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.
The Ruddster really is a hard worker. Good news for SA.
[Prime Minister Kevin Rudd this morning will announce Holden will produce a new four-cylinder, fuel-efficient car at Elizabeth.
Mr Rudd and federal Industry Minister Kim Carr will visit the plant at 10.15am to make the announcement with Premier Mike Rann . ]
Yes this is a good announcment for adeladie adn no criticism of Rudd on this one:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24832289-5006301,00.html
However we still need to “manage” Holden carefully. If all they are doing here is locally assembling knocked down imported kits, then it doesn’t mean much in the long run. Thats really just an end run around tariffs. What matters is how soon before they locally manufacture a competitive economical engine, whether in a hybrid Commodore, or an economical four.
Following up other themes I have just been reading:
The debt saga: its a storm in a tea-Cuppa 😉
The fact is that under Labor and Liberals Australia’s Federal debt is still fairly small by world standards and the interest payments are no big deal in the contecxt of a federal budget exceeding $100 billion per annum. The valid concerns are private debt and lack of investment, which were both areas Howard scored poorly on. He was always a lousy treasurer himself, and Costello was too weak to reign him in.
The ETS – better than nothing but still not good enough. The per capita argument is BS. The compensation to businesss is a real crock – a pay-off to those who fund elections? John Quiggan sums up the faults in Rudd’s not-as-clever-as-he-thinks wedge ETS:
http://www.afr.com/home/viewer.aspx?EDP://20081218000030657263§ion=opinion&title=Rudd+misread+the+weather
Maybe it’s the release of the Zodiac- the fuel efficient 4 individually badged in the 12 signs of the zodiac!
Socrates
That’s an excellent article, mainly because it agrees with everything we have been saying. 😀
It raises the possibility of sanctions against countries like Australia, who are acting as a spoiler on addressing climate change (if they don’t sign up to Copenhagen). It says the EU is exploring this option against non-compliant countries. I imagine it will be in the form of high tariffs on any imports from Oz etc on goods which were carbon intensive, like aluminum etc. Sounds like a bloody good idea to me.
But that’s not fairrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
Glen
Of course it’s fair. What’s fair anyway.
It’s the basis of all diplomacy, carrot and stick. It looks like the stick is going to be needed.
Why because scientists think the world is going to end lol!
Glen
Not end, just collapse. You’ll be thanking us one day. 😉
We’ll collapse a long time before any of ‘that’ happens what with Rudd spending almost 40billion in his first year as PM…takes a new meaning to the term spending like a drunken sailor lol!
Glen I think you need to accept that this is one issue that transcends petty political point-scoring like your above post. The great majority of climate scientists DO say that the world (the world of human civilisation) will collapse unless we do something serious about climate change, and do it now. Rudd would not feel the need to be so cautious if the Libs were not trying to wedge him on this issue. If Turnbull would say, we will give bipartisan support to 20% by 2020 (which I’m sure is what he really believes) then Rudd would go with that policy.
Glen
I don’t suggest the world is going to end because of GW but a few industries and even countries might.
And it is fair. Its simple economics – called market failure. When a polluter causes downstream consequences that cost people damages outside that market the rational answer is to stop htme. If you can’t force them to stop then you tax their products to make it uneconomic for them to continue. The only difference this time is that the whole world is downstream fo this type of pollution.
Glen
As an aside, the Libs are really falling for Rudd’s wedge trap on GW. His scheme is pathetically weak and a lot of non rusted-on Labor voters might change if the Lib s put up something better. If Turnbull offered to back a 10/20 scheme instead of 5/15 the political gains could be enormous. But if you vote against this scheme then for 60% of us there is no choice but to vote or preference Labor.
[If you can’t force them to stop then you tax their products to make it uneconomic for them to continue.]
What is to stop them passing that cost on to the consumer who will then blame the government?
When a company goes out of business during a time of increasing unemployment the headlines will read “ETS causes umpteen people to lose their jobs”. Very handy news for any government.
Oh, I know the government shouldn’t be worrying about their fate. Just hand the election to a cynical opposition who in turn will “fix” things up.
The green purists have it all worked out, everything except how it applies in the real world.
[If Turnbull offered to back a 10/20 scheme instead of 5/15 the political gains could be enormous.]
Wakey, wakey, time to get up.
Adam:
Why are the Americans being so dangerous then?
At least Soc you’re not one of those people who believes NO ETS is better than this ETS. Talk about cut of one’s nose despite one’s face.
“EU leaders drastically weaken their emission ambition”
“European leaders agreed on Friday to binding measures to curb global warming but pushed back deadlines and granted significant concessions to smokestack industries that said they were struggling in a hard economic climate.
