In the meantime:
• The Australian reports the dunce of the Senate, Steve Fielding, is contemplating adding constitutional vandal to the extensive list of black marks against his name. Fielding polled all of 2.7 per cent of the vote in Victoria on Saturday, yet remains a serious prospect to retain his Senate seat thanks to a disastrous electoral system that Labor has been determined not to reform.
• Today’s Sydney Morning Herald editorial offers some fascinating speculation about Tony Abbott’s tactics in the past few days. The paper’s national editor, Mark Davis, detects a high-stakes game with the objective of final victory at a fresh election. It is evident he will be backed to the hilt in this endeavour by The Australian, which has jacked up the hysteria today by (among other things) running a lead news story that describes former Office of National Assessments intelligence analyst Andrew Wilkie as a “radical”.
• On Wednesday, the News Limited tabloids published a Galaxy poll of 600 voters in the rural independents’ electorates of Kennedy, New England and Lyne, which predictably showed a 52 per cent supporting a Coalition government against 36 per cent for Labor. Respondents were evenly split as to whether they wanted a fresh election. Some national polling at the moment would be uncommonly interesting.
• There has been talk of a legal challenge, or at least the possibility of one, against the election of Coalition candidates Russell Matheson in Macarthur and Natasha Griggs in Solomon, on the basis that their position as councillors runs foul of the archaic constitutional requirement that candidates not enjoy “office for profit under the Crown”. Constitutional expert George Williams has been quoted saying such a challenge would have a “one-in-four chance of winning”. Labor successfully engineered a re-match in Lindsay in similar circumstances after the 1996 election, only to have the voters respond to their sore-loser act by delivering a further 5 per cent swing to the successful Liberal candidate, Jackie Kelly.
UPDATE: Here is a link to the Brisbane late counting thread, which has dropped off the front page. I’ll come up with a more enduring solution to this issue later today.
re retrospectivity of the mining tax as I understand it only applies to future profits.
Also in the time that a lot of these projects have been running company tax has fallen from 40%+ to 30%, no one in business complained then.
The fuss about the “retrospective” nature of the mining tax is nonsense. It’s equivalent to arguing that I should be immune to any tax increases whilst I stay in my current job. Or that the interest rate on my mortgage should not be allowed to rise. I’m surprised Wilkie seems to have bought that line.
[The Coalition called the Australian Federal Police over the leak and Mr Robb said yesterday the deputy commissioner had assured him the ”investigation” would be over within days.
But an AFP spokeswoman said there was no investigation and that police were ”still assessing” the Coalition’s complaint.]
and
[The Coalition has defended the work of the Perth accountancy firm that costed its election promises as the Institute of Chartered Accountants has launched a formal investigation into its conduct.
The institute revealed late yesterday it had received a complaint about the conduct of two members of the firm, WHK Horwath.
The Age reported last week that Sydney University accountancy professor Bob Walker was to make the complaint in a private capacity, arguing that if the firm had produced such on a prospectus it would be an offence under the Corporations Act.]
Liberal Party at present seems to have a real culture problem. And it is just not Abbott. Depsite Turnbull’s quite astonishing reinvention as an environmental saint, the Grech stain is an indelible one.
If this were a company, the board of directors would have had the management’s head on a spike – BP, David Jones
[My experience as a scrutineer is that there is at
least a preliminary count in front of scrutineers
as soon as boxes are opened and before the
votes are taken away to be checked later in the
week. The scrutineers keep a record of the
results of that preliminary count.]
The boxes are always shown to me with the tags locked. I check off the tag numbers against the Electoral Officer’s sheet and sign for them. The tags are cut, the votes spilled out onto the table, I check the box to make sure they’re empty and then the votes are counted. After the count they are checked again against numbers.
I can’t see how the votes can be transferred to another box without the scrutineers knowing. I don’t see how the original tags can be put back on after being cut. Sounds weird to me.
John Reidy
The retrospectively everyone is talking about is in relation to project decision.
