The first of the federal government’s two green papers on electoral reform was released on Wednesday, this one dealing with disclosure, funding and expenditure issues. The paper was originally promised in June, but has been delayed pending consultation with state and territory governments. It might be hoped that this results in the unhelpful anomalies from one jurisdiction to the next being ironed out, potentially allowing for the establishment of a single authority to administer the system. You have until February 23 to make submissions in response to this paper or in anticipation of the next, which will deal with “a broader range of issues, aimed at strengthening our national electoral laws”. This paper’s concerns in turn:
Disclosure. State and territory party branches, associated entities (which include fundraising entities, affiliated trade unions and businesses with corporate party membership) and third parties (individuals or organisations that incur “political expenditure”, such as Your Rights at Work and GetUp!) are currently required to lodge annual returns disclosing details of campaign-related receipts, expenditure and debts. The Political Donations Bill currently before the Senate proposes to change reporting from annual to six monthly, but even this seems a bit lax. Voters would presumably want some idea of funding arrangements before they vote rather than after, and the practice in other countries shows how this could be done. In Britain, reporting is required weekly during election campaigns and quarterly at other times; in the United States, expenditures are disclosed daily during campaigns and donations monthly. This is made possible by mandatory electronic record keeping which is not required at this stage in Australia. Queensland’s and New Zealand’s practice of requiring disclosure of large donations within 10 or 14 days also sounds promising. Another issue is that itemised disclosure only applies to donations, which amounts to only a quarter of private funding – the rest coming from fundraising, investments and debt. Australia also uniquely requires “double disclosure” by both donors and recipients, which might be thought more trouble than it’s worth.
Funding. Australia is unusual in that it has neither caps on donations or bans on donations from particular sources. Canada allows donations only from private individuals; the United States does not allow donations from corporations, banks, unions and federal government contractors. Public funding arrangements such as our own are common internationally, but New Zealand interestingly uses measures of public support other than votes, including party membership, number of MPs and poll results in the lead-up to elections. This allows broadcasting time to be allocated ostensibly on the basis of current support, so that the system is “less vulnerable to criticisms of favouring major parties in comparison with minor parties and independent candidates”.
Expenditure. Expenditure caps apply in Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, with compensations of free air time provided in the latter two cases. They also existed here until 1980, when they were abolished on the basis that they “constrained campaigns” and were too hard to enforce. The US allows parties and candidates to agree to limit expenditure in exchange for public funding, which it settled for when set caps were ruled unconstitutional. Given that election campaigning is increasingly unconstrained by the formal campaign period, expenditure caps work best where there are fixed terms.
In other news, we’re probably entering a Yuletide opinion poll drought, but there’s plenty else going down:
• Antony Green’s dissection of the Queensland state redistribution has been published by the Queensland Parliamentary Library.
• The campaign for South Australia’s Frome by-election (the state’s first since 1994) is slowly coming to the boil – read all about it here.
• More action than you can poke a stick at from the good people at Democratic Audit of Australia.
• I missed an opinion poll last Saturday: Westpoll in The West Australian has the state’s new Liberal government leading 55-45, from a sample of 400. This sounds maybe a bit generous to Labor from primary votes of Liberal 45 per cent, Labor 34 per cent, Nationals 5 per cent and Greens 9 per cent. Labor’s Eric Ripper, viewed by all as a post-defeat stop-gap leader, has plunged seven points as preferred premier to 12 per cent, and even trails Colin Barnett 30 per cent to 26 per cent among Labor voters.
• The unstoppable Ben Raue at the Tally Room plays the dangerous game of anticipating prospects for the looming federal New South Wales redistribution that will reduce the state from 49 seats to 48. So for that matter does Malcolm Mackerras in Crikey:
Early this year I was quoted in The Australian as saying that the name Throsby would disappear. The Illawarra media quickly picked up on this and I heard Jennie George say on ABC radio that I was engaging in “pure speculation”. She is quite right, of course. Although the loss of a NSW seat has always been assured, it is pure speculation to say which one it will be.
