Queensland has caused grief for the ‘Coalition’ parties at national level before, and I suspect Malcolm Turnbull should be careful trying to publicly tell the Queensland party what to do, especially when in this state it is now a nominally National Party dominated hybrid.

I have to admit, I can’t really see what it is that had led so many of Mr Dutton’s colleagues and journalists from federal Parliament to describe him as someone of such talent and promise. However, I accept his party colleagues in the federal parliament have a far better opportunity to see all of Mr Dutton’s qualities than I do, so I will take them at their word.

But taking the personalities out of it, the main message I get from the whole episode is how pessimistic the Liberals and Nationals (and the Liberal Nationals) must be about their chances at the next election.

It is true that Mr Dutton’s former seat of Dickson has nominally become a Labor seat under the new draft boundaries released by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) in their latest redistribution in Queensland.  However, given Mr Dutton only had a margin of 0.1% in his favour to start with, and it has only shifted to a nominally Labor margin of 1.3%, it was hardly a total upheaval for him.

And whilst the AEC usually only makes minimal changes between their draft boundaries and the final version when they do redistributions, it seems excessively defeatist for an incumbent to bail out before things are even finalised, given the overall shift is only 1.4%.  Incumbency is clearly worth something, and whilst Mr Dutton lost almost all of his margin at 2007 poll, it seems defeatist to assume he’s likely to go backwards again.

The now Labor held seat of Longman, which adjoins Dickson, has had the Labor margin cut from 3.6% to 1.3% which is the same as the new Dickson margin. Whilst Longman has a Labor incumbent, large chunks of the redistributed seat will be new to the electorate and the incumbent would not have had much time to work them.  Longman was previously held by Mal Brough, someone who was also labelled by many in the media and his party as a rising star but had the biggest swing against a sitting Liberal MP in the entire country last election. Whilst this might suggest Longman isn’t fertile ground, one could also say that it’s swung about as far as it’s likely to go, especially as the outer urban areas such as those covered by Longman (and much of Dickson it has to be said) are the sort of demographic who are the most likely to be pissed off by what the Bligh Labor government has been doing at state level in recent months.

In any case, while I can understand why Peter Dutton would have wanted to run for the now vacant seat McPherson (with a nominal margin on the new draft boundaries of around 8.6% for the LNP), the newly created seat of Wright, which adjoins McPherson, has a nominal margin to the LNP of 3.8% which surely isn’t too bad for a rising star like Mr Dutton in a seat with no incumbent.

Not only does Peter Dutton apparently feel his incumbency will not be enough to make up a 1.3% margin, it seems he wasn’t even comfortable with going for a new seat at a 3.8% margin to the Liberals.  If I was Malcolm Turnbull, I’d be feeling slightly insulted by that. There hardly seems much point in a party talking about the need for renewal and having high quality candidates who can offer things in the future if they’re just going to stick them in seats the party will always win anyway.

ELSEWHERE:

• Graham Young, a former party Vice President and Campaign Director for the Liberals in Qld, gives his assessment on Ambit Gambit.

It is always dangerous to single individuals out, but Jack Evans and Sid Spindler, alongside Don Chipp, were amongst the most crucial people in getting the Democrats established and functional.  Sadly all three have now passed on. Certainly when it comes to Western Australia, there is no other person who played a more fundamental role in the Democrats in that state, from the frantic early days, slowly building the party to a significant political force, in some very difficult days rebuilding the party in the west after some major infighting in the early 1990s – with the party ultimately reaching its strongest ever point in 1998 – and again in the even harder, distressing period where the party was struggling unsuccessfully for parliamentary and political survival.

Jack Evans not only hosted the huge town hall meeting in Perth in 1977 when Don Chipp was barnstorming the country setting up what to date has been the most successful minor party in Australian political history. He was a strong promoter of a ‘centre-line’ party and served as National President and in a number of other positions in those early years of the Democrats when the new party had lots of momentum and many wildy diverse and fervent members, but very little money or political experience. 

Jack Evans only served in the Senate for a single, shortened term, from March 1983 to June 1985.  There is a lot of hard, unglamorous work involved in party politics, and Jack was over represented in that category, but there is also a lot of luck, and he drew some short straws in that department. 

Jack Evans has a few distinctions in electoral history, some of which I’m sure he would have preferred not to have.  He gained the highest Democrat vote in Western Australia in the party’s entire history, at the Democrats’ very first effort in 1997.  With Jack Evans at the head of the ticket, the party gained around 12.6% of the vote.  Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough to get him elected. Meanwhile over in NSW, his Democrat colleague Colin Mason was comfortably elected despite the party only getting around 8.3% of the vote. 

