Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Category: Direct Democracy

29/03/2025

2025 March Budget Response

27 March 2025

Warning. This is a long post, with my opinion followed by a more detailed analysis from Zali Steggall.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has now brought down his March pre-election budget.

All the noise is about the few sweeteners, the $150 electricity rebate (paid to the companies that are maintaining the prices), and a very modest tax cut, coming in the future, and perhaps not even enough to overcome bracket creep.

In the nine and half page analyses in the SM Herald the next day, not one got down to any sort of real discussion of the details. Ross Gittins summed up the situation best with his closing comment, ‘This government is timid, uninspired and uninspiring. This budget fits it perfectly’.

To look in more detail, I got an email from Zali Seggall, the Teal from Warringah, a barrister and ex-Olympic skiing medallist who defeated Tony Abbott, the then Prime Minister to win the seat. She at least had done her homework, though she skirts some of the bigger issues that might be politically sensitive for her, as she also faces her conservative electorate in a few weeks.

If the standard to measure budget is what needs to be done, it is quite a poor budget, mostly just business as usual with only little tinkering, but that has been the whole approach of the Albanese government, and why the Greens are rising on the Left of the Labor Party, and the Teals are rising on the left of the Liberal Party.

There is minimal for Climate Change, dwarfed by the subsidies for diesel fuel and the fossil fuel lobby.

There is no discussion of tax reform, though negative gearing and the capital gains tax concession is responsible for the huge amount of ‘investment’ in property speculation, which also raises rents and means that poorer people cannot get Housing. This also affects domestic violence as women have nowhere to go, crime and kids unable to start a family. Research gets little, and the National Anti-Corruption Commission and Australian Electoral Reform Commission to stop electoral disinformation is similarly neglected. Defence has a tiny increase presumably to please Trump, or try to remedy the fact that the US cannot be relied upon, but the huge issue of the AUKUS submarines is not addressed in the Budget, nor by Zali. Aged Care needs a lot of policing as do many privatised industries. Medicare will supposedly be revived, but they are still having trouble recruiting GPs and nurses. No prizes for guessing why. The government has had control of the wages and rebates and has simply let them fall against inflation. There has been some tinkering with Medicare, but the GPs and nurses remain unconvinced.

But if you think that Labor was poor on policy, you need to think about the Liberal’s effort in reply on 27th. Dutton wants to lower the petrol temporarily. This will naturally favour commuters with big cars in outer suburban marginal electorates. It will also be bad for Climate Change and delay electrification of the car fleet. He wants to solve the energy crisis by producing more gas by fracking NSW (sorry environment again), sack 40,000 public servants (about half of Canberra’s public servants, who will presumably be replaced by private consultants at twice the price), and of course his nuclear policy for expensive electricity in never-never time. (We need not mention that the coming large-scale renewables need supplementation that can be turned on and off, and nuclear does better at producing a constant flow).

But since the new politics seems to be that you criticise your way into power, perhaps he has a chance. One observer looking out for Liberal policy says the best guide is Gina Reinhardt’s Twitter (X) feed, but I have not researched the veracity of this.

Here is the article from Zali Steggall:

Budget
With $17 billion in tax cuts, this budget will benefit working Australians, but the government has again avoided meaningful tax reform. Of note, there is a downgrade to revenue from weak Petroleum Resource Rent Tax (PRRT) with forecast revenue slashed from $10 billion to $6.3 billion by 2026-27. Australia is collecting more tax from beer drinkers than fossil fuel companies. The government has again failed to scale back support through the diesel fuel tax credits for mining companies, now predicted to increase to $46 billion.

The extension of the energy bill relief ($150) is welcome but not means tested so includes an element of spending waste. Continued investment in community batteries and social housing electrification are steps in the right direction. However, there remains an urgent need for the government to prioritise renewable household energy through rooftop solar and battery programs which offer lasting cost-of-living reductions and emissions cuts.

The budget includes a number of positive measures in health and education, particularly for women’s health and affordable childcare, and continues some investment in future-facing industries like green metals.

One of the most promising developments in the budget is the government’s adoption of the Productivity Commission’s recommendation to eliminate non-compete clauses for low and mid-income workers—a measure that while not a headline grabber, will provide a much need boost to productivity and labour mobility.

It was also good to see a modest increase in foreign aid, in line with calls for Australia to strengthen its leadership in the region.

However, this budget fails to respond adequately to the climate and nature crises. Alarmingly, fossil fuels continue to receive six times the funding allocated to nature. There is no meaningful investment in environmental protection, or additional funding for an EPA despite the enormous and growing fiscal impact of natural disasters.

It’s a false premise to think we can prioritise a cost-of-living budget over climate measures as climate change is already costing us, and the longer we wait to mitigate and adapt, the more expensive it will be.

It is disappointing that the government announced a mere $28.8m over two years to ‘improve Australians resilience to natural hazards and preparedness to response to disasters’ in the same section it notes that Cyclone Alfred is estimated to cost $13.5b in disaster support and recovery. Piecemeal upgrades to roads in marginal electorates do not constitute a genuine resilience strategy.

Defence spending is accelerating, but national security isn’t just about weapons and wars – it’s about regional stability. Defence spending alone isn’t enough. When disasters strike, fragile infrastructure turns climate shocks into prolonged crises, fuelling unrest and displacement. True security means helping our neighbours build resilience before disaster strikes.

JobSeeker and Youth Allowance remain unchanged, so our most vulnerable are falling further below the poverty line. There is also a glaring gap in support for women and children escaping domestic violence, with only a $2.5 million increase for crisis accommodation—far below what is needed to address the scale of the crisis.