For example, if you decided to buy a house, the bank will only led to you based on your ability to repay, and you would only take out a loan, based on your ability to repay the loan over the next 30 years. If after you made the decision, the government then decides to put an additional 30% tax on your pay, you are going to have more difficulty in repaying the loan and this will make the bank nervous
So while we are talking about future profits, mines cost billions in investments by mining companies and banks, to change the rules retrospectively after a decision had been made in the project makes banks and mining company not happy and worry future investors
It seems that retrospectivity is a bad word to use.
Thanks to the MSM for all their help explaining this to voters.
Panzuriel
a 5% change to the tax rate probably does not affect your ability to repay a home loan, but if the government is taking 30%/40% of your disposable income, I think most Australian will default on their home loan
Actually a lot of people here owe Antony an apology for Saturday night. They whined that the ABC was not as pro Labor as the other channels in it’s predictions. Antony was right and the other channels were wrong espec PVO who called it a Lanor majority at 8.01
[a 5% change to the tax rate probably does not affect your ability to repay a home loan, but if the government is taking 30%/40% of your disposable income, I think most Australian will default on their home loan]
Why are comparing disposable income with company profit?
The mining tax is history and whoever leads Labor to the next election will spend the first week of the campaign repeating that it is dead, buried and cremated.
[The retrospectively everyone is talking about is in relation to project decision.
For example, if you decided to buy a house, the bank will only led to you based on your ability to repay, and you would only take out a loan, based on your ability to repay the loan over the next 30 years. If after you made the decision, the government then decides to put an additional 30% tax on your pay, you are going to have more difficulty in repaying the loan and this will make the bank nervous
So while we are talking about future profits, mines cost billions in investments by mining companies and banks, to change the rules retrospectively after a decision had been made in the project makes banks and mining company not happy and worry future investors]
This is just special pleading. If the corporate tax rate was raised it would apply to current projects, in which case do you think we’d see the mining companies arguing to have different rates apply to existing projects than future ones? Not very likely. Even less likely in the case that tax rates are reduced – I can’t imagine them offering to pay more of their profits as tax because they’re now clearing more than when they conceived the project.
Even though there is technically no Coalition at all at the moment
(and this may not just be of academic interest)
I guess we have to live with the ABC tally for them
including the NatWA.
This also makes a difference to the national two-party preferred
total which seems to get mentioned in arguments to the
Independents.
If the Nationals in WA don’t want to be part of a future
Coalition then their votes (across WA) should not be
included directly in the Coalition TPP result.
Instead, all the National WA votes would have to be
distributed to later preferences until they reached
either a Liberal or an ALP candidate.
Dovif – I don’t think any other industry has guarantees for years of lax taxation.
Government reserves the right to change tax laws annually.
The retrospectivity here is from the miners perspective. Tough, if the tax laws change, the miners can wear it like everyone else.
A very pertinent post in Larvatus Prodeo that will interest many here. It comments on Laura Tingle article in today’s Australian Financial Review.
Read the rest of the post here
Dr Good, will they do a 2PP between Crook and the ALP candidate in O’Connor for the national total?
I’m back, just went to a meeting that made both parties look like grown ups. Can people fill me in on/provide a link on the Boothby claims? I see also the Rabbit has flipped flopped on costings, is that the gospel truth, please update, I’ve been in the wilderness since early this morning.
Autocrat
The difference is the rate, if you increase company tax rate by 20% see how many companies will complain about it being retrospective
George
I am comparing a big mining project (30 years project) to buying a house (a 30 year project) and company profits and disposable income are available to repay
[Laura Tingle’s Friday AFR Canberra observed column is worth the $3 alone.]
Laura Tingle is always right on the ball – did everyone else catch her roll her eyes at the end of the “debate”?
Itep
If the Nationals WA are counted in the Coalition then they will have to
do a three way count of all votes in O’Connor:
those that prefer Nat over Lib and ALP,
those that prefer Lib over ALP and Nat,
those that prefer ALP over Lib and Nat.
Then they will have to add up the first two numbers and
the Coalition will get that added to its TPP. The ALP
will just get the third number.