Nevertheless my proposition actually is that the south coast seats of Gilmore (Joanna Gash, Liberal) and Throsby (Jenny George, Labor) will be merged into a seat bearing the name of Gilmore. Such a seat would, in practice, be reasonably safe for Labor so really it would be Gash to lose her seat. As to why the name Gilmore would be preferred to the name Throsby the explanation is simple. Dame Mary Gilmore (1865-1962) was a woman whereas Charles Throsby (1777-1828) was a man.
We have the precedent of 2006 to know that the MP who is the actual victim of a redistribution is not necessarily the one whose seat disappears. In 2006 and 2007 Peter Andren was the true victim but the name of his seat, Calare, was retained. That he died shortly before the 2007 general election is not the point. His seat of Calare became so hopeless for him he announced that he would stand for the Senate. Consequently there is no reason why Joanna Gash may not be the real victim in 2009 even though the name of her seat is retained.
If this is the way the commissioners decide to do it then the flow-on effect would be interesting to watch. My belief is that Batemans Bay (presently in Gilmore) would be restored to Eden-Monaro, in which division it voted in 2001 and 2004. Then the Tumut and Tumbarumba shires (presently in Eden-Monaro) would be restored to Farrer, in which division they voted in 2001 and 2004. Consequently it would be possible to retain all the rural seats by moving them into more urban areas. Bearing in mind that in 2006 the NSW commissioners abolished a rural seat but made the remaining seats more rural it would seem to me logical that in 2009 they would retain all the rural seats but make some of them less rural.
578 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 » Show All
Gary Bruce, you can speculate about the possibility of Rudd “ramping it up”, but the flaws inherent in the scheme are still going to exist.
The bleating here of The Greens turning into the Democrats if they don’t support the current ETS model/system is ridiculously naive.
The Greens can easily build the case, and they are, that they aren’t going to support a measure that gives almost 1/3 of all money raised to the heaviest polluting power plants in the country and doesn’t give a cent to renewable energy.
Oz, so is that a yes to the question, “should this ETS be scrapped because we can’t or won’t have it all at once?”
Well Oz, we can declare victory over the 5% to 15% target!
So now it’s not about targets but about economics is it?
Gary Bruce…only a Labour Government would throw away 6billion dollars during a financial crisis!
Isnt homelessness a State issue anyway????
Gary Bruce, the ETS should be scrapped for a number of reasons. It won’t achieve what it needs to achieve in terms of cutting our emissions or creating pressure and momentum for international talks and it overcompensates our heaviest polluting industries.
Glen, fixing homelessness is “throwing away money”?
No, it’s not.
What would you prefer Glen, tax cuts to the rich?
Bravo to the Rudd Government. For a country as wealthy as Australia to have any homeless at all is a disgrace. A very good first step, unimaginable under Howard:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/rudd-launches-plan-to-combat-homelessness-20081221-72vk.html
PS I have heard it gossiped about that Theresa is in there batting away quietly for the desperates in our midst. How refreshing and wonderful it is to have a first lady who is more interested in helping the desperates than in getting her enemies.
When you are going to spend 6billion dollars in the middle of a global financial crisis to only half fix a problem i think it is a waste of money personally…
No not tax cuts just for the rich but a broad reduction in taxes is much better than handouts…
re 258.
So Glen how are you going to fix a full problem if you don’t want to even fix half of the problem. Your mob are just like the Greens LOL.
Centre do you spend 300,000 for half a house???
Now is not the time to be spending billions on homelessness anyway…we’ve got bigger problems…
The ALP are a joke, they’ve wasted billions of dollars we saved for naught…and this is just another policy to add to the list!
Saved LOL.