Climate and Environment
• No significant funding uplift for climate resilience and adaptation.
• Over $46 billion on fuel tax credits. This is six times more than funding for environmental protection.
• Downgrade in revenue forecast of the government’s weak petroleum resource rent tax.
Commentary:
• The government has acknowledged that climate change is expected to have a significant impact on the Budget, both in terms of risks and opportunities. However, there has been no new funding for climate adaptation and resilience, simply $28 million of targeted funding, including $17.7 million for the Bushfire Community Recovery and Resilience Program.
• The aftermath of ex-Tropical Cyclone Alfred has been felt throughout this Budget. With $1.2 billion allocated for disaster relief, the full cost is anticipated to rise to $13.5 billion.
• In terms of funding for disaster resilience, there has been little foresight to keep our communities safe with only $200 million expected to be provided over the forward estimates from the Disaster Ready Fund. Disappointingly, we also see a decrease of funding to the National Emergency Management Agency to assist with planning and preparing of future disasters from $27 million in 2025-26 to $12 million in 2028-29.
• We are still waiting for the government’s National Climate Risk Assessment and National Adaptation Plan to understand the full extent of climate risk for our communities. Unfortunately, the extent of new climate resilience investment is limited to flood proofing three roads with $354 million over the forward estimates.
• Despite the Government committing to better monitoring and reporting of methane emissions, there was nothing in the budget. It is disappointing that this funding was not prioritised given how critical it is that our emissions inventory has integrity to achieve the government’s 43% emissions reduction target and commitments under the Paris Agreement.
• In terms of nature, I welcome the government’s announcement of $250 million to fund Australia’s obligation to protect 30% of Australia’s bushland by 2030, but this is a far cry from the $5 billion estimated by the conservation sector. In addition to this, there is great hypocrisy in the $2 million in additional funding for protection of the Maugean Skate captive breeding program, when the government today rammed through legislation that puts the endangered species at risk.
Financial Relief for Individuals and Small Business
Progress
• Reforming Help to Buy Program to increase income threshold and house price limit
• Tax cuts for all Australians.
• $150 energy bill relief for every household and some small businesses.
• HELP changes come into effect – a 20% debt reduction, fairer indexation, and raising the minimum repayment threshold to an annual income of $67,000.
Falls Short
• Commonwealth Rent Assistance indexed but not increased.
• No ongoing funding for instant asset write-off, and no meaningful support for small businesses.
Commentary:
• It’s great to finally see the reforming of the Help to Buy scheme to start to match house prices in Warringah. Warringah has around 1% vacancy rate for rental properties and the average dwelling is more than $1 million. First home buyers are struggling to get their foot in the housing market, and this will help – but more needs to be done to reduce the cost of buying a home. However, there is still nothing to assist or support renters.
• I welcome the government’s investment into household electrification, including the continued funding of the Community Solar Banks Program and the Household Energy Upgrades Fund for supporting public and community social housing with electrification. This not only drives down emissions but also helps to bring energy bills down.
• For small business, there is limited financial relief in this Budget. The end of 2024 saw the highest number of insolvencies for small business over the past four years – our small businesses are struggling. We need to legislate a permanent instant asset write off for at least $50,000. It is vital that the Government legislates and makes this available to small businesses without delay.
• With cost-of-living pressures, it is concerning that there is no substantive uplift in Jobseeker, Youth Allowance, Austudy and Commonwealth Rent Assistance. I continue to advocate for the government to increase income support payments, such as JobSeeker, Youth Allowance and Parenting Payment, to at least $82 a day.
Economy and Industry
Progress
• $1 billion over 7 years for the Green Iron Investment Fund.
• $750 million for green metals.
• $2 billion for the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
• $20 million to support trade diversification with India.
• $54 million to increase supply and adoption of pre-fabrication and modular homes to help increase Australia’s housing supply.
Falls Short
• Budget deficit.
• No new funding for circular economy initiatives.
Commentary:
• There’s been talk on both sides of the growing deficit however, there is limited announcements on how we are going to grow the economy through increased productivity. The Government’s already announced $900 million National Productivity Fund provides an avenue to grow a skilled workforce and push out productivity measures, including the $54 million for prefabricated and modular homes and to prohibit non-compete clauses for low- and mid- income earners. However, meaningful, long-term policies and spending are still needed to continue to grow our productivity.
• There is some movement by the Government to decarbonise key industries, with $250 million for manufacturing low carbon fuels for sustainable aviation and diesel-reliant sectors, including transport, agriculture and construction. I also welcome the New Energy Apprenticeships Program and national electrician licensing program to support Australia’s energy transition.
• The $20 million for a Buy Australian campaign, which appears to be the only measure the Government has included to address growing tariff and trade war tensions, feels a bit misplaced. In the face of increased uncertainty, the government has foregone any new funding to push for greater research and innovation programs.
Defence and National Security
Progress
• Funding for building Australia’s domestic defence industry and capabilities.
• Additional $135 million in funding for foreign aid.
Falls Short
• No new funding for the Defence Net Zero and Defence Future Energy Strategies.
Commentary:
• Increased global tensions has meant that Australia’s previous heavy reliance on the US as our security backstop can’t be relied on anymore. As a result, there has been additional $1 billion dollars provided to defence in the Budget. This has been bundled with the $9.6 billion in defence funding that was already planned to be spent over the next four years.
• It’s going to be vital to have clear KPIs and deliverables from such an increase in defence spending to ensure that Australia gets value for money and necessary capabilities.
• I welcome the $5.1 billion allocated in Australia’s aid program. This announcement is a timely and much needed signal of our regional commitment and reversing the long-term decline in funding.

Safety at Home, Work and Online
Progress
• $6 million for ACCC’s National Anti-Scam Centre.
• $21.4 million for the implementation of the Australian Law Reform Commission inquiry into the justice responses to sexual violence in Australia.
• $175 million for NDIS integrity and cracking down on fraud.

Falls Short
• No funding for gambling advertising reform.
• No commitment to implementing an online duty of care or holding big tech to account.
• No new funding for Indigenous legal services, despite calls from the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services for $1.15 billion.

