 |
| Red and blue numbers respectively indicate two-party majorities for Labor and Liberal. Click for larger image. Map boundaries courtesy of Ben Raue at The Tally Room. |
The electorate of Canberra covers the southern half of the national capital together with the bulk of the Australian Capital Territory’s undeveloped remainder, with northern Canberra accommodated by the seat of Fraser. Both seats were created when the territory was first divided into two electorates in 1974. The Australian Capital Territory had been a single electorate since the expansion of parliament in 1949, but its member only obtained full voting rights in 1968. A third electorate of Namadgi was created for the 1996 election, accommodating Tuggeranong and its surrounds in Canberra’s far south, which pushed the Canberra electorate north of Lake Burley Griffin to include the city’s centre and inner north. However, the previous order was reinstated when the seat entitlement slipped back to two at the 1998 election, in large part due to Howard government cutbacks to the federal public service. The two ACT electorates presently have enrolments of around 140,000 voters each, compared with a national average of around 105,000.
The Australian Capital Territory electorate was won by an independent at its first election in 1949, but was held by Labor after 1951. Kep Enderby came to the seat at a 1970 by-election and carried over to Canberra in 1974, succeeding Lionel Murphy as Attorney-General upon his appointment to the High Court in early 1975. Enderby was then dumped by a 10.4% swing to the Liberals at the December 1975 election, and for the next two terms the seat was held for the Liberals by John Haslem. The seat’s natural Labor inclination finally reasserted itself in 1980 with the election of Ros Kelly, who served in the Hawke-Keating ministries from 1987 until she fell victim to the still notorious “sports rorts” affair in 1994. Kelly’s indulgent departure from parliament a year later was followed by a disastrous by-election result for Labor, with Liberal candidate Brendan Smyth gaining the seat off a 16.2% swing.
Smyth unsuccessfully contested the new seat of Namadgi at the 1996 election, and Canberra was easily won for Labor by Bob McMullan, who had served the ACT as a Senator since 1988. The reassertion of the old boundaries in 1998 prompted McMullan to move to Fraser, the Labor margin in the redrawn Canberra being 5.1% lower than the one he had secured on the short-lived boundaries in 1996. Canberra went to Annette Ellis, who had entered parliament as the member for Namadgi in 1996, while Fraser MP Steve Darvagel agreed to go quietly after a brief parliamentary career that began when he succeeded John Langmore at a by-election in February 1997. Ellis added 7.2% to an existing 2.3% margin at the 1998 election, since which time the seat has returned fairly consistent results with Labor margins ranging from a low of 7.0% in 2013 to a high of 11.8% in 2007.
Both Ellis and McMullan announced they would not seek another term six months out from the August 2010 election. Large fields of preselection contestants emerged for the two seats, with the front-runner in Canberra initially thought to be Michael Cooney, chief-of-staff to ACT Education Minister Andrew Barr and a former adviser to opposition leaders Mark Latham and Kim Beazley. However, Cooney shortly withdrew amid suggestions Kevin Rudd was ready to use national executive intervention to block him. The eventual winner was Gai Brodtmann, a former DFAT public servant who had established a local communications consultancy with her husband, senior ABC reporter Chris Uhlmann. Together with Andrew Leigh’s win in Fraser, Brodtmann’s preselection was seen as a rebuff to local factional powerbrokers who had pursued a deal in which the Left was to support Mary Wood, adviser to Housing Minister Tanya Plibersek and member of the Centre Coalition (Right), which the Right was to reciprocate in Fraser by backing Nick Martin, the party’s assistant national secretary and a member of the Left. However, Brodtmann was able to build a cross-factional support base of sufficient breadth to prevail over Wood by 123 votes to 109. Following the 2013 election defeat she was promoted to shadow parliamentary secretary in the defence portfolio.
Off to take grandson for a walk in a tick-free zone.
The coalition party room are meeting today for first time since budget. Will the nats and others have the courage to stand up to the Abbott?
Shellbell
Its not errant nonsense. Its how markets work. Take the profit away and so goes the business.
You cannot ignore this simple fact. We know what happens now increases profits to the maximum.
Its simple economics.
Boerwar
Yep, I noted that but I am more concerned about them keeping ‘secrets’ not just from the people and media in general but even from the allegedly democratically elected parliamentary representatives of the public on a flimsy PR excuse.
Its a concern that is growing as Morrison’s flunkies simply refuse to inform us about what is being done in our name and will not even inform the official ‘watchdogs’.