Under the original plan, electric utilities, which now get most of their pollution permits for free, would have had to start paying for them starting in 2013. Instead, utilities in East European countries like Poland and Hungary would not need to buy all of their required permits until 2020.
In another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their costs are increasing and that they are significantly exposed to international competition.
Manufacturers not exposed to international competition will have to pay for their permits beginning in 2013, starting with 20 percent and gradually increasing. But rather than paying for all of their permits by 2020, as under the commission’s original plan, they would pay for only 70 percent by then.
Warsaw would gain €15 billion in the form of free emissions permits to help poorer nations, he added.
Dowgielewicz said that the package “would not have been workable” without that concession.
“It would have blown up after introduction in countries like Poland because of the economic and social effect.”
Under the accord, power companies in countries that are comparatively poor and that use significant amounts of coal still will be able to receive 70 percent of their permits for free from 2013, although that amount would gradually decline to zero by 2020. The formula devised by the EU would include Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Malta, Cyprus, Bulgaria, Romania, Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary.”
This is th same sanctimonous EU that practises discriminatory tarriffs against poor countries and Australia
And you guys hold this lot as a beacon We hav to look after ourselves Th USA and China ar , they arr doing NOTHING
Gary
When the EU and other countries put huge tariffs on our exports and make them uncompetitive, the result will be the same.
Adam is completely right that while Rudd may have gone soft, the Liberals are just as much if not more to blame.
GB
There is strong political support for such punitive tariffs in Europe already, notably on long haul air travel, to name one. Your point about passing the cost on to consumers is nonsense – we are talking about a tariff by the EU on imports to the EU. They will become more expensive (you can’t “not pass it on” because the tariff is imposed on the price) and hence less competitive against local products or those from non tariffed countries.
As for the “wakey wakey” comment, its just a smear and not an argument. Time to drag your mind out of ALP Factional Brawl mode. Even then, I suggest you address that to the Libs if they oppose an ETS, and any of Rudd’s advisors who think this ETS will be seen as a good outcome by the majority of people who say they are concerned about GW.
GB 365
Yes if the choice is Rudds ETS vs none with the Libs then I’d still give my preference to Rudd.
Ron 366
The concessions for Eastern Europe have been known about for some time. However that doesn’t change the fact that Western Europe (where most of the money is) are going ahead and will use some of the revenue to update eastern european infrastructure.
The world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
The world did not end then, the Coral did not all die out, human survive
The world had lived through at least 4 ice ages, lots of volcanic eruption which produced a thousand times more pollution than the human race. And Earth had and will survive
dovif
There were no humans (or even primates) on earth when the last major asteroids hit it, around 65 million years ago. I agree with Diogenes – if the Libs are going to oppose even this paltry ETS, then roll on DD.
Socrates , but it does NOT change th fact th EU ar allowing th eastern side to pollutte , with free permits & other concessions , all financed by th EU’s colective financial muscle
That is a sham So th EU can not be used as a beacon….under there principals EVERY poor Country has a copeout
WORSE , quote “in another concession, heavy industry sectors like steel and chemicals would receive free emissions permits if they can show their COSTS are increasing and that they are significantly EXPOSED to international competition.”
that means EVERY country in world has a form of copeout clause to no CC action ! About time people realized in reel World , just ignore EU pretty words and see what they actualy ar doing
dovif
[The world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
The world did not end then, the Coral did not all die out, human survive]
That has to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen. How do you think the dinosaurs became extinct ❓
Adam
“Rudd would not feel the need to be so cautious if the Libs were not trying to wedge him on this issue. ”
Do not agree , Rudd is wisely waiting on what World targets (if any) Coppenhaggen agrees on , thats econamic commonsense
[Why are the Americans being so dangerous then?]
Because Bush is a moron and the Republican Party is controlled by Christian loonies who think that climate change doesn’t matter because Christ is coming to reign on earth quite soon (seriously). Come 20 January the US will return to the modern world and the politics of this will change radically. That’s why I wouldn’t automatically assume that Copenhagen will be a failure. Maybe Obama can turn on the charisma and persuade the EU, China, India, Russia et al that the salvation train is coming and they’d better be on board. Then Rudd can use the escape hatch he has carefully built into his policy – we will go for 20 by 20 if the others do so too.
Ron I am not prepared to discuss Copenhagen with someone who can’t even spell it.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-improve-your-spelling-skills.html
Am I being an elitist snob? No doubt. But the fact is that people judge you (particularly online) by how you write. If you spell like a moron, people will assume you are a moron.
Ron
I agree it is hypocritical but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. The argument will come down to what you take as the starting point, because eastern europe has reduced emissions in the past decade. So they will want room to modernise. We have no such excuse. This is where the per-capita emissions argument will hurt us – oursa re very high; much higher than europes. See Quiggan’s article linked in my 352.