Commentary:
• Aside from the funding to the ACCC’s National Anti-Scam Centre, there has been limited funding to online safety with no new funding for the e-Safety Commissioner’s work on keep young people safe online.
• Australia continues to face a crisis of women’s safety, yet while the investment of $21.8 million over 2 years for First Nations early intervention and prevention, only a mere $2.5 million has been allocated to crisis accommodation for women and children, which will make little to no difference at a national scale.
• It’s a strong start to see the allocation of $21.4 million in funding to over 3 years to implement the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s Inquiry into the Justice System’s Response to sexual violence.

Education
Progress
• Full funding to government schools.
• $1 billion to establish the Building Early Education Fund to increase the supply of high-quality early childhood education.
• Three Day childcare Guarantee funded with $426.6 million.

Falls Short
• No measures to implement real time processing of HECS debt repayment to address indexation timing inequity of HECS.

Commentary:
• An additional $407.5 million will see that government schools receive full funding under the School Resource Standard.
• Investment into the early childhood education fund, paired with the 3-day childcare guarantee, is an important and necessary measure to support young families and assist young parents in returning to the workforce.
• A modest investment of $4.8 million is welcome to ensure the continuation of education programs to encourage update of STEM.
• The current Fee-Free TAFE agreement between the Commonwealth and state governments expires in 2027. I welcome the commitment to continue funding the Fee-Free TAFE program, as VAT.

Health and Wellbeing
Progress
• $7.9 billion for Medicare to increase bulk billing services and incentivise GPs to bulk bill patients.
• $793 million funding for women’s health initiatives, such as additional contraceptive pills on the PBS, menopausal hormone therapies added to PBS and 11 more endometriosis and pelvic pain clinics.
• $43.6 million over 4 years for treatment of neuroendocrine tumours.

Commentary:
• A number of promises have been made during the course of the election campaign that are now reflected in the budget but there are no significant new measures.
• I welcome the focus on women’s health with $793 million funding for initiatives, such as oral contraceptive pills on the PBS, and efforts to lift support and care provided by GP’s for women experiencing menopause.
• With just over 50% of all medical appointments bulk billed in Warringah, the cost of healthcare is a concern within our electorate. The government announced a lofty goal of 9 out of 10 doctor visits, however, I question whether this is realistic.
• Further, the capping of PBS prescription medication at $25 dollars is welcome, but more needs to be done to ensure that the cost of the PBS medicines doesn’t blow out the budget.
• An announcement of $291.6 million over 5 years to implement aged care reforms is welcome although will do little to address the significantly long wait times to access aged care services in the short term.
• Funding of $1.8 billion for public hospitals is welcome to assist state governments deal with strained emergency services in public hospitals.
• Efforts to address GP shortage with $663 million in funding to create more pathways for GPs and nurses. This is necessary measure in making healthcare more accessible.
• The investment into medical research and particularly rare cancers is important in promoting the health of everyone in our community. This includes $158.6 million over 5 years for the Zero Childhood Cancer Precision Oncology Medicine Program and the Australian Rare Cancers Portal.
• There are also some minor investments in sport that promote inclusion. I welcome the $3.2 million for the Australian Sports Commission to support women’s participation in sport.

Conclusion
On balance, I give this budget a C+ as it represent cautious fiscal management in challenging geopolitical and economic circumstances but it lacks the ambition and reform required to address climate risks, close equity gaps and secure a strong, fir economy for future generations.
Disappointingly, we see noi new funding for the Australian Electoral Reform to assist with tackling disinformation during the election campaign.
There are no new measures positioned to strengthen the existing National Anti-Corruption Commission.

15/12/2024

Nuclear Power

13 December 2024
In the Nuclear power ‘debate’ Dutton is using the exact words of a nuclear power lobbyist who I heard at a Royal Society meeting last year. He says in essence that all the other countries have nuclear, so we need it too, which is silly in that we have far more renewable energy than they do.

So the message is the that Liberals have given in to the nuclear lobby, because of course a couple of nuclear power plants are necessary for the AUKUS submarines, though both Liberal and Labor have been carefully avoiding this fact, as they know that the Australian people currently do not support either nuclear power or AUKUS submarines and they want to get us to accept it all in two bites rather than one.

The hasty inquiry into nuclear energy, which I flagged last month conspicuously did not have the AUKUS submarines mentioned in the their terms of reference despite the fact that in discussions about the AUKUS submarines it was mentioned that Australia will need two nuclear reactors larger than the Lucas Heights one, and a lot more trained nuclear scientists and technicians. Labor just wants the Committee to find nuclear electricity unnecessary and criticise the Liberals.

The sad reality of our two party duopoly is that when one side is voted out, the other comes in with all the policies it wants to bring in. So if you dump Albanese because he did not do much and you think Dutton can help (not a view I support), you get nuclear whether you wanted it or not.

In countries such as Germany , where Winston Churchill wrote the constitution so that no single party could ever get a majority, they have to get coalitions so that each issue has to get considered on its merits. It is not a winner takes all and gives all the policies of whichever lobby group has been successful lately. It seems that the Teals are the only hope; the thin Teal line holding democracy

31/10/2024

The Effect Optional Preferential Voting had on the 2023 NSW State Election

19 April 2023

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Yri-zkB3w8ZVH44ZLPYAsQ-2ghyXU0j1E55lwuJsBEU/edit?tab=t.0

07/06/2024

Anglo Democracies- What a Mess. We need a New Constitution

7 June 2024

If a mob stormed Parliament, overcoming the security system, causing great fear, killing one person and injuring others, we would regard that country with suspicion; South American tin pot democracy? If a few of the rioters were charged, but the instigator was not charged 4 years later, we would regard that as a farce. If the instigator then got a fine for irregularity in the bookkeeping of his election funds 4 years later and got a fine that was a tiny fraction of his election budget, he might as well have had a parking ticket. If the instigator then with total impunity stood again for election we would say that the tin pot nature of a quasi-dictatorship was confirmed. Yet this is exactly what has happened in the USA, where Trump will get a non-custodial sentence, i.e. a fine or some charitable work. Photo-op in a soup kitchen perhaps?