For those interested in political trivia and minutiae, the number 2 candidate following Jack Evans on the Democrat ticket way back in 1977 was Uri Themal, who later went on to head the Queensland government’s Multicultural Affairs department. The number 3 candidate was Olympic gold medal sprinter Shirley Strickland-de la Hunty, who ran as a support candidate for Jack and the Democrats a number of times through into the 1990s. Jack and Shirley know each other from their teenage years, and he spoke at her funeral in Perth in 2004)

Jack recontested for the Senate in 1980, and while the primary vote was much lower at 8.8%, after all the votes were counted and preferences distributed, he came much closer to getting elected – agonisingly so, missing out on the final seat by less than 1000 votes out of around 700 000 votes cast. That final seat went instead to the Liberal’s Noel Crichton-Browne, starting him out on a Senate career which would stretch for another 16 years. 

To rub salt into the wound, the Liberals had advertised in TV, radio and newspapers, as well as through direct mail, with false assertions that a vote for the Democrats was a vote for Labor, along with other alleged inaccuracies about the Democrats’ voting record in the Senate.  Given the final result was so close, it is not unreasonable to assume that these falsehoods may have had sufficient influence to make a difference.

This led to Jack achieving another unwanted political milestone, as the key appellant in a High Court challenge – Evans v Crichton-Browne – to that result.  I believe it was the first test of the provision of the Electoral Act which makes it an illegal practice to be:

“Printing, publishing, or distributing any electoral advertisement, notice, handbill, pamphlet, or card containing any untrue or incorrect statement intended or likely to mislead or improperly interfere with any elector in or in relation to the casting of his vote.”

The High Court found that this provision related only to misleading electors regarding the actual act of voting – i.e. how to fill in the ballot paper or which ballot box to put in it – not in regard to influencing them in deciding who to vote for, so Jack and the WA Democrats lost out again. 

It is not surprising that the Democrats strongly pushed for many years afterwards to get a prohibition against dishonest political advertising inserted into the Electoral Act.  These efforts to remove the ‘licence to lie’ at election time were actually briefly successful – for a short time after the election of the Hawke Labor government, amendments to this effect were passed by the Senate and inserted in the Electoral Act.  However, the two major parties decided to remove them once again before the next election could be held, so they were never used in practice.

Jack was finally successful in getting elected in March 1983. Ironically, the Democrat Senate vote was lower still, at just 6.8%, but the fact it was a double dissolution election, with a lower quota required for election, made the difference. 

However, the downside of being elected in a double dissolution was that firstly Jack only got a three year term instead of the usual six years, and secondly that the start of his term was back-dated to July 1982.  On top of that, the Hawke government, elected in March 1983, called an early election on 1 December 1984.  This time, the Democrat vote was seriously hampered by the brief shooting star of the Nuclear Disarmament Party. The Democrat vote in WA was just 4.8%, while the NDP’s lead candidate, Jo Vallentine, was elected on 6.8% after having been drawn at the top of the ballot paper – well below the level Jack had achieved in 1977 and 1980 without getting elected. 

As another sign of the vagaries of Senate elections for smaller parties, over in NSW the NDP’s rock star candidate Peter Garrett, who had helped generate so much of the momentum for that new party, failed to win a seat despite getting 9.6% of the vote, while the Democrats’ Colin Mason once again managed to get elected, despite polling lower at 7.2%.

If there was one area the ‘consider each issue on its merits’ Democrats had been unyieldingly dogmatic about since their formation, it was the anti-nuclear, pro-disarmanent message, so the splintering of that vote by the NDP,and especially the loss of a seat to them, caused a degree of teeth-gnashing at the time.

When the 1987 election came around, Jack Evans came second in a tightly contested pre-selection ballot within the Democrats.  Jean Jenkins, the lead candidate got elected – in another double dissolution election – with 5.8% of the vote.  Jo Vallentine – recontesting as an Independent, as the NDP has already imploded by this stage – was also re-elected with 4.8% of the vote – the same percentage the unsuccessful Jack Evans led Democrat ticket achieved in the previous election.

Such are the vagaries of Senate polls for smaller parties. The key message isn’t so much a series of hard luck stories, but rather a stark reminder for minor parties that unless they can gain enough support to get a quota in their own right, they will always be subject to the vagaries of preference flows.

