred
    • Mary Whelan
    • Meryl Brown Tobin
    • Michael Whelan
    • Mikhaela Barlow
    • Miriam Strickland
    • Natasha Williams-Novak
    • Neil Daly
    • Oliver Jobe
    • Patsy Hunt
    • Pauline Wilkinson
    • Richard Kemp
    • Rob Parsons
    • Sally McNiece
    • Terri Allen
    • Tim Shannon
  • Features
    • Features 2025
    • Features 2024
    • Features 2023
    • Features 2022
    • Features 2021
    • Features 2020
    • Features 2019
    • Features 2018
    • Features 2017
    • Features 2016
    • Features 2015
    • Features 2014
    • Features 2013
    • Features 2012
  • Arts
    • Arts
  • Local history
    • Local history
  • Environment
    • Environment
  • Nature notes
    • Nature notes
  • A cook's journal
  • Community
    • Diary
    • Courses
    • Groups
    • Stories
  • About the Post

Question time

26/3/2025

8 Comments

 
By Catherine Watson

WHEN we asked Post readers for the questions they would like to ask Monash election candidates, the floodgates opened. We received dozens of responses and almost 300 questions.

Special thanks to Blue Barlow who canvassed eight of her friends to come up with 42 questions covering the spectrum from housing, health and education to immigration, reconciliation and foreign policy.  
                                                    
We’ve been told we’re heading for a “cost of living election” but only one question referred to the cost of living, and only a small number related to local issues. Far from having our hands out shouting “More! More! More!” for Monash, Post readers seem far more interested in national events.

The questions give a real insight into our interests and concerns, with defence, climate change, energy and affordable housing topping the list of topics. 

We can’t subject candidates to hundreds of questions, or they’d have no time for writing policies and kissing babies, so we’ve picked out the common threads. The Post will put a selection of questions to candidates during pre-election interviews.
Defence
  • Top question: Should Australia pull out of the AUKUS alliance?
  • David Arnault added: “Should we ask for our $800 million back?”
  • Pete Granger had a couple of follow-up questions: “If opposed to AUKUS, do you have an alternative plan for dealing with the real prospect of a Chinese maritime blockade to our immediate north?        
  • Peter Carden asked whether candidates would support national conscription.
  • Blue asked whether Australia should continue to  provide military and other support to Ukraine to resist Russian invasion.
Climate change
  • There were many questions on climate change/action. Several people asked candidates to state whether they believed that global warming was caused by burning fossil fuels, and whether they would commit to acting on facts rather than opinion.
  • Pete Musk asked “What practical steps are you proposing to mitigate climate impacts in the Monash electorate such as coastal erosion, drought, storms and floods?”
  • Meryl Tobin wanted to know whether candidates believed carbon credits were effective in protecting the environment.
  • Jonathan Tupson submitted a quick multiple choice:  “Do you consider the Government’s emission reduction target of 43% emission reductions by 2030 to be too low, about right or too high?”
Energy
  • Top question: Do you believe nuclear should be part of Australia’s energy mix?
  • Wendy Davies wrote: “People in Moe are worried about their jobs as coal fired power generation wanes.  How would you support the transition of coal fired generation towards renewable energy sources?”
  • Peter Carden wanted to know “Given our current energy crisis, what would you do to keep manufacturing competitive and keep the cost of energy for consumers affordable?”
  • Aileen Venning focused on the home: “The average energy rating of Australian homes built before 2010 is 2.8 stars out of 10. This is costly financially and for the environment. How would you address this issue?
Housing
  • Danielle wrote “What would you do to help low income people afford housing?”
  • Blue asked: “Do you believe the current approaches will solve the housing crisis?"
  • Beth Banks, Housing Matters, asked whether candidates would support mandates requiring new developments to include a percentage of  affordable and disability housing.
The others
The environment, housing, gambling, immigration, integrity and reconciliation all attracted several questions.
  • Mike Cleeland asked “Will you or your party develop a national strategy to respond to coastal erosion?”
  • Maurice Schinkel wanted to know whether candidates support revoking the Gippsland Declared Area for offshore wind, considering the presence of cetaceans and migratory seabirds.
  • Peter Carden asked whether immigration levels should be reduced given our national housing crisis.
  • Felicia Di Stefano wanted to know whether candidates supported increasing the annual refugee intake from 20,000 to 35,000.
  • Several people asked how Australia should move forward on reconciliation and closing the gap, following the defeat of the Voice referendum. 
  • ​Several people had concerns about gambling. From David Arnault: “Do you favour removing gambling ads from television and the internet?”
  • Rob Humphrys asked: "Will you resist being beholden to or bullied by vested interests, eg. fossil fuel, gambling, banking, etc?"
  • There were also questions about addressing the mental health crisis, chronic pain, local services for people escaping domestic violence, services for vulnerable teenagers, improving local access to specialists, changes to Medicare and continued funding of the NDIS.
Local questions
Only a small number of questions related to local issues.
  • Cr Ron Bauer wanted to know whether candidates would support an aquatic centre for Cowes.
  • Donna Lancaster asked whether they would commit to replacing the Wonthaggi pool, now nearing its sixth decade. She added a declaration of interest. “I'm involved with the swim club. There aren't enough lanes for the kids to train in each night and then have the general public also fit.” 
  • Mike Cleeland wanted to know whether the parties would provide funding to develop the Bass Coast Dinosaur Trail.
  • He also asked whether they would support a new Phillip Island bridge given the current one is now 16 years past its use by date.