The Republicans will win if Biden becomes unpopular because the economy turns down, or he supports Israel too much because of the power of the Jewish lobby, or if the scare campaign on his age is successful enough. This is because there are only two options, Democrat and Republican. The leaders in the Republican party do not want to criticise Trump because if he succeeds their fortunes will suffer and if he fails, they want to run in 4 years. In a Big Party, it is all about climbing up their hierarchy- tough luck about the country’s welfare. Even Nikki Haley, who criticised Trump in a desperate effort in the Republican primaries has endorsed him. So we have a President who is too old and should step down standing against Trump who has a criminal record and for some reason cannot be brought to book within 4 years; his past failures, ignorance and appalling policies almost irrelevant in the scheme of things.

In Britain, with First-Past-the-Post voting, the electoral system is similarly distorted to favour only two parties and the inequities are such that you can almost draw a line across the country. Conservative Blue in the South, Labour Red in the North. Other parties and opinions are a dot here and there, they get far more votes than seats. Post-Brexit the economy has tanked, which is what one might have expected since most their trade was with the EU. The Conservatives will get a caning, putting in the lack- lustre Labour party, the only alternative, of course.

Back, in Australia, Labor is criticised for doing so little and being Liberal-lite. They had agreed not to raise taxes and even to give tax cuts because Shorten had been defeated by scare tactics in 2019, so having no policies was a safer, small target option. The Conservatives rule from beyond the grave.

The problem is that the people have handed the power to a two party system. When Churchill wrote the post-WW2 German constitution he wrote it so that no party would ever get an absolute majority. There would have to be negotiation about forming government and about each piece of legislation; no ‘winner takes all’. The Swiss constitution has 3 levels of government, all but 7 politicians are part-time and limited to 2 terms, with their jobs protected so that when they leave they go back to them full time. This means there are no party hierarchies to climb up and no jobs for the boys and girls at the end. Also there are quarterly referenda where if citizens get enough signatures they can overthrow even Federal government decisions. This is what Australia did not copy when our constitution was written in 1900 (though it was considered). Our 1901 constitution was a heroic effort to stitch 6 squabbling colonies into a nation. It was not all wisdom for all time.

Anglo countries may have been early in creating democracy from autocratic kingdoms, but better things are now known and we need to move up and on.

17/11/2023

FB Post to School Students 4 Climate

17 November 2023

School students had a strike today and marched to Tanya Plibersek’s office to demand more action on climate. I posted this to their Facebook page ‘School Students 4 Climate’

I note your slogan ‘Take back the power’. This is good and very important.. While 2 political parties can both be bought by vested interests we will never have the power. The Swiss constitution has citizens able to get a petition and overturn any government decision at quarterly referenda. They have 3 levels of government like us, but any level can be overturned. Politicians are part-time and limited to 2 terms so they cannot climb at party hierarchy, and they keep their original jobs while they are in Parliament and go back to them when their term expires. They also have a number of political parties so the government never has an absolute majority and has to debate and negotiate over every bill. The Swiss model was suggested in 1898, but Aust. went with the US/UK model. The Swiss model gives power to the people. We should work towards it as a better model. When Winston Churchill wrote the German constitution after WW2 he made certain that no single political party could ever have an absolute majority. Look at how polarised the US and UK are and we are going the same way. We must get power back to the people, not the political parties. To get the power back we need a change to the Australian Constitution. It is a long-term project. Can the schoolkids do it?

03/06/2023

Labor and Liberals Unite to Continue Opacity and Pork-Barrelling

25 May 2023

Labor has opposed a Teal move to have infrastructure proposals publically available. The lack of transparency has allowed the pork-barrelling that was rife in the Liberal administration, but it has also continued under Labor.

One would have hoped that Labor would support the move, as most of the Labor electorates, being less well-off are more likely to justify more spending. But they have teamed up with the Liberals to defeat the move. Very disappointing. Labor seems happy just to clear the Liberals very low bar.

Dutton and PM unite to block teal demands

DAVID CROWE

Chief political correspondent SMH 25 May 2023

A bid to tighten safeguards on major road and rail projects has been blocked in federal parliament after Labor and the Coalition joined forces against moves by teal independents to reveal more about the $120 billion cost.

Calling for more scrutiny of the mammoth spending, the independent MPs sought changes to stamp out pork barrelling and force governments to reveal the costs and benefits of new proposals before sinking taxpayer funds into the projects.

But their bid was lost when the major parties used their numbers to defeat the moves, which included an amendment copied from a proposal from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese when he was in opposition nine years ago.

The debate heightened tensions between Labor and the crossbench over integrity in government and the priority for vast projects including the rail line to the Western Sydney Airport, the Melbourne Airport Rail, the Inland Rail and competing road-building proposals in every state.

Independent MP Allegra Spender wanted the government to accept changes that would prevent the peak agency for big projects, Infrastructure Australia, approving proposals that could not show the benefits outweighed the cost.

‘‘This is, you would think, an uncontroversial amendment, one which simply requires public money be used prudently and one which was previously proposed by the Prime Minister himself,’’ Spender said.

‘‘It is only controversial because it takes away the power of the government to make investment decisions which are positive politically but negative economically.’’

Another amendment put to parliament yesterday would require Infrastructure Australia to release its regular audits of the priority list so the public could learn more about costs and benefits of projects.

Spender gained support from Greens leader Adam Bandt and his fellow MPs as well as all other crossbenchers in the lower house

But the amendments were defeated when Infrastructure Minister Catherine King gained Coalition support, sending a signal that the government would also have the numbers in the Senate to defeat any similar amendments. The government passed its draft law in its original form.

King defended the decision to reject the amendments because some information was too sensitive to be released.

Coalition infrastructure spokeswoman Bridget McKenzie wanted an amendment to increase rural representation at the peak agency but did not support the push from the teals.