But even though Jack had only a short time in the Senate – the second shortest of the 26 people who served as Senators in the Democrats’ history – he still made his mark in that time.  Perhaps most notably, he introduced one of only twelve Private Senators’ Bills (i.e. non-government legislation) to be passed into law in the nearly 109 years since federal Parliament was founded, and one of only two Democrats (along with former Victorian Senator Janet Powell) to be a sole sponsor of such a Bill.  His Income Tax Assessment Amendment Bill (No 2) 1984 was aimed at preventing a particular type of tax evasion.

The topic of tax evasion legislation was very vexed for the Democrat Senators of this period – the first term of the Hawke government. A shared strong aversion to tax evasion at times ran into conflict with a strong opposition to retrospective legislation.  Democrat Senators Chipp, Haines and Macklin tended to go towards only supporting non-retrospective aspects of legislation which clamped down on tax avoidance, while Jack Evans and Colin Mason leaned towards supporting closing tax avoidance loopholes regardless. 

Unlike the later tax troubles the Democrats ran afoul of with the GST legislation in 1999, this much more drawn our public difference of opinion amongst their Senators did not split the party or its supporter base.  Perhaps this was because the positions various Senators took were always openly and honestly explained, and were consistent with their public policies and principles previously pronounced.

In his first speech to the Senatein 1983, Jack Evans highlighted issues that he pursued in the all too brief period he served in that chamber.  Apart from the traditional Democrat emphasis on inclusiveness and the search for constructive cooperation ahead of combative confrontationalism, he strongly promoted the importance of supporting education at all levels as an investment for the future. 

He gave specific mention not just to the need to stop the Franklin Dam, but also to protect precious areas of Western Australia such as the jarrah and karri forests and Cockburn Sound.  While his mention of the women of Greenham Common may seem a bit dated, his emphasis on the importance of nuclear disarmament is as current as ever, as was his mention of the importance of a Bill of rights and individual responsibilities.

He expressed support for cultural diversity as well as economic diversity, with a display of traditional liberal support for individual enterprise, social supports and a reduction in constraints on fair economic competition.

Following the 1987 election, after Jack Evans had been defeated in pre-selection and Jean Jenkins had been elected to the Senate from WA, he moved into the background witin the party for a number of years.  However, Jenkins’ seat was lost at the 1990 election and she was unsuccessful again at the 1993 poll, with the WA Greens (which by that time had formed around Senator Jo Vallentine prior to her retirement in 1991) then holding 2 Senate seats. 

Around this period, a series of infighting broke out in the Democrats in WA which involved the most extraordinary, labyrinthian set of circumstances I’ve ever witnessed.  It reached the stage of one group of members taking another group to court to determine which people were the ‘real’ executive of the WA Division.  It would take far too long to outline the twisting disputes here – and if I started to try, it would probably attract a furious flurry of comments from a few people who are still determined to have their version history recognised, long after everyone else has forgotten the whole affair happened. 

This period ended with a mass expulsion from the party of the major protagonists from both sides of the stoush – plus others who I have to say were basically caught up as collateral damage.  In addition, some other people from outside the party tried to ensure the dispute dragged on in one way or another through the courts for a number of years after – and without raising the names of anyone from outside the Democrats who might already have been mentioned in this piece, suffice to say that there were some disconcerting similarities with efforts made some years later by other people using sizeable amounts of money to pursue court action to derail Pauline Hanson and her party.

In any case, with most of the active members of the WA Democrats either expelled or repelled by the whole saga, Jack Evans came back in to help rebuild the party in WA almost from scratch.  Within a few years, the WA Democrats not only had a Senator elected once again in 1996, with Andrew Murray gaining 9.4%, but in 1998 for the first time ever gained a second WA Senator, with the election of Brian Greig from 6.4% of the vote.

In between those two elections, for the only time in the party’s history they also succeeded in getting people elected to the Upper House of the State Parliament.  The election of Helen Hodgson and Norm Kelly at the state election in late 1997 not only gave the WA branch of the party it’s only ever taste of state success. That election was also historic because, in combination with the election of three candidates from the WA Greens, it broke the conservative’s hold on the WA Upper House for the first time in the state’s history.  The consequences of that were historic, not least because it – eventually – led to the removal of (most of) the disgraceful enormous malapportionment in favour of rural voters which had existed for so long in WA.

Sadly, both of these state seats were lost at the next WA state election in  February 2001- a result which also played a key part in the party’s members across the country moving to generate a ballot of the federal leadership, leading to Meg Lees being replaced by Natasha Stott Despoja less than two months later.

