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 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 » Show All
dyno sooked:
Pull your head in. You’ve admitted that you “don’t know” what the interest I’m referring to is.
What is clear is that Mr Swan is left paying out 3.5 billion dollars per year on our behalf to cover just the interest on the Liberal debt.
No Cuppa,
Howard left nil net debt – Ron just said that too, btw.
Do you know what a Commonwealth Government bond is?
“What is clear is that Mr Swan is left paying out 3.5 billion dollars per year on our behalf to cover just the interest on the Liberal debt.”
No, what is clear is that Cuppa didn’t understand a single word I wrote.
Peter Martin, 27 November 2008:
http://petermartin.blogspot.com/2008/11/who-ran-up-and-who-paid-off-debt.html
Good to see you’ve admitted I was right about the debt, Cuppa.
Whether getting rid of net debt was the right thing to do, that is a different question entirely.
Dyno, at no time did I mention “net debt”. That was you and Ron.
I referred to the expense of 3.5 billion + per year for “public debt interest”
http://www.budget.gov.au/2007-08/fbo/download/02_Part1.pdf
(page 6)
http://business.smh.com.au/business/in-hock-to-the-world-20081007-4v8c.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Michael West, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 October 2008:
That $96B debt was one of the biggest con ever by the Howard opposition and Government. the shame was that too many Aussies beleived the lie. The fact that it was paid off so easy proves the big con.
Stop digging, Cuppa. You’re just making the hole you’re in bigger.
[Stop digging, Cuppa. You’re just making the hole you’re in bigger.
Stop twisting what I said. At no time did I use the words "net debt", only the expense of "public debt interest". Check my posts on the matter:
293
294
300
Dyno, I’ve asked Glen this question numerous times whenever he brings up the “Labor debt” but he never answers it, maybe you can help.
What did Howard actually do to pay off the debt other than ride the back of the mining boom and sell off public assets?
Dyno
“Whether getting rid of net debt was the right thing to do, that is a different question entirely.”
agree thats th queston
.
OZ , you haven’t answered my queries in #262 so that I can understand yourposition?
In answer to yours it was asset sales and ex dividends of budget from econamy going well
Ron just copy and paste Boerwar’s response. It covers everything I wanted to say.
Oz,
A good question which I have pondered a little bit myself.
I think the answer is that in (roughly) the first half of the Howard Govt he managed the PS pretty hard (or that is my impression anyway) – eg remember all the angst about PS jobs getting cut in 96?
In the second half of the Howard Govt, he probably got a bit lazy with this, it was boom times and the tax receipts were just rolling in.
The selling off of public assets is something I am personally ambivalent about. Although I don’t think the Govt is particuarly good at running most kinds of business, I don’t really see a problem if the Govt wants to own a bank (like CBA) or an insurance company (the various State GIOs) that will compete on the open market with other providers. It’s probably too late at night to go into what I think about Telstra (basically it’s a mess is my view, but there’s a lot more to it than just that).
On the other hand, whatever credit Howard deserves for it, there is no doubt that having a budget that has been in surplus, and no net Govt debt, is going to greatly advantage Kevin and Wayne as they manage through the next 1-2 years.
Interesting – Fox News is talking about nothing but David Hicks and Chirstmas presents.
OZ
you’ve missed my reply #290 to Boerwar , he misunderstood my questons so I restated them more concisely
What Boerwar did was agree with me with my #205 point 7 realting to AFTER Coppenhaggen is known My questons related to NOW in advance of copenhaggen…perhaps look at 3290 my reply to Boerwar
Ron, before Copenhagen I still think we should be aiming for 20-25%.
If gives us room to negotiate and we say “We, along with Europe, have set up and ETS and the type of targets we need to begin with”.
If, at Copenhagen, there isn’t an international agreement for cuts in that order, we’re all screwed anyway so talking about it hurting our economy are a bit pointless.
We’d have been better to not set a target pre-Copenhagen.
Dyno , in hindsite thats my position…th price is a delayed EST from july 2010 to 2012 (or 2011)
OZ “Ron, before Copenhagen I still think we should be aiming for 20-25%.”