If I don’t have time to post again over the next week or so may I say merry christmas to all.
William, thanks for your excellent job throughout the year. 🙂
Adam
First you feel Rudd is being cautous because of th Libs lack of bi partisanship but if Turnbull agreed to 20% Rudd would make that policy ….wrong ,without knowing Chian or USA position or any other Countrys , no …… Rudd simply & responsibly is awaiting what th world Coppenhaggen target is (which he will adopt) rather than Australian committing econamic hari kari first….
Don’t throw red herring to avoid defending your arguement that is flawed
Secondly you think Republicon reticense on CC is Christian loonies based , no… US reticisense is caused by lots of factors …lots of CC deniers , its a left thing anyway , self greed that CC mitigation will cost US and them money , profits and advantage to India/China , plus yes some fundys as another group Self interest greed to protect US econamy & individual profits would be main group
Quality of arguments is not determined by how somone is dressed , but by th quality of there logic
Also Adam , I found a variation to that philosophy :
Quality of arguments is not determined by how someone is dressed , but by th quality of there logic
dovif @ 370 –
he world is not going to end or collapse, I met with a paeleontologist, the other week, and they think the weather after the astoroid hit earth was at least 5 degrees hotter than it was now.
Not so. Immediately after the blast parts of the planet undoubtedly became extremely hot, mostly from the blast itself, and also from widespread fires as vegetation ignited by the impact burnt.
However, within a few days the Earth would have cooled considerably as the dust blown into the atmosphere plus volcanic ash from eruptions set off by the impact blocked sunlight. It would have been very cold (and dark) for some years.
Your paleontologist friend has failed on a very fundamental point. Not the only one, as other have pointed out.
________________________________________________
“By 2020 no Australian polluter will live in poverty”
Dr Richard Denniss, Australia Institute
Ron, as I said I am not going to respond to your posts so long as you write in this way. Either you are genuinely dyslexic, in which case you should do something about it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexia_treatment), as many others have, or you are doing this because you think it’s funny. Well I don’t.
Adam you are very much entitled to your opinion vis a vis Climate Change…but i refuse to believe that it is man’s fault by the simple fact that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own for centuries and hence i will not accept the left’s view that it is entirely a man made disaster…that being said i dont think that we shouldnt reduce our carbon emissions as it would mean less pollution and that is always a plus.
The Liberals will screw Rudd for whatever political points they can get by holding this up in the Senate for the longer it is held up the longer the Greens can bash Rudd on this and cause troubles for the ALP…I am sure we will have a great many enquiries about Rudds ETS and emissions cuts.
Further to 380-
While the asteroid may have been the final straw, dinosaurs had been dying out for quite a while. There is evidence that this was caused by global cooling. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2225779.stm
[i refuse to believe that it is man’s fault by the simple fact that the earth has warmed and cooled on its own for centuries ]
This is exactly like saying you refuse to believe in the Holocaust because Jews have been dying of natural causes for centuries.
[i will not accept the left’s view that it is entirely a man made disaster]
It’s not “the left’s view”, it’s the view of virtually every qualified scientist in the world. It’s also, officially, the view of the Liberal Party, they are just too beholden to the carbon lobby to act on their own policy. And yes, I agree that the carbon lobby has a big voice in the Labor Party too. But they wouldn’t have the power they have if they couldn’t play the two sides off against each other. If Turnbull would give bipartisan support to 20 by 20, then the carbon lobby would lose its leverage.
A lot of Americans are also rushing to buy guns before January 20
I’m glad we have gun laws – a girl in Florida tried to stand up to a male street harrasser and he pulled out a gun and shot her dead
Socrates @ 352 (and Digenes)
I’ll see you and raise you.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24831526-7583,00.html
Adam,
I would say that Ron has more influence with his doggedness, good humour and elucidation of ideas than anyone else on PB.
I agree he is an acquired taste. However, the effort is always worth it imho.
Maybe you should debate yourself since that’s the only way you can run an argument with someone of your superior education and intellectual prowess. However, being the biggest ego in the room does not make you a man of the people or a figure of influence.
Amigo GG, i was right, again. Showy is on the loose, again.
GG, you should know by now that your puerile insults have no effect on me. I’ve been insulted by experts, pal. It doesn’t take “superior education and intellectual prowess” to spell basic English – most 12-year-olds can do it. If Ron is capable of elucidating ideas to the standard you suggest then he should be capable of spelling correctly the words used to convey those ideas. If writes in such an illiterate manner deliberately to be clever, he should desist. If he can’t spell, or can’t type, he should learn. If he can’t learn to spell or type, he can run his posts through a spellchecker before he posts them. Writing comprehensibly is a matter of basic courtesy to readers.