‘‘Other proposals would have increased costs, decreased investment, and reduced the ability of governments to initiate projects – which is surely fundamental to a democracy,’’ she said.

Kylea Tink, the member for North Sydney, warned that defeating the amendments would mean the Labor government was ‘‘no less likely’’ than the Coalition to engage in pork-barrelling.

Dai Le, who represents Fowler in western Sydney, said voters should not be surprised that Labor promised greater transparency before the election but voted against it after gaining power.

‘‘The two parties are the same – they go to an election, make a promise to make a change, and when they’re in government they don’t do it. They keep the status quo,’’ she said. ‘‘As a result of that, our society, our communities, pay the price for the lack of infrastructure planning.’’

02/04/2023

NSW Election Epilogue

I April 2023

The NSW election is over, with the result we largely expected, Labor victory, but not enough for an absolute majority. I had hoped that they would get fewer seats so as to have more discipline from the cross bench, but they took a small target strategy and promised no privatisation and some key wage rises, so Minns did quite well. It remains to be seen if Labor has shed the fundamental dishonesty of the Obeid era and the long history of being captured by property developers and the gambling industry. Minns weak policy on the latter is cause for concern- the public are ready for serious action on the harms of gambling, but the chance may be squandered by Minns. The Australian gambling lobby are our equivalent of the US gun lobby. If Minns simply increases their taxes, it will merely increase the State’s dependence on gambling revenue and lessen the possibility of future reform.

The key structural problem of Australia’s finances remains that the States are responsible for providing the majority of services, but the Commonwealth collects the taxes and solves its own budget problems by not giving the States the money that they need, so States budgets are cobbled together with stamp duties, gambling taxes, and ‘dividends’ from State-owned enterprises like Sydney Water that have to get a profit and pay it to the government, (which boils down to water rates having a tax component).

Allegra Spender, the Federal Independent for Wentworth in Sydney’s affluent Eastern Suburbs, held a Tax Summit on 31 March as she correctly recognises that we need to address tax revenue as the Federal government seems paralysed even to get minor reforms to superannuation on people with over $3million, or cancel the silly Stage 3 tax cuts which were merely a Morrison promise to stave off election defeat, and then matched by Labor in a silly ‘race to the bottom’ for taxes, government revenue (and services). Meanwhile there is a housing crisis, caused by negative gearing pushing property prices up, then landlords trying to get a return as interest rates rise. The fact that reforms on issue like this have stalled shows the extent to which the Liberals are rule from the grave by making silly promises, wedging Labor to promise to match them, then criticising ‘broken election promises’ when Labor tries to act. Federal Labor, who lost the unlosable 2019 election to Morrison’s scare tactics are as spooked as rabbits in the headlight. Hence the importance of Spender’s Summit.

Perrottet spruiked his government’s credentials as builders of infrastructure, though his concept of ‘recycled assets’ seemed to be borrowing using the government’s credit rating to build underground freeways to give to the private sector, so we can all drive cars and pay tolls to monopoly suppliers for years. The whole scheme was conceptually flawed. The money should have been used for a good underground Metro system. Now Minns want to cap tolls for citizens, which really mean just the government endless paying the monopoly companies they have given the freeways to.

Perrottet seems to have lessened what could have been a rout by drawing attention to infrastructure as if it is a long-term good no matter what it costs and no matter what sort it is. He also tapped into the gambling issue, which Minns was weak on, but did not seem to press this advantage fully. One Liberal I spoke to was very critical of Perrottet for this policy and said that it did not have widespread support among the Liberal Right. Perhaps this was why Minns was not pursued more energetically. The general atmosphere of decadence, corruption, tiredness and the inability even to preselect candidates until the last minute seems to have less attention than might have been expected. The swing against the Liberals was 5%, but the Nationals only 0.9%.

Minns small target policy with wage increases for essential service workers, ceasing privatisations, particularly Sydney Water and subsidies to residents for tolls seem to have helped him. But the swing to Labor was only 3.8% while the swing away from parties to Independents was almost as large, 3.5%.

In terms of the overall percentages, using ABC News figures available today with 79% counted, the Liberals got 27% and Nationals 8.7% for a total Coalition of 35.7%, Labor got 37.1% and the Greens 9.4% (down 0.2%). The Shooters Farmers and Fishers got 1.5% (down 1.9), but it must be noted that two of their lower house MPs Philip Donato in Orange and Helen Dalton in Murray, left the party and were re-elected as Independents. One Nation at 1.8% increased slightly, 0.7%.

The major parties, the Coalition and Labor together polled 72.8% of the vote yet got 81/95 seats – 85%. The current preferential voting system always favours the major parties and optional preferential worsens this effective gerrymander.

There are a number of seats where the optional preferential system has resulted in a major party winning when it would not have done so if preferences were compulsory. It is because the smaller parties exhaust and the candidate with the larger primary vote wins. In the Willoughby by-election when Gladys Berejeklian resigned a little-known Independent, Larissa Penn, would have won on preferences if the exhausted votes followed the pattern of the ones that did not exhaust. That would have made a big difference to the minority government. It will be interesting to analyse this whole election. It might be noted that NSW is the only State with this inequitable system, which was introduced by Neville Wran in 1980 in reforms which otherwise allowed redistributions for equity in the size of electorates (The Constitution (Amendment) Bill, Parliamentary Electorates and Elections (Amendment) Bill- Act 39 of 1979).

Anthony Green’s blog notes that historically the Liberals have done better than Labor under optional preferential voting, but that Independents have surprisingly done even better. But when the Independents have won, it has often been in safe Liberal seats. Currently with the Greens and the majority of smaller parties favouring Labor they may be willing to contemplate returning compulsory preferential voting to NSW.