Ar you suggesting rudd should hav announsed that and legisalted now th ETS accordingly to that
Yes Ron,
The problem is that all we are committed to is 5% (I realise Rudd said 5-15% but the bit above 5 is contingent on what other people do).
So basically that sounds p1ss weak, we look p1ss weak, and yet the Australian people would (IMO) have been willing to go for a whole lot more.
I know I’m a broken record, but I cannot comprehend what Rudd was thinking when he did this …
CORRECTION
Dyno , in hindsite thats my politcaly safe position…th price is a delayed EST from july 2010 to 2012 (or 2011) , but still think th price of angst is worth getting ETS operational by july 2010
Dyno
“I realise Rudd said 5-15% but the bit above 5 is contingent on what other people do).
I know I’m a broken record, but I canNOT comprehend what Rudd was thinking when he did this …”
Dyno , am afraid to say this but believe Rudd was so focussed on getting (desirable) an EST by July 2010 which he promised to do , which requires A target passed to do so (th 5%) , he has not realized average people can not see th EST being th big picure…they just see th 5% (NOT realizing Coppenhaggen probbly will increase thart anyway
Its called poor politcs , good policy but using a politcal wedge to get that ETS thru
I think the trouble is we are all sounding like broken records re the ETS. Live with it. It’s happening like the government says. Sounding like a broken record here aint going to change that.
So Dyno do you really believe your lot would have past an ETS with higher targets in the Senate?
Yes Ron.
And I don’t think that this hypothetical ETS should include 1/3 of all revenue raised compensating the dirtiest power plants in the country and should include at least a few billion for renewable energy. We also shouldn’t set an upper cap. Whatever the world agrees to as the max, we should go with it.
I see zero problems with this. It would have no effect on the economy by Copenhagen but give us a much higher authority when it comes to negotiating global targets. Three outcomes are then possible. First, the world agrees to higher targets. Good, we can lift ours and have a good chance of minimising dangerous climate change. Secondly, the world agrees to our target of 20 or 25%. Not AS good but still good. We’re already in place for that and a 20% global cut is nothing to be laughed at and could be raised at negotiations down the track. Thirdly, the world agrees to something less. If that occurs then we’ll reach the point of no return and the economic (and the environmental and social) impacts of that will dwarf any possible negative impact of a high ETS with no global agreement.
To pre-empt the “It would never have passed the Senate” line, I’ll repeat what I’ve said earlier – that’s BS. We don’t know how the Senate will vote in the face of polls showing Australians want more action, the government arguing for it and a significant part of the MSM doing the same, as well as having international pressure. If the Senate still votes it down then a DD is most definitely called for.
No Gary Bruce, Dyno is saying that this is what the Libs would have done and that’s why it’s so funny.
What would you say if a Libs supporter said that to you regarding, say, WorkChoices?
They did and we did.
I’m not sure what you are objecting to Oz re the “live with it” because I’m only stating what is.
The problem for Dyno, as a Liberal, is that he calls the ETS weak yet supports a party that doesn’t want it stronger and wants to delay it for as long as possible. Now that’s what I call p1ss weak.
Gary , I don’t think Dyno is sounding like a broken record , he has been for a week mystified (rightly) why Rudd would simply wait on coppenhaggen and announse nothing beforehand and avoisd th angst
I understand why he’s mystified politcaly , and he was right politcaly , and just expaining that there was a policy outcome objective of an ETS operationaly by July 2010 that superseded th polical risk of getting angst iover level of th target in th meantime before Coppenhaggen Sometimes a politcan will adopt poor (non safe) politcs to get a policy objective
OZ , your view Senate would pass a 20% ETS , well for starters you wouldn’t get th 2 right leaning Senators to agree to that , so Bill gets vetoed….not that Labor would be silly enough to put it up at risk of trding with China/USA at a 20% uncompetitive , econamic irresponsility
Ron, that’s not my view.
It’s a bit disingenuous to ask for answers to a question which I give and then misinterpret one particular part of the response whilst ignoring the rest of it.