OZ and Boerwar
I seem to argue with everyone here at one time or another and thats fine no hard feeling , but with you guys i’m havijng trouble arguing with yous because I am having dificulty reely understanding what your actual position is on 3 key points
You’ve said th 5% target is quote “pathetic” , however can you advise me
1/ what % Target you tink Rudd should put to Senate in a Bill ?
2/ given Labor needs 7 other Senators to get any Bill Senate passed , which Senators wuld support your prefferred higher target ?
3/ is your prefferred target you want implemented , applicable even if there is no Coppenhaggen agreement ?
You cann’t reesonably criticise Rudd on his position if you do not clarify what your artenative position is (and ETS machinery criticism irespective of valadness is irrlevant to your target % position being asked for)
You reely can’t expect a credible position if you don’t clarify what that alternativ Senate Bill (Q2) and Trading partners (Q3) position actualy is
Well Glen if your mob had of dealt with homelessness, at a time of record prosperity, instead of making it worse, then we could have focused on other issues.
Centre…it is a State Issue…HELLO???
Who has been in Power in the States for a Decade or more the ALP…nuff said!
Glen, This is not about half a house or half a car or half of any ‘thing’. It’s about human beings. Would you refuse to give aid to Africa if you thought that not every child dying of malnutrition could be saved? If only half of a significant number of fellow Australians doing it very tough can have their life improved by some money and effort then bring it on.
Glen,
Surely, you can’t begrudge a few bob spent on the hopeless and unemployable. Kroger seems to be cross again.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/baillieu-urged-to-purge-party-of-old-mps-20081220-72p2.html
Typical Lib response – “It’s a state issue”. Blame the states and do nothing about it.
Well Oz, because you don’t trust politicians you’d rather go without an ETS than phase one in. That is lunacy, it really is.
So much for an ETS being vital Oz.
When you come out with garbage about the homeless like that Glen it just makes me so glad Rudd won the last election. Honestly, words fail you at times.
Ron
Fair proposition and reasonable questions.
My premise: Climate Change is not some possible future phenomenum. It is here now. It is costing billions world-wide now. It is ramping up. It is the most urgent and important issue we will ever face. Everything else is second order, subordinate, and will be swamped by Climate Change. Climate change and its effects is not about some mythical ‘practical’ poltics and ‘balanced’ outcomes. It will swamp ‘practical’ considerations and has no’ balance’.
1. If there is no comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen, it is all over red rover. It would not matter what Australia does. Therefore the ETS would be irrelevant. The 5% would be irrelevant. The 15% would be irrelevant. Even everybody’s precious Senate would be irrelevant. Labour and Liberal Parties would be irrelevant. Therefore our negotiating position in Copenhagen is the be-all and end-all. Therefore do not go to Copenhagen with a low ambit claim of a sliding scale of 5%-15%. In particular, do not arrive with 5% on the table. It makes a laughing stock and knocks any negotiating cred, not much to begin with, flat.
2. The only acceptable, workable, percentage target is whatever Copenhagen agrees to. Anything else would be silly. Personal preference: 20%.
3. Put the Copenhagen figure to the Senate. If the Senate knocks it over, do a DD.
4. If the Australian electorate then decides for fly now, pay later, so be it. They, and not a bunch of politicians who think they are herding horses, will have made the one truly Big Decision of their lives.
My criticism of Rudd, therefore, is: 5% is a joke. It should not be on the table because it diminishes our negotiating cred in the only game in town. As a follow-on from that, if 5% becomes ‘real’ or ‘operational’ start looking at amelioration, because that will be the only game left to play. Don’t waste time with fiddling about with an ETS.
Glen @ 261
Nice trolling; should catch a few trout with that one.
Boerwar
He’s just copying Bolt.
Glen who cares if it’s a state issue or not! Who announced the policy? Who is the FEDERAL Minister for Housing?
Even Turnbull has given his full support Glen! So that leaves you on the very far radical right!