The other important feature of this election was the Teals, the name the media gave to relatively conservative independents who wanted to do more for the environment and integrity in Parliament. I have to confess to an interest here as I helped my local Teal, Victoria Davidson. The Teals won 6 seats in the Federal Election in 2022, all with women in relatively safe Liberal seats. It was taken to mean that the Liberals had moved too far to the Right, had moved away from a reasonable climate policy, and had not preselected enough women.

A number of Teals ran in the November Victorian election without success. This may have been because the Liberals in Victoria ran a very negative campaign that made the main issue the harm done to Victoria by the COVID lockdown mandated by Premier Daniel Andrews. The election turned into a referendum of Dan Andrews’ leadership, in which he triumphed and the Teals did not take seats from the fading Liberals. It was generally assumed in the major media that the Teals would similarly fall short in NSW, particularly due to optional preferential voting.

In my Teal seat of Lane Cove, the candidate had been selected by a group that derived from the Voices of North Sydney, group pf experts who had tried to influence town planning and been heard politely and ignored by Councils. So a sub-group decided to find, select and help people who had not previously been active in politics to stand as their Independents. This was similar to the genesis of other Teal candidates. There was considerable energy remaining after the success of Kylea Tink in the seat of North Sydney and this spawned the candidatures of Victoria Davidson in Lane Cove and Helen Conway in North Shore. Larissa Penn, buoyed by her near-success in the by-election stood, but was not considered a Teal.

The key feature of these campaigns that did not get much a run in the major media was the degree of enthusiasm and organisation that they generated. Victoria Davidson had 250 volunteers and door-knocked over 6000 households. A large number of homes displaying corflutes and a new publicity technique of waving corflutes at suburban intersections helped name recognition to be built quickly and with the low budget imposed by the NSW legislation. The Liberals could not hope to match the number and energy of the Independent campaigns. What they did was claim that Simon Holmes a Court was funding it all and the Independents were either crook or dupes. They used the incumbents electoral and postage allowance at the last moment they were allowed to, just before the polls were declared, and they put up many signs saying the ‘You only have to Vote 1’, which looked like electoral messages, though they had a small Liberal logo in the bottom corner.

The major media merely noted that no Teals were elected and went on about the progressive count to see if Labor could get an absolute majority. Ross Gittins in the SMH of 29 March however commented that it was ‘Voting out our political duopoly’. He recognised what many commentators have not, that a large chunk of the population have lost faith in the major political parties, which is why so many volunteers can be found for Teals and other Independents in upper middle class electorates. The figures in the 3 State seats which are part of the North Sydney Federal electorate are illustrative. The Liberals won all three.

Willoughby
Candidate	Party	Percentage
Sarah Griffin	Labor	19.7
Edmund McGrath	Greens	7.51
Larissa Penn	Independent	27.15
Michael Want	Sustainable Aust.	1.73
Tim James	Liberal	43.91

Lane Cove
Candidate	Party	Percentage
Victoria Davidson	Independent	20.88
Anthony Roberts	Liberal	45.43
Penny Pedersen	Labor	23.68
Heather Armstrong	Greens	7.85
Ben Wise	Sustainable Aust.	2.16

North Shore
Candidate	Party	Percentage
Michael Antares	IMOP	1.61
Helen Conway	Independent	22.48
Geoff Santer	Labor	16.8
Lachlan Commins	Sustainable Aust.	1.78
James Mullan	Greens	10.53
Felicity Wilson	Liberal	44.66
Victoria Walker	Independent	2.14

As can be seen, the combined primary vote of the Independent, Labor and the Greens can be compared with the Liberal primary votes as follows:

Willoughby (27.51 + 19.7 + 7.51) = 54.71 v. Liberals 43.91

Lane Cove (20.88 + 23.68 + 7.85) = 52.41 v Liberals 45.43

North Shore (22.48 + 16.8 + 10.53) = 49.81 v Liberals 44.66

It might be noted that in Willoughby and Lane Cove there were quite enough preferences to have changed the results, and in North Shore it may have needed the small parties and the other Independent, but preferences that did not exhaust could easily have changed that result also.

It is important that the Independents and Greens try to influence the Minns government to improve the voting system by introducing compulsory preferential voting in NSW.

The idea that a political duopoly is needed for stability in government is complete nonsense. The NZ electoral system was changed to ‘top up’ Parliamentary seats so that any party that gets over 4% of the vote gets extra seats so that the percentage of seats reflects as accurately as possible the percentage of votes that they got. The German parliament has a system where no party can get an absolute majority, so there is a period of negotiation after each election as coalitions are put together. The German constitution was deliberately written by Winston Churchill so that a single party could never get an absolute majority and Hitler could never rise again.

The Swiss government has 3 levels, similar to ours, and tries to make decisions at the lowest level possible (unlike Australia). They also have their politicians part-time and limited to 2 terms so that they retain good connections with the ordinary people and their superannuation is to return to their pre-Parliament job. They have a number of parties and the Parliament’s decisions can be overturned by a plebiscite with vote held every 3 months.

There are plenty of alternatives to the duopoly system that is not working very well in Australia, the US or the UK, and the success of the Teals and Independents suggest that there is a nascent move for change in Australia. The alternatives need to be publicised so a serious discussion can begin.

25/02/2023

Liberals Still Need 20 State Election Candidates: Incredible arrogance from Headless Chooks!

25 February 2023

It is mind boggling that 4 weeks out from the NSW State election the Liberals still have not selected candidates in 20 seats. There are 93 lower house seats in the State.

The idea that a candidate comes from his/her electorate, knows it and is trusted by it seems a distant memory, perhaps a dream. From the tiny numbers left in the major parties, a candidate will be selected by the factions, presumably depending on Party loyalty and their not having rocked the boat. The voters are supposed to be pathetically grateful and vote them in with a rousing cheer about ‘stable’, (i.e. win every parliamentary vote) government.

Let us hope that the Teals change this script.

Liberals still need 20 candidates a month before poll

Alexandra Smith, Tom Rabe SMH 25/2/23

The Liberal Party is scrambling to finalise candidates to run in almost 20 seats across NSW just a month out from the state election, including in the independent-held electorate of Kiama.