That’s all for tonight, back tomorrow.
GG
I read that before. I couldn’t work out why he bothered the ten minutes it must have taken to write it. I suppose the OO is paying well for anti-CC articles at the moment. Walden is well worth a read. The Unabomber was a big fan of Thoreau.
And I agree about Ron. We seldom agree on anything but he’s great value, although he seems to be having a lot of trouble remembering that he wanted a 15-20% CO2 reduction about two hours before Rudd caved to the carbon lobby.
[As for the “wakey wakey” comment, its just a smear and not an argument. Time to drag your mind out of ALP Factional Brawl mode.]
I’m glad you’re into argument only Soc and above smearing. Pity I’m not a member of any party otherwise you may have a point with that great argument of yours.
Adam
So, for you, at least, “It’s he who snarks and runs away, lives to blog another day”.
Diogenes,
I always knew the Greens and the Unabomber would be soulmates at some level.
centaur
Here’s your big chance!! There’s a contest to name the new Holden. Time to take out that trademark on Zodiac with the twelve starsigns.
[HOLDEN has announced it will build a new four-cylinder car in Adelaide – now we want you to help them come up with a name.
Enter your suggestion in the comment box below (but be aware the more immature members of the AdelaideNow team have already suggested the Holden Fourplay and Holden Foursome).]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24833867-5006301,00.html
How about the Holden On?
I wonder what the odds of the new car ever seeing the light of day are? Over the weekend Bush was taking about only coughing up enough cash to pay for an “orderly bankruptcy” of GM and Chrysler, rather than salvation.
If GM goes under the chances of another car company taking over GMH seem iffy at best, especially as a manufacturer of in-house designed vehicles rather than an assembler of imported kits. By world standards its operation is small beer.
Diog , you ar on song today
#354“Socrates , That’s an excellent article, MAINLY because it agrees with everything we have been saying.”
Well that’s a good criteria to judge an article….now if you could write your own articles , you’d hav to disagree with yourself that you were disagreeing
#373 replying to Dovif’s post…..”That has to be one of the dumbest comments I’ve seen. How do you think the dinosaurs became extinct “
How come you claimed I was dinasour ? perhaps you hav scientifically revised that hypothesis to I’m not of th past but of th future…think of your future.. lingo heaven
“one of the dumbest comments” again you may wish revise that On 4 Corners Howard was asked about Climate Change and he replied along th lines of ‘ some of th scare scenarios put by CC people will be proved in time to hav been exaggerated”
Text I’m not acknowledging or answering a dirct CC queston , but sub text , I’m still reely a CC denier ….and one of dumbest coments I’ve ever heard
Adam – “If Ron is capable of elucidating ideas to the standard you suggest then he should be capable of spelling correctly the words used to convey those ideas. If writes in such an illiterate manner deliberately to be clever, he should desist. If he can’t spell, or can’t type, he should learn. If he can’t learn to spell or type, he can run his posts through a spellchecker before he posts them. Writing comprehensibly is a matter of basic courtesy to readers.”
I’d have to agree with that. What’s the deal Ron?
Bob , history is littered with people who ignored th lite
[
Adam in Canberra
Posted Monday, December 22, 2008 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
Ron I am not prepared to discuss Copenhagen with someone who can’t even spell it.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/communication/how-to-improve-your-spelling-skills.html
Am I being an elitist snob? No doubt. But the fact is that people judge you (particularly online) by how you write. If you spell like a moron, people will assume you are a moron.
]
Agreed. No, you are not being an elitist snob. Posts by Ron I also will not read for the same reason. I will not read posts either that involve quotes from Ron’s posts or those that are responding to Ron. This one, of course, being the sole exception 😀 . That means that there isn’t a whole lot to read right now with silly season going on, is there? 😉
Anyone who has their grey matter screwed on straight wouldn’t write like that when they were at school, uni or a job. If they did; they either would get bad grades, wouldn’t be hired or would be fired. For someone to write and compose normally in those environments and then post crap to PB doesn’t make a very healthy statement on their personality. (I’m trying to give Ron all the credit I can here and assume that where ever he works that he is a reasonable person in that environment).
Perhaps we should take up a collection and get a dictionary, for starters, to put under Ron’s Christmas tree 😀 …..
I just don’t understand why some people get so fussed by Ron’s posts. I really wish they would stop complaining about them and stop taking themselves so seriously. If you find them hard to read, you have two choices.
1. Don’t read them. You’d miss out on a lot but such is life.
2. Read them and appreciate the unique style. They are not difficult at all once you understand the way Ron writes and thinks. There are plenty of witty gems in the language. Seriously, did James Joyce and Mario Vargas Llosa have to put up with this crap?