See once again anybody who puts forward another point of view that isnt socialist on pollbludger and you get called a troll…that is plain silly IMHO…
I dont call it radical right i call it rational right…
What a wonderful policy initiative. Makes you proud to be a supporter of the ALP, our Kevie and the sainted Therese. Libs like Glen and Bolt can wallow in their bile.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/21/2452173.htm
#253
[would throw away 6billion dollars] – for the homeless.
Glen, the Chinese curse is upon you: “May you live an interesting life with a roof hanging over your head”.
Finns he’s going to spend 6billion with widely ambitious goals that cannot be reached and only halve the problem if that is not a waste of money i dont know what is…it is like declaring war on something and spending half your time on it…
6 billion in these tough economic times is not wisely spent giving it away for essentially little gain…
Glen
I know it’s much easier to lambast the ALP mate because understanding, reading and sensibly evaluating the policy would require reading and the ability to analyse. However, it’s a corker of a policy and will be welcomed by most Australians. Providing a helping hand to those in need is the Australian way.
Glen, half a problem solved is half way to heaven for some.
Australia is a heaven as compared to many other places. we dont really know what tough times mean. Where is your season spirit?
Look im all for helping out people but honestly the first and outmost thing we can do is run a good economy…if there are enough jobs many people wont become homeless in the first place…in the first case a problem like this needs to be attacked before people get into such situations…
If the States said they’d come up with another 6billion i guess they’d be able to solve it….
The worst thing about spending this 6billion is that by the end of it there still will be too many people homeless in Australia…
Glen if Howard ran such a good economy, how come homelessness got worse under his government?
Diogenese
Ahh, I did not realize that Glen is a Bolter Echo. *broad grin*. It figures.
Glen
Congratulations. Good catch, I make it five trout. I think you may be doing catch and release, because you have caught some of them repeatedly. Varying the lure according to light conditions is a good trolling technique, as in 281:
‘Look im all for helping people…’ Of course you are. And so was Howard!
Six billion dollars eh?
That’s less than we spend in two years just paying the interest on the Liberal debt…
http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/fbo/download/02_Part1.pdf
(page 6)
Australian Government Budget Outcome 2007-2008
Australian Government general government sector expenses by function
“Public debt interest $3,538 million“
It takes time to fully recover from 13 years of the ALP in power Centre…also the ALP were in charge in the States during most of Howie’s Prime Ministership hence they deserve the majority of the blame.
Before William reminds everyone, he doesn’t like the term “troll”. Especially when a regular, interesting and very brave contributor like Glen from the other side of the fence makes a contrary stand (which I think he deliberately overstated) I think we would be better to consider his comments as an “agent provocateur”.
There are people out there who really have a hatred of the homeless. They get bashed quite frequently. Most are not homeless because of unemployment. The main causes are mental illness and substance abuse. Someone said one of the best ways to judge a society is to see how it treats its most unfortunate members. I fully agree.
Yeah Glen, six weeks for Cossie to deliver his first budget surplus LOL.