​Questions for individual candidates
Picture
By far the most common question directed at the Liberal Party’s Mary Aldred relate to the Coalition’s proposal to build seven modular nuclear plants, including one at the Loy Yang Power Station. Several people asked about safeguards for people in the region if the reactor broke down.  

Mick Green asked a series of detailed questions including: “Given a small reactor concept is yet to be commercially operating, how can you be confident that it can be safety built and commissioned?”

Others wanted to know what would happen to the offshore wind energy zones if the Coalition won government.

The Coalition proposal to cut 36,000 public servants also attracted several questions.  “What services currently being undertaken by the public service do you believe should be cut?” Michael Whelan asked.

Picture
Questions directed at the ALP’s Tully Fletcher mostly related to the Labor Government’s environmental record during its first term, including the decision to shelve a proposed federal environmental protection agency until next term.

There were also some late questions around salmon farming after the Labor Government amended the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act on Budget Day to protect Tasmania’s salmon industry despite major environmental concerns.

Picture
For independent Deb Leonard there were two overwhelming questions:
  • Given that you've received nearly $400,000 from Climate 200 for this election, how can you describe yourself as independent?
  • If you are elected, will you support Labor or Liberal in the event of a hung parliament?” (We already know Ms Leonard will decline to answer that one.)


Picture
Sophie Cuttriss asked the same question of independent Russell Broadbent. Who would he support in a hung parliament?

Frank Schooneveldt wanted to know why Mr Broadbent was running in the 2025 federal election at 74 years of age given that high court judges had to retire at 70 years of age.

Picture
Family First’s Geoff Dethlefs will be quizzed on whether he believes climate change was caused by humans. (We already know the answer to that: No. He has stated that he "sees the slight warming of the planet as a cyclic matter and that it will cool again".)

8 Comments
Pete Granger
28/3/2025 10:40:43 am

After all this time, the one thing we should not be doing is wasting our time on climate denialists. If they don't believe it by now, they never will. Chat GPT, is infinitely smarter than any one individual. I asked Chattie the following questions:

You said:

Does the scientific evidence suggest climate change is caused by humans? Do you see the warming of the planet as merely cyclic, and it will autonomously cool again?


ChatGPT said:



The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is primarily caused by human activities, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial emissions. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) such as carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O) trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere, leading to global warming. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and numerous peer-reviewed studies conclude that human influence is the dominant factor in the rapid temperature increase observed since the Industrial Revolution.

Is Climate Change Merely Cyclic?

The Earth's climate has undergone natural cycles of warming and cooling over millions of years due to factors such as orbital variations (Milankovitch cycles), solar activity, and volcanic eruptions. However, the current warming trend is different from past cycles in both speed and magnitude.

Natural cycles typically unfold over thousands to millions of years, whereas the current warming has accelerated dramatically over the past century.
Ice core data shows that CO₂ levels have fluctuated over millennia, but they have never been as high as today in at least 800,000 years.
If climate change were purely cyclic, we'd expect cooling phases as well, but observational data shows persistent and intensifying warming.

Will the Earth Cool Autonomously?

Absent significant human intervention, there is no scientific basis to expect a natural cooling process that would counteract current warming trends. The only mechanisms that could lead to cooling—such as a major volcanic eruption or a shift in solar radiation—would not be strong enough or consistent enough to offset the human-driven emissions. Without mitigation, warming will likely continue, leading to more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and ecological disruptions.