While Labor has a handful of electorates without a candidate, among the many seats the Liberals are yet to fill is the one held by former government minister-turned independent Gareth Ward.

Ward, a long-time powerbroker in his area, was suspended from the parliament and the Liberal Party after he was charged with sexual assault. He has denied any wrongdoing and remains before the court, where the matter is scheduled to be heard after the election. Ward is recontesting his seat.

The NSW division of the Liberal Party came under fire during the federal election campaign for delays in selecting candidates.

Premier Dominic Perrottet vowed that he would not allow similar delays to plague his campaign, but the party has struggled to find suitable candidates for many seats.

Labor wants to finish pre-selections for all 93 lower house seats by Monday, ahead of nominations closing on March 8. The Liberals, however, are yet to field candidates in a host of seats, including Auburn, Bankstown, Granville, Port Stephens, Rockdale, Strathfield, Wyong and Blue Mountains.

The Liberals hope to finalise some seats this weekend but will still have more than a dozen outstanding. Their Coalition partners, the Nationals, have had all candidates in place for some time.

Meanwhile, NSW Labor leader Chris Minns is backing a push to run former state cabinet minister Steve Whan in the southern electorate of Monaro, held by the Nationals.

Whan, who held Monaro from 2003 until Labor lost in a landslide in 2011, is seen by the party as its best chance to win the seat following former NRL Canberra Raiders player Terry Campese’s shock withdrawal as the ALP candidate. Campese quit after it emerged that he had attended a risque party while scantily clad.

The Nationals had identified Monaro, once held by former deputy premier John Barilaro, as one of its most at risk seats when Campese was running, and Labor is desperate to win it.

A captain’s pick is also likely in the safe Labor seat of Fairfield, as federal energy minister Chris Bowen moves to install his preferred candidate, former Australian Federal Police agent David Saliba.

A senior Labor source confirmed Whan and Saliba ‘‘both enjoy the support of Minns’’.

Asked when the Liberals would announce a candidate for Kiama, Perrottet said it was a matter for the party and refused to rule out preferencing Ward.

‘‘There’s obviously 93 seats to fill, so my expectation is as soon as possible,’’ Perrottet said. ‘‘I don’t set those arrangements, that’s a matter for the organisation. Obviously, the Liberals intend on running in all the seats that we have in the past.’’ He said both parties were working through their preselection processes and pointed out that the Labor Party had not yet selected a candidate to contest his electorate.

‘‘I am the member for Epping, Labor doesn’t have a candidate in Epping,’’ he said.

03/01/2023

Flaws in Constitutions

3 January 2023

The US Constitution has many flaws. The most conspicuous being the ‘right to bear arms’ which is taken as the right for every citizen to carry guns around the place, with predictable consequences. There is also state controlled voting rights, which get fiddled and the right of elected governments to draw the electoral boundaries, a sure-fire recipe for dodgy electoral system. It seems the US Supreme Court has managed to give itself a privileged position and now precedent cements this.

Of course the major problem is that the US Constitution was made to be almost impossible to change so all these flaws are perpetuated, the latest problem being that Presidents can appoint Supreme Court judges for life and these judges now override the legislatures by saying the law is against the Constitution, as in the case of abortion.

How the US will fix this is not of academic interest. The Australian Constitution was not some document of all wisdom for all time; it was made with the overriding imperative to get the 6 colonies into one country. All the power except marriage, tax and foreign policy was given to the States. Looking at how Australia works in practice, one would not even guess this. We have uniform laws only because the state Ministers work out ‘template legislation’ and all State Parliaments pass it unamended. About a third of all State legislation and certainly the most important stuff it this, with the States Parliaments serving as very expensive rubber stamps.

Now we have major constitutional changes suggested, a Voice to Parliament for Aboriginal people and removing the English monarch of head of State and creation of a Republic.

It would be better if there were some other changes also. My favourite would be to move towards proportional representation and to allow citizens referenda to override Parliaments, and to limit the terms of Parliament so that political party hierarchies could not have such significance. This would be a move to more of Swiss-style constitution, as was suggested but discarded as it was not Anglo in 1899 at the Constitutional discussions then. The German constitution, which was written by Winston Churchill to ensure that no single party could ever have a majority, or even the changes in the NZ voting system which made it unlikely could, also be considered. We have to recognise that we have the same problem as the USA, a fossilised constitution that needs significant change. It is ridiculous that we do not have the confidence even to talk about this. Change is not easy, but that is hardly the point. Are we inferior to our great- or great-great-grandfathers that we cannot plan our future?

US Constitution’s flaws on show

Nick Bryant SMH Columnist, 3 January 2023

A plan by the probable next US House Speaker to read the Constitution aloud could have unforeseen consequences.

For more than a quarter of a century, American politics has doubled as a civics lesson from hell. The Clinton years introduced us to the impeachment process, something not witnessed since the mid-19th century. The disputed 2000 election reminded us of the vagaries of the Electoral College and revealed how the Supreme Court could intervene to determine the outcome of a presidential election – who knew? The January 6 hearings, which culminated in the first-ever referral of a former president to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, served both as a primetime crime drama and a tutorial in constitutional law.

To mark the opening of the 118th Congress today, the Republican Party intends to conduct its own teachable moment. If he wins the House Speakership – a contest that looks like it will provide a lesson in the chaotic state of the modern-day GOP – the Republican leader Kevin McCarthy intends to read in its entirety the US Constitution on the floor of the House of Representatives.

This ritual will border on the liturgical. The Constitution, despite Donald Trump’s recent threat to terminate it, has taken on a near Biblical status. Its framers are regarded as patron saints. Yet Americans who listen in may well be shocked to hear these portions of scripture take on a different meaning when placed in their rightful context.