Its a fundamental threat to the concept and operation of a democratically open and accountable government and bureaucracy.
Just cos Morrison says we won’t be informed doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be informed, the fundamental basis of democracy is the public should be informed,
We are not at war.
It’s bullshit.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/abbott-and-co-struggle-to-douse-budget-heat-20140526-zroh7.html
Great piece on how Abbott and Co have never really left student politics
[Andrew Catsaras Thank you @MathiasCormann for transcript saying “We delivered the Budget Australia had to have” Is there a poorer line to use in politics?]
Shorten speech now 24
victoria@1756
Didn’t Paul Keating say something similar?
Shorten addressing caucus meeting
[guytaur
Posted Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 7:27 am | PERMALINK
Good Morning
@AndrewBGreene: Asked if there’ll be ads promoting budget @MathiasCormann tells ABC “we’re going to be doing what needs to be done” to explain changes
These will be counterproductive. Voters know the truth about the unfairness of the budget and will just get more angry that taxpayers money is being spent in this way.]
Which is exactly what happened when they tried it with workchoices.
don
Yes a phrase that hurt politically for him.
The recession we had to have.
In hindsight he was right as years of continual growth has shown
don
Yep he did
Re Boerwar @1745
They did not deny it. Nor did they confirm it.
So it must be true.
Matthias cormann aint no Keating
victoria
That may be understatement of the decade 🙂
“@ABCNews24: Bill Shorten: Voters have made it clear this is the wrong #Budget for Australia #auspol #Budget2014”
[
Didn’t Paul Keating say something similar?
]
Yes, thought it didn’t stop him winning the next election. But then, as has been suggested, Cormann ain’t no Keating.
Sorry about the long post but I don’t know how to post an article that is behind a wirewall
Budget pain? Not for millionaires who pay no tax
SMH
May 13, 2014
Peter Martin
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140512-zr9o3.html
“Pain all round” will be the rallying cry of the night. Joe Hockey says his first budget – tonight – will hit everyone from high earners to politicians to Australians too poor to pay to see the doctor. All of us will have to “contribute budget repair”.
Except that we won’t.
The latest tax statistics show 75 ultra-high-earning Australians paid no tax at all in 2011-12. Zero. Zip.
Each earned more than $1 million from investments or wages. Between them they made $195 million, an average of $2.6 million each.
The fortunate 75 paid no income tax, no Medicare levy and no Medicare surcharge, even though 60 of them had private health insurance.
The reason? They managed to cut their combined taxable incomes to $82. That’s right, $1.10 each.
Cutting taxable income that far doesn’t come cheap.
Forty-five of the uber millionaires claimed a total of $64.4 million for the “cost of managing their tax affairs”. That’s a staggering $1.4 million each. (As a point of comparison an entry-level H&R Block consultation costs $49.)
At face value the figures suggest these super-high earners were prepared to spend an unlikely half of their incomes on tax advice. A more likely explanation is that they received far greater incomes than they reported and spent only a portion on tax advice.
It wasn’t wasted.
Ten of the millionaires claimed between them $1.3 million in work-related deductions, for things such as car expenses and clothing. Ten claimed a total of $5 million for donations and gifts, a category that includes political as well as charitable donations.
And they ran loss-making businesses.
The 30 who were in business reported total business income of $121 million offset by expenses of $122 million. Those who ran farms carried over $61.5 million in earlier tax losses and lost an extra $3 million in 2011-12.
When it came to investing they bought up big on shares that paid so-called franking credits on which they could claim tax deductions and stayed away from those that did not. They received $18.7 million in franked dividends in 2011-12, and only $565,000 in dividends that were unfranked.
On Tuesday night these 75 will escape the deficit reduction levy applying to taxable incomes of more than $180,000. Their taxable incomes are closer to nil than $180,000 even though they are well off enough to afford outrageously priced tax advice. And they’ll almost certainly escape the extra charge for bulk-billed visits to the doctor. About the only thing they won’t escape is higher petrol prices, although it should be noted that five of them claim work-related car expenses, so they might be able pass those costs on to the Tax Office.