No, Gary Bruce, we did not “Live with it”. We fought hard to get rid of it and we succeeded.
And do you know how we succeeded Oz, we threw out the government and REPLACED it with a party that would throw Workchoices out. You don’t have that luxury this time do you? You want to replace the party that is prepared to introduce an ETS soon to be replaced by a party that wants to, not only water the ETS down further if it could but delay it for as long as possible.
Gary Bruce, I don’t think throwing the government out and replacing it with the Liberals is the way to achieve higher targets and I’m not advocating that, so don’t accuse me of doing so.
I believe I’ve put the case for higher targets succinctly at #323 and would ask for criticisms to those arguments, particularly in the second paragraph, rather than going around the same circles.
OZ
#323
SECONDLY , the world agrees to OUR target (SENATE LEGISLATED FOR) of 20 or 25%. Not AS good but still good. We’re already in place for that and a 20% global cut is nothing to be laughed at and could be raised at negotiations down the track.
THIRDLY , the world agrees to something less. If that occurs then we’ll reach the point of no return and the economic (and the environmental and social) impacts of that will dwarf any possible negative impact of a high ETS with no global agreement.”
To pre-empt the “It would never have passed the Senate” line, I’ll repeat what I’ve said earlier – that’s BS.”
OZ , my reading of that is (in your second point above) you ar proposing 20% or 25% put to Senate now , presumably you think possibly passed
AND your suggesting (in your third point) if Coppenhaggen agrees to a lower target well youre saying th World is stuffd so don’t worry that our already Senate approved 20% to 25% makes us uncompetitive by 20-25% against China/USA
331 – sorry Oz but what you’re advocating is tantamount to a change of government and I’ve gone through that argument many times.
Frame it however you like, Gary Bruce, but I can’t make myself clearly than I just did.
Yes Ron, I suggest those targets be put the Senate. And if they aren’t passed, then DD time.
Yes Ron, I don’t think it matters if our targets for 2020 are 100% without a global agreement, since we’ll lose hundreds of thousands of job by then, or just after then, due to the effects of climate change.
Arguing about how some of our emissions intensive industries might move to China or the US is kind of redundant when at the same time we’ll be dealing with the loss of our river systems, foodbowl and other natural resources.
Paul Sheehan comes out swinging today and reaches the same conclusion as me:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/paul-sheehan/politics-trumps-policy-on-polluters/2008/12/21/1229794242346.html?page=2
Fairfax vs. News Ltd. and Pollbludgers on the side of News Ltd.!
Never thought I’d live to see the day.
Now Oz, tell me when you became a Senator? Oh you’re not. That means your ideas are not up for discussion in parliamnet. So let’s get back to what is, not what could be.
The Greens who are in the Senate are not advocating what you are, are they? There ideas on the ETS won’t pass the Senate will they?
Well at least Sheehan recognises that anything else would be politically difficult, Good on him.
???
I don’t see how my not being in the Senate and what Green Senators may or may not do is relevant.
If you forgot, my post was a response to a question Ron asked about what I would like to see happen.
What I described above is what I would like to see happen and I don’t believe it’s outside the realm of possibility.
No one is denying they would be “difficult”, Gary Bruce, but forgive us for believing that our esteemed PM the Leader in the Greatest Moral Challenge etc. would so something other than the easiest political option with the greatest political return through the most base means (money handouts).
Well, if we’re not speaking about what is then this conversation is finished for me. I’m more interested in dealing with what is, not someone’s dream of what could/should be.
All the best, catch you next time.
Well you did kind of jump in to a post detailed as a response to another specific post… lol.
OZ
Whilst I don’t agree with your view , thanks for clarification of it in #323 and #334
1/ per #334 “Yes Ron, I suggest those targets (20% or 25% per OZ blog #323) be put the Senate. And if they aren’t passed, then DD time.”