No passage has been more misappropriated than the Second Amendment, which notes that ‘‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed’’. As people will hear, however, the primary focus of the founding fathers was the creation of a ‘‘well-regulated militia’’ rather than the firearms they would carry. The intention was to guard against a standing army, which in post-revolutionary America was seen as a tyrannical throwback to the days of British rule.

For almost 200 years, then, the Second Amendment was often referred to as the ‘‘lost amendment’’ because in an America that ended up creating a professional fighting force, the US military, it was considered obsolete. Not until 2008, following a decades-long propaganda campaign by the National Rifle Association to twist and falsify its meaning, did the conservative-leaning Supreme Court make the Second Amendment the constitutional basis for individual gun ownership.

Those who listen in might be surprised to hear how little the Constitution says about the Supreme Court, despite its omnipresence in modern politics. Nowhere does it state that the court should be the final arbiter of whether laws passed by Congress are legal. Judicial review, the ability to declare an act of Congress or presidential executive action unconstitutional, is a power that the Supreme Court granted itself in the early 19th century.

The irony is that the court’s hardline conservative justices are driven by a philosophy of jurisprudence known as originalism, which determines controversial rulings, such as the overturning of Roe v Wade, based on their interpretation of the original intent of the Constitution. Yet the founding fathers never intended the Supreme Court to hold such sway. ‘‘The judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power,’’ wrote Alexander Hamilton. Thus this right-wing philosophy falls at the first historical hurdle. Originalism is the enemy of originalism.

Defenders of American democracy may also be disappointed by what they hear, for nowhere in the Constitution is there a positive assertion of the right to vote. The original intent of the founding fathers was that only white men of property should be enfranchised, although they left it for the states to decide.

Over the years, as the electorate expanded, voting rights came to be framed in a negative way. The 15th Amendment, which was ratified in 1870 after the Civil War, stated voting rights ‘‘shall not be denied’’ on account of ‘‘race, colour, or previous condition of servitude’’.

In the 1930s, the 19th Amendment finally decreed that women ‘‘shall not be denied’’ the vote. But voting has sometimes been called ‘‘the missing right’’ because the Constitution does not explicitly and positively spell it out.

‘‘We the People,’’ the rousing words in the preamble of the Constitution, were certainly never intended as a statement of great participatory or populist intent. Indeed, the whole point of the Constitution was to guard against the tyranny of the majority and what its aristocratic authors called an ‘‘excess of democracy’’.

Following the American Revolution, the Constitution was designed to be a counterrevolutionary text; what the Harvard historian Jill Lepore has called ‘‘a check on the revolution, a halt to its radicalism’’. Maybe that explains why Kevin McCarthy is so keen to read it out. The Republicans are a minority party increasingly reliant on the founding fathers’ minoritarian model of democracy.

They have lost the nationwide vote in seven out of the last eight presidential elections, but the Electoral College gives them a shot at the White House. The power granted by the framers to small states, which were allotted just as many senators as the most populous states, artificially inflates the Republican Party’s influence in the Senate. The original decision to allow states to determine voting qualifications has enabled Republican-controlled state legislatures to suppress the vote.

Hopefully, the reading of the Constitution will remind citizens of its flaws and how this American gospel is in desperate need of revision. But therein lies the constitutional catch-22. The founding fathers made it fiendishly difficult to amend.

Dr Nick Bryant is the author of When America Stopped Being Great: A History of the Present. Peter Hartcher is on leave.

27/11/2022

Morrison’s Minister for Everything’ Antics show Constitution is deficient

27 November 2022

When Prime Minister Morrison gave himself 5 ministries without even bothering to tell the ministers who he was over-riding, the Governor-General merely allowed him to do so.

Whether this was due to the fuss that was made when Kerr dismissed Whitlam and the upshot is that Governors-General believe that they have no right to countermand Prime Ministers I am unsure. Perhaps G-G David Hurley thought this; perhaps he wanted the PM’s support for his $18million ‘leadership’ scheme , or perhaps being military, he did not rock the hierarchical boat.

But some of us assumed that the Governor-General is head of State in order to stop political antics which are not in the interest of the Australian people. Naturally all the possible types of antics are not defined, nor presumably can anyone craft a law which bans any possible eventuality.

One is reminded of the aging President Hindenburg, who after the Reichstag fire made Hitler Chancellor and put out the Reichstag Fire Decree which Hitler used to suppress his opponents and get absolute power, even though Hitler did not have a clear majority on the floor of the Reichstag. The fire created an ‘emergency’ which was blamed on the Communists, but it is quite possible that the Nazis did it to create a crisis and enable them to take extra-judicial actions.

It is quite simply not acceptable to have a Prime Minster able to over-ride the Cabinet and take whatever powers he likes. The fact that Morrison only used this to stop a fracking project in the NT that he knew would be unpopular with the elections coming is not relevant. He could have done anything, and Hurley did not stop him.

If there is a censure motion against Morrison, this is also irrelevant. Morrison may be embarrassed and may or may not resign, but this will not stop it happening again a few years ahead. Even if Albanese arranges a law to prohibit multiple ministries, this may not help- any law can be reversed by a new government. It might also be noted that immediately after the 1972 election Prime Minister Whitlam and his Deputy Lance Barnard divided all the ministries between them and started enacting the programme that the ALP had taken to the election, merely to save time until his full Cabinet was appointed. This was consistent with the election result and seemed not to arouse any constitutional issues.

If we are to continue with a head of State who is ‘above politics’ he or she needs to be able and willing to stop political excesses. We need to know that there is some mechanism to stop an individual Prime Minster giving himself or herself whatever powers he or she likes. If you think, ‘it could not happen here’ you are wrong. It just has. The powers of the Governor-General were either inadequate or unclear and were certainly not used when they should have been. I cannot see that anything other than a clarification of the Constitution will resolve the matter. It seems that Justice Bell has overlooked this issue.
https://theconversation.com/view-from-the-hill-the-bell-report-on-morrisons-multi-ministries-provides-a-bad-character-reference-195368