Would you like a deeper dive into any specific aspects of this?

You said:

Apart from sheer ignorance, what is the underlying reason some people still to refuse to believe this?


ChatGPT said:

Apart from sheer ignorance, there are several psychological, ideological, economic, and political reasons why some people refuse to accept human-caused climate change. These reasons often overlap and reinforce each other:

1. Psychological Factors

Cognitive Dissonance – Accepting climate change means acknowledging that our lifestyles and economic systems contribute to a global crisis. Many people resist this because it creates internal conflict.


Normalcy Bias – People tend to assume that because past climate fluctuations didn’t cause catastrophe in their lifetime, the current trend must also be exaggerated.


Motivated Reasoning – People interpret information in a way that aligns with their preexisting beliefs. If someone is politically conservative or financially invested in fossil fuels, they will cherry-pick data to downplay climate change.


2. Ideological & Political Reasons

Anti-Government & Libertarian Ideology – Acknowledging climate change often implies the need for government intervention (e.g., regulations, carbon taxes). Libertarians and free-market fundamentalists often reject climate science because it conflicts with their ideological belief in minimal government.

Partisan Polarization – In countries like the U.S., climate change has become a tribal issue. Many conservatives oppose it simply because it is associated with liberal politics.

Religious Beliefs – Some religious groups believe that climate change is either part of God's plan, a sign of the End Times, or simply beyond human control. This leads them to dismiss scientific explanations.

3. Economic & Industry Influence

Financial Interests – Fossil fuel companies have spent decades funding misinformation campaigns to create doubt, much like the tobacco industry did regarding smoking and cancer. People employed in industries that depend on fossil fuels are more likely to reject climate science.

Short-Term Thinking – Businesses and politicians often prioritize immediate economic growth over long-term sustainability, making climate change seem like a distant or secondary concern.

4. Media & Misinformation

Echo Chambers & Misinformation – Conservative media outlets and social media amplify doubt about climate change, making it easier for people to reject scientific consensus.

False Balance in Journalism – For years, the media presented climate change as a “debate” by giving equal time t

Reply
Robert Durkacz
16/4/2025 12:47:00 pm

The last thing we should do is ask an AI service to think for us. Google things by all means and think about the reliability of the sources that come up.
As for climate change, the starting point could be the IPCC website www.ipcc.ch or wikipedia. Not chatgpt! Don't even ecourage them.

Reply
Anne Heath Mennell
28/3/2025 01:08:17 pm

Firstly, thank you Catherine for summarising all these concerns/questions. It provides rich food for thought for electors and candidates and I hope all candidates will be preparing to address some of them in their interviews.

Thanks also to Pete (and Chattie) for their questions and answers on climate change. More food for thought before we make our decisions.

Reply
Werner Theinert
30/3/2025 09:31:53 am

The recent forming of a Coalition between the Labor and LNP Senators to expedite Environmental Legislation amendments in the Senate reveals who is in real control of our current two party system.
Obviously neither party is concerned about the environmental damage being done to Tasmanian waters by the Salmon farmers.

Will the formation of a coalition between the Government and the Opposition Party become a common event in the future?

The Tasmanian Salmon Farming situation was brought to our attention in 2021 with the publishing of Richard Flanagan's book "Toxic".
Recent pictures highlight the fact that it wasn't a book of fiction.

Reply
Michael Nugent
2/4/2025 05:30:39 pm

Yes Werner, it’s funny how the 2 majors appear diametrically opposed but become joined at the hip when the interests of their masters are threatened (as in your example) or their own interests are threatened (e.g., www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-12/labor-coalition-strike-electoral-reform-deal/104928032 )

Reply
Meryl Tobin link
5/4/2025 09:14:44 pm

All good questions, Catherine. Thanks for collecting and publishing them. I look forward to seeing the candidates' answers to them - particularly the one on nuclear energy. Pete Granger, a fascinating look at your fact check with AI. Thank you.

Reply
Pete Granger
5/4/2025 10:11:48 pm

Chat GPT is one of the most remarkable things I have experienced in my lifetime. Its 'intuition' and depth of understanding is almost incomprehensible. AI is going to dramatically change the world. Unfortunately, not always in a positive way.

Reply
Robert Durkacz
17/4/2025 07:26:36 am

It looks like you are not getting answers to the questions. What is next?

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.