At the 2001 federal election, the Stott Despoja led Democrats – with Jack Evans serving once again as National Campaign Director, as he had in the earliest days of the party – provided the only occasion where the Democrats retained a Senate seat in WA, with Andrew Murray being re-elected on 5.8% of the vote.

I never heard Jack mention it, but if I was him I would have found it interesting to note that results of 12.6% in 1977 and 8.8% in 1980 when he was lead Senate candidate weren’t enough to get a successful outcome, whilst Democrat votes of 5.8% in 1987, 6.4% in 1998 and 5.8% in 2001 were sufficient to be successful.  There a range of reasons why this is so, not least a slightly lower quota after 1984 and the emergence of the NDP/Greens in WA cutting into the Democrat base vote whilst providing strong preference flows if the Democrats could stay above them in the count. 

Despite age and health starting to catch up with him, Jack one again played key roles in the 2007 election for the party in its efforts to stave off parliamentary annihilation.  It must have been a terrible thing for him to witness the final eradication of the party from the national parliament, after thirty years of effort and sacrifice.

I don’t pretend I had no disagreements with Jack now and then over the years, but I could never fault his commitment or his tenacity.  And while he was determined, he wasn’t dogmatic or inflexible. 

It probably sounds shallow, but I also have to say I was terribly envious of his voice, which was rich, deep and resonant – the sort of naturally authoritative and projecting voice which any politician would die for.

In the final paragraphs of the final speech made by a Democrat in the federal Parliament, I mentioned Jack Evans; wondering what might have been if he had had the chance to contribute over a longer period of time in the Senate.   But politics, like life, is full of ‘what ifs’. The most we can do is try our hardest to improve things for the better, and I have no doubt Jack achieved that.

In reading back through a piece I wrote about Don Chipp’s funeralthree years ago, I saw a comment I heard at the time from Paul Keating. He was talking about Chipp, but I think it is fair to give it some application to Jack Evans too, when he said Don Chipp “successfully achieved one of the most difficult things possible in Australian politics – starting a new political party.”

The fact that the party’s time may now have ended doesn’t in any way diminish its achievements over the thirty years when it reshaped the political landscape in Australia, especially when it comes to the Senate.  It doesn’t just leave a historical artifact or curiosity; it leaves an ongoing legacy that impacts on all that follow.

I know the 30 or so years of the Democrats’ history only played one part in the 80 year long life of Jack Evans. I focus on that because I don’t know enough about the rest of his life to comment, but on that score alone, it’s a very good effort.

It is an unfortunate sign of how easily our priorities and perspective can be distorted. The arrival of a few hundred Sri Lankan asylum seekers is seen by some as a serious problem, even though those assessed as not being refugees are being returned.

Yet the Sri Lankan government continues to detain over a quarter of a million men, women and children in over-crowded, unsafe internment camps with barely a concern being voiced.  This piece by Jeff Sparrow notes that the silence about this situation extends to most other western countries too.  The piece also contains some descriptions from The Guardian and elsewhere about the awful conditions in the camps and other human rights breaches.

Human Rights Watch has done their usual thorough job of detailing the situation facing hundreds of thousands of displaced people.

Since March 2008, the Sri Lankan government has confined virtually everyone displaced by the war between the government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) to detention camps, depriving them of their liberty and freedom of movement in violation of international law. As of September 15, 2009, the government was holding 264,583 internally displaced persons in detention camps and hospitals, according to the UN, while fewer than 12,000 have been released or returned home.

Human Rights Watch also list specific problems such as:

• Arbitrary detention and enforced disappearance;
• Inability to trace missing relatives: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which often traces family members, has been barred from the main camps since mid-July);
• Lack of protection mechanisms in the camps: The military camp administration is preventing humanitarian organizations, including the UN and the ICRC, from undertaking effective monitoring and protection in the camps;
• Conditions in the camps and expected deterioration during the monsoon;
• Lack of access to proper medical care;
• Lack of transparency and information.

But it seems the prospect of a few hundred Sri Lankans arriving in Australia by boat, some of whom are undoubtedly fleeing this situation, is a much bigger problem than the human rights abuses being inflicted on as thousand times as many people in the place they have left.

As Jeff Sparrow said in noting the minimal concern being expressed internationally:

That’s why the situation in Sri Lanka matters so much. It’s not simply because there’s something fundamentally wrong about mass collective punishment. It’s because if the world doesn’t speak out, you can expect see the model put into action elsewhere.