This will also happen in other seats with Nat, Lib, ALP.
[The difference is the rate, if you increase company tax rate by 20% see how many companies will complain about it being retrospective]
None.
[I am comparing a big mining project (30 years project) to buying a house (a 30 year project) and company profits and disposable income are available to repay]
Dovif, I have a whole swag of costs I can claim through my company, thus reducing the tax I pay on profit. Last time I checked, I can’t apply the same with my personal tax. If you apply a 30% tax on my company’s profits, that is not the same as applying a 30% tax on my personal income. If I could claim my house repayments then that would be a fairer comparison of applying a tax on company/personal.
Of course it is. They have eagerly accept significant decreases in company tax rates for years.
No talk against *evil* retrospective nature of such moves. Also business groups just prior to this election were urging further cuts to company tax rates with the normal code for increasing the GST (ie broaden more efficient taxes etc)
ltep wrote
You are dreaming yet again ltep. Just read how much profit the major companies are making. This tax WILL go ahead.
Is it just me or is Tingle like someone you’d see doing some administration at the hehehe hehe hellfire club!
[Laura Tingle is always right on the ball – did everyone else catch her roll her eyes at the end of the “debate”?]
Yes – that was a classic of the campaign 🙂
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/27/abbotts-public-service-freeze-could-devastate-the-oz/
almost makes you want abbott as pm *shudders*
[The best chance for Labor is for them to get Wilkie on side publicly ASAP (with a firm statement he can only support Labor).
He hasn’t sounded like it so far. Why do these independents have to be so magnanimous? He ought to want to stick it to the Coalition after his treatment at their hands.]
Triton – perhaps Tone will be able to get limitednoos to give Wilkie favourable coverage!
Note that the O’Connor Two Candidate Preferred statistic which has
already been counted (Crook vs Tuckey) is of no use in telling us the Two Party
Preferred result. The votes have to be counted again.
[Laura Tingle is always right on the ball – did everyone else catch her roll her eyes at the end of the “debate”?]
Does she still make an appearance on Late Night Live radio show? She and Phillip Adams have a great cynical look at politics.
It is just an industry con to talk of retrospectively imposed, a transparent con I’m stunned so many fell for. A good economic model to justify the FID needs to be robust and should consider up and down risk and sensitivity. Miners were taking massive windfall price gains they could afford some tax downside – it in fact was explicitly the point. If you are going to fall for such stupid cons then you got to accept personal tax rises or service cuts. Personally I’m pretty happy for miners to pay closer to a fair price for my minerals.
On topic Julia should go into opposition and fight to show how much better the labor plan was each time Tony turns of a light to honor his savings.
ITEP – Re mining tax – You mean labor should just walk away from another fight. Afte dropping to its knees, then its belly it should finally crawl away. That should improve its electoral standing no end.
Further, I’m not sure Windsor and Oakeshott would be too happy about that.
re 643 and the Solicitor-General, Stephen Gageler, saying no problem with GG being involved despite her personal relationship (mother-in-law) with Shorten:
Before anyone asks the obvious next question (for conspiracy theorists), that is, whether the Solicitor-General himself is biased, let it be noted that in 2007, before he became Solicitor-General, Gageler advised the Howard Coalition government that a function hosted by the then prime minister did not entail the provision of a service and did not have to be declared a gift under the Commonwealth Electoral Act.
Speaking of relationships, did all see that Annabel Crabb says (ABC election page) Wise man Bruce Hawker is the cousin of Tony Windsor?
ZIZEK – Interesting, but News Corp is probably a lot more worried about an NBN. Does anyone have any idea how much that might hurt their bottom line. I assume it will create a lot of competition for foxtel.
DAVID – Gageler is widely regarded as a good lawyer. But I doubt there is much directly applicable precedent in this situation. So at the end of the day, he’s just had to apply his common sense.