So implicit thats a DD prior to Coppenhaggen
So you ar therefore also saying IF th 20% or 25% ar passed then that means that prior to Coppenhaggen we hav in stone a 20% or 25% Target/ETS
2/ per #323 “Thirdly, the world agrees to something less. (than 20% or 25%) If that occurs then we’ll reach the point of no return and the economic (and the environmental and social) impacts of that (on world) will dwarf…”
So I understand from that we’d hav our 20% or 25% ETS set in stone target , and rest of world has zero targets or some lklower target they themselves may later set , but you feel CC 20% or 25% agreement failure means nothing else matters re eonamic & social effects as World will get CC consequenses
OZ , I understand thats also Bob Browns position precisely Th fact you hav an identicl position is not me having a go at you or whatever politcs you hav , just highliting th politcal position of th Greens vs Labor (and re th Libs position well dont tink they don’t know yet) If I’ve not summarised that corectly you may care to let me know
342 – I did Oz and I’m sorry I did to be honest!! LOL. I was going to let all of this go some time ago. Now is that time.
Ron, I don’t believe that’s a political position, I believe it’s a scientific fact (or as close to one as you can get).
If a global target of 25% by 2020 isn’t reached then everything else will be virtually irrelevant. In that context, Australia should be pushing for a 25% global target. The best way to push for that is to say “We can do it. Europe can do it. You can do it do.” and actually do it ourselves.
Best case scenario – Global agreement reached.
Worst case scenario – Global agreement not reached and nothing we do matters either way.
If anyone remembers, there was talk just prior to the Iraq War and in its early years, of a “Balkanisation” of the country splitting up the oil rich areas and Kurdistan from the rest.
Well Kurdistan is already an autonomous region and now there’s a push to do the same to the oil-rich province of Basra.
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/12/16/iraq.basra.region/index.html
OZ , all Political Partys positions ar politcal positions anyway , in th Greens case (and yours) th Greens hav adoped th scientists 25% by 2020 requirement (you 20% to 25%) , whicjh involves oz passing th 25% (Greens , you 20-25%) Senate approved target/ETS now prior to Coppenhaggen ….and you and Greens believe if Coppenhaggen does not reach an agreemetn or agrees to a lower target , then th Greens (and you) believe considering th econamic and social consequenses on oz being uncompetitive then with our Major Trading Partners is irrelevant , because CC consequenses will damage th planet anyway (queston of it beeng a scientific fact of what IPCC scientists ar saying is ther assessment)
I understand what you ar saying , just do not agree
and I missed out in middle of th th abov…if senate vetoes th Greens 25% ETS Bill (you 20% to 25% Bill) in 2009 prior to coppenhaggen , then you and Greens believe Rudd calls a DD on it
OK guys. I’ve just about posted myself to exhaustion on the topic, for now, anyway, *grins*.
I am pessimistic. I think the Rudd tactics were not scaled to the global imperative; others are optimistic that Rudd has got it right because he has wedged the much-dreaded Liberals…. 5%, 15%, 20% and 25% have all had a run… The ETS has had a chewing over. It looks pretty crook to some because of the way it gives big polluters and King Coal a break, but others think that it is good, if only because it is a start. Some have been a bit worried that Australia might commit a sort of national hari kiri – noble but ultimately pointless. The ethology of horses has had a bit of working over. Are they to be trusted? Do they know what is good for themselves? Will the unrepresentative swill in the Senate come to their CC senses?
So, I thought I would share the following with fellow bludgers looking for a light-hearted moment. I am looking forward to a new phrase entering the Oz lexicon: ‘Pissed as a tree’:
http://feww.wordpress.com/2008/06/11/drunken-forest/
Seems that I’m not the only one who thinks the ETS is worse than doing nothing:
Expect more of the same as others fully digest the content of the white paper and realise we’ve been conned.
For those wanting an example of what governments serious about GW are doing, look no further than Spain were investors in solar energy farms are guaranteed up to $0.90 KW/h for 25 years. In effect that’s a government guaranteed return of 12+% on investment. No wonder their renewable energy output has gone from almost nothing 3 years ago to approaching the world leading Germans.
Nor are they the only ones. We keep hearing how the Chinese are building a new coal powered power station every week, what gets ignored is the huge investment they are also making in renewables, with US$1 billion solar farms coming online at nearly the same pace.
Pages: « 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 12 » Show All