ADDENDUM: Given my comment on the importance of not remaining silent, it is appropriate for me to note a debate in the House of Representatives on this topic back on 1 June 2009.  The debate was to a motion moved by Labor Member for Fremantle, Melissa Parke. All of the 9 speakers from both Labor and Liberal provided balanced and non-partisan contributions, with the exception of Don Randall, the Liberal Member for Canning, who basically took the line that all atrocities were the fault of the LTTE, and there is no substance to any allegations of wrong doing by the Sri Lankan government.

The Clerk of the Senate, Harry Evans, has caused plenty of heartburn to governments of both persuasions during his tenure as Clerk.  He has made a habit of publicly and plainly pointing out the dangers of unfettered executive power being provided to any government, no matter what their colour.  Perhaps the record length of his time in office, at over twenty-one years, combined with his ever more imminent compulsory departure date of 2009 – brought about by a decision by both major parties to pass legislation in 1999 limiting a Clerk’s term to ten years – helped increase his outspokenness.

Evans has well and truly stood out amongst Officers of Parliaments in Australia as being willing to publicly speak out when he sees government action which he believes compromises the integrity of the Parliament.

But it seems he might now have a competitor in the form of Neil Laurie, the Clerk of the only legislative chamber in Queensland’s Parliament.

Mr Laurie has reportedly provided a submission to the Queensland Government’s integrity review which is scathing of past and current practices at parliamentary and government level in Queensland.

Not only does the Clerk of Queensland’s Parliament reportedly suggest that the current political culture in Queensland is in some respects worse than in the pre-Fitzgerald era, he also calls for significant electoral reform – including the introduction of some form of proportional representation in the state’s electoral system.  Not even Harry Evans advocated for introducing proportional representation!

While there is no way in the world either major party in Queensland will currently support proportional representation and multi-member electorates for state Parliament, it is interesting that the Clerk of the Queensland Parliament has highlighted this point.

I sometimes think the biggest lost opportunity of the post-Fitzgerald era in Queensland was the failure of the Electoral and Administrative Review Commission (EARC) to recommend proportional representation for Queensland – especially given the lack of an Upper House – when they were tasked with reviewing the state’s electoral system soon after the election of the Goss Labor government in 1989.

However, EARC didn’t recommend this (in fact they even recommended maintaining a small degree of favouritism for rural areas when the boundaries and size of electorates were being considered.

Perhaps if the Clerk of the day had been a champion of the idea, as seems to be the case with the current Clerk, there might have been a chance of introducing this significant and positive reform.

Before I mention a bit more about that, I wanted to draw attention to a national online survey being done by the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN).  It is a key part of a campaign aimed at bringing the reality of child abuse further into the open, to gain more insight into public perceptions about the sensitive issue of child abuse and to provide an opportunity for people to contribute to the development of workable prevention strategies.

It only takes about ten minutes to fill in the survey, so if you’re concerned about the issue, click on the link – they’re trying to get to 50 000 people to do it. They’re up over 11 600 at the moment.

Given the media frenzy regarding Dennis Ferguson, it is ironic that there is still such a need to bring the reality of child abuse out into the open.

It is often pointed out that the vast majority of sexual offenses against children are carried out by family members.  That doesn’t mean we should ignore the minority of other offenders, such as Ferguson. But it does mean we should make sure we’re not just picking on easy targets while ignoring the bigger problem – something spin-focused governments and law and order tub-thumpers are very adept at doing.

Queensland went through the same period of neighbourhood vigilante fervour towards Dennis Ferguson over twelve months ago.  I  wrote a few posts on the topic then. Very little has changed, except that in the interim Ferguson was found not guilty of the charges that he had been facing around that time.

The key point, as made in this Crikey piece is that it

is counter-productive in terms of the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. And most importantly it may also militate against progress towards reducing the future incidence and severity of sexual offending.

As virtually everyone quite rightly insists that it is the interests and rights of children that they are most concerned about in these situations, it would be preferable if we focused on what responses are most likely to reduce the risks of further harm to children, not what responses feed our sense of outrage and disgust.  That goes double for political and other community leaders in the media.

Child protection work is amongst the most difficult of fields, but even with that caveat, the dismal state of the child safety systems in most states is a clear sign that perhaps our society doesn’t give as much priority to protecting children as we like to think we do.

Debates around Telstra sometimes seem to have their own special form of internal logic, where people argue and apply principles and positions that they would not do in other circumstances.

The government’s plan for Telstra appears to basically be requiring a form of divestiture – a measure which is often suggested, but rarely able to be acted on, when a player or players excessively dominate a particular industry.