[a 5% change to the tax rate probably does not affect your ability to repay a home loan, but if the government is taking 30%/40% of your disposable income, I think most Australian will default on their home loan]
By definition, your DISPOSABLE income is what is left AFTER meeting commitments like mortgage repayments. So nobody will default on anything from such a tax. Likewise wiht teh mining tax; it is a tax AFTER debt has been repaid and a return on equity achieved. We can debate what that tax and return should be, but nobody is going broke from it. THis was why the whole mining tax scare campaign was a lie.
rosa
Foxtel makes their money on Sport and Movies, so unless people are streaming everything legally from overseas, it should not make a lot of difference
People are still going to get Foxtel for AFL, League, Union and horse racing
SOCRATES – and meeting your commitments like paying the Australian people a decent amount for digging up their assets.
Too many super-optimists on this site. When push comes to shove, how many preditctions have been on the money?
Abbott is really struggling with the “new paradigm” of transparency and openness with this piece of spin:
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/briefings-deal-significant-win-abbott-20100827-13v0s.html
Firstly, he refuses to be honest with the public about his costings then when he cave’s in, he spins it and claims the flip flop as a significant win. I can believe a proportion of the voting public can’t see through him, however, I doubt the gang of four are very impressed by his politicking.
Okay, I know it is in fact a serious issue, but doesn’t it seem a little odd to anyone that in these days of climate change and global financial crises, mining taxes and national broadband networks, changes to parliamentary processes and “shredding” of our westminster system of government … that the next government of Australia might in fact be determined by the parties policies on poker machines?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/27/2995646.htm?section=justin
It just seems like such an n-th order issue. Somewhat akin to the internet filter and the boats (bot subjects which I notice no-one is even mentioning any more).
Rosa 883 I suppose a cynic (as distinct from a conspiracy theorist) could say that both with Howard and now with the governor-general, Gageler is just delivering the legal opinion the client wanted. Still the constitutional lawyers in my house say the SG is right so I’ll stay with that.
Socrate
I think the mining tax model is fine, the problem is the 30% to 40% after tax profit rate
Mining company and banks have margins … they act as a buffer for bad years … and there will be bad years in the future
the mining tax should be able to get through the House of Reps with 72 ALP + 1 green + Wilkie + 2 independents =76 katter won’t support. it will then get through the senate with the greens balance of power. it doesn’t come in until 2012/13 anyway so why would Labor backdown on the mining tax that does not make sense at all.
@rosa 882
Murdoch says Australia’s internet speeds are a disgrace and he’s slammed the Federal Government and Telstra ect ect
Anyone think Tony will backflip on NBN to get govt? it was never a stand on Principle it was an attack on message – he could trim it back a little say he is more efficient than labor and having reviewed the figures and being blackmailed by the indies will do it better. Julia should not go into opposition if Abbott isn’t going to turn off lots of lights – like the add disaster for the Australian these election stunts and posturing aren’t meant to be implemented.
DOVIF – If Foxtel is still able to pay top dollar for those services, I assume. But I suppose the barriers to entry are quite big.
WEWANTPAUL – The problem for Tone is that it has to be a gold-medal, deal-clinching backflip. No point putting it on the table and the independents say no. Then he’ll look like a bigger charlie than he already is.
But why would the independents back someone who’d backflip on something like that.
So it’s a tough call for Tone.
[Too many super-optimists on this site. When push comes to shove, how many preditctions have been on the money?]
About 50-50 😆
[Anyone think Tony will backflip on NBN to get govt? it was never a stand on Principle it was an attack on message – he could trim it back a little say he is more efficient than labor and having reviewed the figures and being blackmailed by the indies will do it better.]
Phony will not be able to get a large amount of his agenda through the house or senate:
TPV – oakshott does not want, or wilkie or bant
PBS cutbacks – will struggle
Paid Parental Leave – windsor does not like middle class welfare, the WA nat is probably opposed
No wonder he is keen to go to another election the current situation is his worst nightmare.
Menzies Institute guy on Sky reckons the Indies are looking for reasons to back Gillard. Wants another election.
Surely as each day goes by the NBN is becoming more ‘undoable’. Unless Abbott decides to take the Gordian knot approach – and being the ideological vandal he is, nothing would surprise.