Boerwar & OZ
#272
Boerwar
You did not answer th questons I posed in #205 , pergaps you misunderstood them
What you actualy ansered (in your points 2/ and 3/) is to reely agree with my LATER scenario (post a Coppenhagen agreement) in my post to Socrates #205 point 7/ !! I hav repeatedly said that whatever (if) Coppenhaggen agrees to in targets , I tink and I believe Rudd will , put that to th Senate and if its knocked back he’ll go for DD on Coppenhaggen targets (and should just win against a huge Lib scare campaign)
BUT that was not my querys in #263 which apply is th now status where Rudd does NOT know what (if) targets Coppenhaggen will agree to Therefore without knowing that future Coppenhaggen decision , Rudd had two choises right now:
a/ forget about an ETS for a July 2010 start date (for which he 100% required A target , I repeat A target to make th ETS machinery Bill functional , without which you can not hav a reel ETS Bill , or
b/ forget about an ETS operational by July 2010 (meaning he need not announse any target) , and instead announce “no target figure” at all , but comittment to go to Coppenhaggen with just his indacative 15% posturing negotiating position , and promise simply that whatever Coppenhaggen agrees on , he’d put to Senate
(this was th politcaly safe option , so why did Rudd not do this ?…well consequense wuld be there wuld be no ETS Bill till after coppenhaggen agrees late 2009 and then after you add th further timing of a furthar 12 months for th Green & White papers exersise it makes an ETS operational as late as July 2012 , perhaps July 2011)
It is in CC interests to get A ETS operational ASAP , and ETS machinery is th hardest ting to get Senate appoval on because it hits every person & most Industrys in oz so self interest groups ar everywhere
Rudd ignored option b/ , th easy course (an ETS 2012 (or 2011) and instead took option a/ that delivers that dificult to pass but nessary for CC mitigation machinery ETS by July 2010
So to get an ETS machinery Senate passes for start July 2010 it needs a target th Senate will approve In my post to Socrates #205 points 1/ to 6/ inclusave I listed why th 5% figure was all that may (not guaranteed Lib suport) get Senate passed to deliver an ETS
Summary….including to OZ
However many posters said Rudd should hav announsed a higher figure than Rudds 5% to put to th Senate now
Therefor my questons in #263 ar not what Rudd does after Coppenhaggen or what Rudd takes to Coppenhaggen as an indacative % negotion figure , but …
1/ what is your prefferred % target Rudd puts to Senate now to ACTUALY get it passed so an ETS can start 2010 instead of 2012 (or 2011) ? 2/ Which 7 non Labor Senators will agree to your prefferred target % so it can pass Senate ? 3/ do you want your prefferred % target to apply to ‘oz’ even if Coppenhaggen ends with no agreement (so with China/USA our big Trading Partners then potentialy will hav no target) ?
posed in #263
After slashing billions thanks to a hole in the budget of 9billion left to him by Paul Keating…and not to mention the 96billion of net debt…think of 96billion we could have spent on the homeless had Keating not run the economy down the hole when he was PM.
Dio personally i would prefer that 6billion to be spent on Education or Health as the higher quality of both would help and prevent homelessness as well.
Dio if it is substance abuse and mental illness that are main causes then money needs to go to assist those services that try and prevent and or support people who suffer from them…i have never said i dont support more money for mental illness, not enough money is being spent…
Costello left behind a debt costing $3.2538 billion per year to service. Supposing an interest rate of 4% that works out to a Howard-Costello-Liberal debt of $81.35 billion.
Correction: $3.538 billion interest assuming 4% = $88.45 billion. The size of the Howard-Costello-Liberal debt.
GLEN & BOERWAR
Glen “Look im all for helping out people but honestly the first and outmost thing we can do is run a good economy…if there are enough jobs many people wont become homeless in the first place”
Glen i realize you’ve been fishin tonite , but this quote of yours…given Howard has had control of econamy for past 12 years , why were there so many homeless Aussies as at Nov 20007
option a/ was th current , 5% and get an ETS by July 2010
Anyway, predictions for 2009:
- Obama to make climate change a top priority.
- Australia to just avoid a recession.
- Rudd to maintain huge lead and popularity in polls.
All the best for xmas and new year bludgers
cheers
All the best Centre.
Cuppa,
Howard left nil net debt, Keating $96bn.
I don’t know what the $3.538b interest is that you’re referring to, I suspect it’s the interest payments on Commonwealth Government bonds – the Govt continued to issue them because they are needed to make the investment markets function (yes, I know, I know …), not because it needed to borrow money.
Nevertheless, Howard left nil net debt – don’t you forget it!
and W/C ……and a $530 billion trade deficit debt (was 180 billion in 1996)…and interest rates at same level in 2007 as Keating left in 1996 and yes nil c’lth debt correct
Dyno every Govt leaves someting behind
Pages: « 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 12 » Show All