Many have highlighted the lack of adequate divestiture provisions in our Trade Practices Act, which would complement existing prohibitions on acquisitions which substantially reduce competition in a particular sector.  Former Democrat Senator Andrew Murray was one who regularly called for such a reform.

There are circumstances unique to Telstra which make such action possible in this case, and even then it requires at least the threat of specific legislation to bring it about.

Coles and Woolworths domination of – and increasing vertical integration within – the retail sector is a commonly mentioned example of unhealthy and anti-competitive concentration of market power, but there is currently little that can be done about it under our existing competition laws.

It would be nice if the debate surrounding the federal government’s plans for Telstra moved beyond the peculiarities of Telstra’s situation and history, and gave stronger consideration to the merits of adopting stronger divestiture provisions in Australia, such as those which currently apply in the USA or Europe.

Judging from what I’ve read, it seems I am more open than most in thinking there is a credible possibility that the Prime Minister might call an early double dissolution election – assuming the political environment at the time suits it (and assuming he gets a trigger).  A chance to strengthen their Lower House majority while immediately reducing the difficulty in getting measures through the Senate would be tempting.

However, the latest speculation that the government is considering recalling the Senate on or after December 10th so they can get a double dissolution trigger from a second rejection of the private health insurance legislation is ludicrous.  It is hard to believe anyone would treat this story as credible.

Firstly, they would have to get the Senate to agree to the extra sittings, which is highly doubtful. Secondly, it is unlikely the redistribution in New South Wales would have concluded by then, which would mean some unnecessarily messy issues surrounding pre-selections and interim boundaries.

And thirdly, whilst I think the government could call a double dissolution election if the circumstances were right, it is inconceivable that this could ever involve calling an election in December, which would run through Christmas and New Year; or anytime in January while the school holidays were still on.

Given Parliament normally resumes early in February, there is no reason why the government couldn’t wait until then, and put the private health insurance legislation up for debate first. An early election would only work for the government if they were able to convince the electorate it was justified. This could be possible in some circumstances, but not in a situation where the government takes unprecedented steps in an effort to speed up the process.

However, Queensland Senator Joe Ludwig, who took on the Special Minister of State role, appears to be doing a good job of continuing with positive, sensible changes in this area.

In response to issues identified through the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the printing allowances of parliamentarians, Senator Ludwig has announced a number of worthwhile, immediate changes, namely:

• a further 25% cut to the current printing entitlement, from $100,000 to $75,000 per annum for Members and $16,667 to $12,500 for Senators (this is in addition to the 33% cut by the Rudd Government when elected to office);
• ending the use of printing entitlements for electioneering such as printing how to vote cards;
• capping, for the first time, expenditure by MPs on office consumables such as toner and paper;
• combining the current printing and communications allowance entitlements into a single entitlement;
• establishing a rigorous vetting and checking system within the Department of Finance to ensure the material Members and Senators print is within entitlement;
• reforming the current newspapers and periodicals allowance; and
• expanding the current reporting system to publish all expenditure of Senators, Members, former Parliamentarians, family members and employees, of entitlements administered by the Department of Finance and Deregulation.

Contrary to some of the impressions being given about the Auditor-General’s report, while it did identify major problems with the current system of allowances, it didn’t find widespread rorting.  This isn’t to say that there was no misuse identified. The Auditor-General also found problems with the way the entitlements framework was administered.

But in my view, the major problem – also identified by the Auditor-General – is that the framework around the printing entitlement is complex, outdated and imprecise. The very fact that the Auditor-General stated that many usages that were examined were “at risk of being outside entitlement” indicates the ambiguity inherent in the current guidelines.  I know a couple of my previous usages of the printing allowance that the Auditor-General scrutinised came within this category.

I can recall my own experiences in trying to get clear advice about what was and wasn’t within entitlement. In particular, the very gray line between printing for ‘parliamentary or electoral activities’ (which is allowed) and ‘political party activities’ (which isn’t allowed) created a lot of uncertainty, given that a lot of an MP’s party activities are inherently intertwined with what they do in Parliament or their electorate.  Making this vagueness even more problematic is that some formal advices were provided saying that things like using the allowance to print how-to-cards was permitted, even though many would see this usage as something that was party political. The government’s decision to formally define “electioneering” for the first time, and tightly restrict the use of printing entitlements for this purpose is a major step forward. Apart from preventing possible misue, it will also slightly level the electoral playing field by at least preventing the incumbent from being able to have the taxpayer fund a big chunk of their electoral materials.

In some cases, trying to get clarity about what was and wasn’t within entitlement was a bit like getting legal advice – you get an opinion of might be allowed, but no guarantee that someone else won’t make a determination to the contrary down the track.  A ‘rule of thumb’ advice that was sometimes provided was ‘not to do anything that would look bad on the front page of the newspaper.’  Given that newspapers are quite capable of making politicians look bad just for existing, that advice isn’t always of much help.

Whilst the main focus on the changes announced to date will probably be on the reductions in the size of the overall printing and communication budgets, perhaps one of the most worthwhile changes is the capping of expenditure – at $35 000 annually – on the previously unlimited entitlement for things such as paper and toner for office printers and photocopiers.

This is one example where technology had made the existing open ended allowance in this area a bigger problem.  When I first started working as a politician’s staffer in 1990, we were only just moving from dot matrix printers to laser printers and the photocopiers of the time would repeatedly break down if you tried to use them for big copying jobs.

These days, computers can print direct to photocopiers which are basically mini printing-presses that can churn out enormous quantities very quickly.  Combined with a lack of clear guidelines about what things you can or can’t use photocopiers for, having an open-ended entitlement in this area was bound to become a bigger and bigger problem.

Apart from the reforms already announced, Senator Ludwig has also set up a four person panel to provide advice on how to further improve the system.  The only slight criticism I have of this measure is that I think this panel should have a former politician or two on it, because they are most likely to have an idea of all the many potential usages and ambiguities that can occur in this area as part of politicians carrying out their job.  (I’m not saying this by way of looking for a job, I hasten to add. If I was approached to do something like this in a formal way, I’d have to say no).

I hope that the four person panel not only consults politicians (current or former) as part of their task, but also seeks the views of the general public, including the media.  Whilst some people would no doubt say politicians shouldn’t have any allowances or entitlements at all, I think it would be helpful to get some considered views from across the community about how best to frame and define what should or shouldn’t be appropriate uses of printing allowances.

UPDATE: There were some speeches made in the Senate this week about the issues raised in the Auditor-General’s report. They’re worth reading to get an idea of some of the political reactions and context.  The speeches can be accessed through this link.

It is apt that the start of this debate coincided with publication of comments by Max Moore-Wilton, the former head of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, that he was told prior to the 2001 election that the infamous ‘children overboard’ allegation against a boatload of refugees was false, and that he passed on that information to the Prime Minister. After a lot of double and triple checking, Mr Moore-Wilton eventually said his “recollection was not sound”.

But it barely matters which version of Mr Moore-Wilton’s recollection people accept. It has long been obvious that key leaders in the Howard government willingly smeared these refugees for political gain, and the only reason they might not have been formally told the allegations were wrong was because it was quite clear this was something they didn’t want to be told. To this day, Mr Howard has never apologised for his slandering of the refugees, including his comment that “we don’t want people like that in this country”. He has still barely acknowledged that the children overboard claims were baseless.

The Senate debate provides a reminder of the previous federal government’s practice of (mis)using asylum seekers for political gain, with some of the familiar distortions about so-called “illegal entrants”, “jumping the queue”, “illegal immigrants” and the like being trotted out again by Coalition Senators. Still, debates on immigration – and on asylum seekers and refugees in particular – are not renowned for clarity of language and perspective. I have never seen any serious explanation of why asylum seekers arriving in boats should be treated as a matter of national security. Even linking it with a term like border protection is over-stating things, seeing these are people that want to be found, rather than being people trying to sneak themselves or illegal products into the country. Of the millions of people who enter Australia each year, there is no other group who are more thoroughly assessed for health, security, character and general customs and quarantine purposes.

Debate on the Migration Amendment (Abolishing Detention Debt) Bill will continue today. Senator Xenophon has stated he supports the Bill, as do Labor and the Greens. The Coalition Senators will oppose it – assuming none of them support the original recommendation of their Coalition colleagues on the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and cross the floor.

Which leaves the fate of the Bill with Senator Fielding. I had the understanding that he would also be supporting it, but his contribution to the Senate debate yesterday has left me unsure quite what he thinks about the whole issue, let alone the Bill. The Immigration Minister, Chris Evans, also seemed rather perplexed by Senator Fielding’s depiction of the issue, judging by the numerous injections he made. Presumably all will become clear later today when debate on the matter resumes and a final Senate vote is taken.

UPDATE: Debate concluded on the detention debt legislation at 1:20pm today. Senator Fielding moved an amendment, seeking to keep charging people for the cost of immigration detention except for those who are subsequently recognised as a refugee. This wasn’t supported by anyone. Fortunately, any risk of the Bill being defeated if Senator Fielding sided with the Coalition was removed when Liberal Senator Judith Troeth stated in the Senate that she was supporting the legislation. A division was called on the final vote on the legislation, meaning Senator Troeth crossed the floor to vote differently to her party colleagues.

The final vote was 34 in favour and 30 against, with Senator Fielding also voting for it.

The situation for individual women seeking an abortion and for doctors prepared to provide it is now totally untenable.

It has now been reported that

Public hospitals in Rockhampton and Mackay are believed to have joined the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital in suspending medical abortions, while a service attached to Cairns Base Hospital is also reviewing its legal position.

…. more hospitals are set to follow and suspend drug-induced abortion services.

Queensland women are now having to travel to Sydney for a medical abortion.

Because this issue will always be treated as a conscience vote, it means traditional party controls and discipline do not apply.

If a majority in the Queensland Parliament do believe that abortion should be illegal, then let them have a vote to confirm that. There would obviously be many people unhappy about this outcome, but at least it would provide certainty and clarity about what the law is.

At present, the legal uncertainty means Queensland has the worst of both worlds on the issue.

Even though the Premier and her Ministers in Cabinet may not be wanting to have a full debate, the Parliament as a whole should have the final say on bringing on any proposed changes to the law for debate. Each individual MP would also be free to move amendments to any Bill that is brought forward.

Cairns-based gynaecologist Caroline de Costa has been writing regularly in Crikey over many months now assiduously documenting the untenable situation which has developed in Queensland following the decision to charge a young woman from Cairns with procuring, and her partner with assisting to procure, her own abortion.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh has kept trying to avoid the issue throughout this time, stating that while her personal view is that abortion should be a matter between a woman and her doctor, there shouldn’t be any attempt to change the existing law, supposedly because there wouldn’t be the numbers in the Queensland Parliament for it to succeed.

Personally, I am not so convinced about that, but even so, I don’t see that as sufficient reason not to bring on a debate, which would at least clarify the issue.

This has always been an issue that is treated as a conscience vote by all parties in the Parliament, where traditional party line votes don’t occur. Efforts have been made by some in the Labor Party to introduce a Private Members Bill (i.e. legislation that is not formally produced or backed by the government). This was done successfully in the federal Parliament in regards to RU486, where a Bill sponsored by a Senator from each of the Liberal, Labor, Democrat and National parties.

However, while legislation on a matter which is seen as a conscience vote can be introduced by any MP, the decision about whether or not to allow that legislation to be debated and voted on is still a government decision – unless enough individual members of the governing party willing to defy such a decision, which does not occur when Labor is the governing party.

Even though most surveys suggest a clear majority of Australians support safe abortion being made available to a woman who seeks it, politicians of all parties usually tend to shy away from bringing on debates on the issue. This may be more due to the fact it can be quite divisive within a party, than the fact it can be lead to strident debate within society.

The big benefit of a conscience vote is that it makes each individual member of Parliament individually accountable for what they do. They can’t hide behind the party room or caucus.

There is no doubt this is an issue where have people have very strong and genuinely held beliefs on both sides of the debate. That situation might require a special effort be made to have as respectful a debate as possible, but it is no reason to dodge the debate all together.

ELSEWHERE: ABC reports Anna Bligh’s view that bringing in legislation aimed at clearly decriminalising abortion might end up with the Parliament amending it to create an even more restriction situation than currently exists.  The government instead is planning to amend the Criminal Code “to give medical abortions the same protection as surgical terminations.” Professor de Costa doesn’t sound convinced that this is sufficient.

I assume amending the Criminal Code in the way the Premier has described would also require amending legislation to be brought into the Parliament and voted on, which I would have thought would also open up the prospects of other amendments being moved. However, it’s possible there are some procedural rules in the state Parliament that I’m not aware of which preclude this prospect.

I also can’t see why amending the Criminal Code in the way the Premier is planning wouldn’t also be a conscience vote, given that it clearly relates to abortion, but perhaps there are vagaries of internal Labor rules I’m not aware of.

In any case, given that hospitals are now suspending the performance of abortions, it does suggest that the current “protections” for surgical termination are less than watertight.

* Amanda Greer writes about the issue at New Matilda.

* (26/5) Some more in The Australian, with Logan Hospital confirmed as the fourth hospital to cancel their abortion procedures.  I’m a bit surprised there seems to be more on this issue in The Australian – a nationwide daily – than there is The Courier-Mail, the main Brisbane & Queensland based paper.