It isn’t only millionaires. Tax Office figures show there are 1095 Australians earning in excess of $150,000 who pay no tax. Half of them sought tax advice and shelled out an impressive total of $98 million, which works out to $223,000 each. Their biggest lurk is negative gearing. Most lose large sums on properties they rent out in order to destroy their taxable incomes, hoping to make it up later when they sell the properties for a lightly taxed profit.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/budget-pain-not-for-millionaires-who-pay-no-tax-20140512-zr9o3.html#ixzz32rtJXjnD
“@ABCNews24: Bill Shorten: We have a PM and a Government who do not understand education or health #auspol #Budget2014”
“@political_alert: Shadow Immigration Minister @RichardMarlesMP will address the @PressClubAust at 12.30pm on Labor’s immigration approach #auspol”
Budget ads? Like everything else from this Government, they’ll be a mixture of disinformation, half truths and most likely a few outright lies. Labor needs to find a way to get the ads fact-checked. If the ads talk about a ‘Budget Emergency’ then they will be political in a way that the ads for, say, the GST and the Carbon Price weren’t.
It would be good the Parliament could force the Liberal Party to pay for the ads if they don’t strictly meet the criteria for Government advertising.
Anyway, why should the taxpayer cough up for the bill when the Liberal Party has Newscorp actively campaiging for them in all of their crapsheets?
Steve777
Due to the Liberals complaining about taxpayer adlverts the rules are strict. Cannot be political. Has to be on facts.
So therefore if the phrase budget emergency is used that is political and not a fact thus meaning the Liberal Party would be forced to pay the adverts.
Could bankrupt them 👿
Warren Peace
Thank you for that at #1768.
IF [big ‘if’] a budget surplus is so all important then that article shows 2 simple ways revenue could be significantly increased – change negative gearing and franking credits.
No pain, lots of gain.
@gabriellechan: Shorten:”For every dollar a single parent loses, someone on $500,000 is paying 20 cents. Is that fair?” http://t.co/qZPLL3svmr #politicslive
Another reason an advertising campaign will fail. Senator Committees will be running at the same time with media reporting on the results.
#1749
The nonsense may also be arrant.
#1775 was FYI Shellbell
guytaur@1689
Mr Gao made his choice and has suffered the consequences.
I am saving my sympathy for the unfortunate morons who get addicted to that crap.
If Lib adverts tell us exactly what we will gain or lose, and tell the truth, I don’t think they could be published. They’d be too damning.
bemused
I have sympathy for a human being who has been murdered. That is as far as it goes
“@FarrellPF: Senator Cash and senator Singh pretty much just screaming at each other now. Senator Carr joining in occasionally.”
Before people start passing judgment on the murdered student, it has been mentioned that he was in fact a police informer
“@SenatorWong: PM’s spending on official residences to increase by $245,000 to $1.86 million a year #Estimates #auspoI – Team Wong”
[Senator Penny Wong @SenatorWong 4s
PM’s Dept has confirmed efficiency dividend doesn’t apply to PM’s residences #Estimates #auspoI – Team Wong]
confessions@1699
Your yapping is noted.
@Jo_Tovey: G4S recording contradicts review submission on Manus riot, says plan was to invite notorious mobile squad in http://t.co/oFH7WUx0rp
Governments using commercial advertising to promote their measures is not really something we can do anything about. Governments do need the ability to inform the public of implemented policy, and the public service is not really in a position to distinguish between the informative aspects and the party political aspects.
The limited oversight is not going to raise any objections except to the most blatantly political, and I’m sure the Libs are well enough advised to keep on the not-quite-blatant side of the line.
I thought, for example, that the ALP carbon price compensation ads (“supporting those who need it most”) were an utter waste of money and should never have been allowed – absolutely zero information value in my opinion – and yet they were ‘approved’.
Anyway, I would hope that the LNP would at least be limited to talking about what is actually legislated – which at this stage doesn’t seem like that much.
Unless the Libs have a lot better advice than they appear to have access to (based on the contents of the budget and their sales job of that stinking mess) I can’t see commercial advertising being any more effective for the Libs than it was for the ALP (although the ALP were particularly hopeless at that kind of thing).
[1780
guytaur
“@FarrellPF: Senator Cash and senator Singh pretty much just screaming at each other now. Senator Carr joining in occasionally.”]
Michaelia Cash is a ranter. She should be renamed Tantrum.
jackol
Advertising on tv as a whole is less effective. The revenue is falling. Now people either speed through advertising on their recorded shows, have a catch up service with no advertisements buy or pirate tv shows again with no advertising.
So the amount of people who sit watching an advert through on a commercial television programme including Foxtel is much less than it used to be.
Hmmm… I wonder how the Government’s party room meeting is progressing? To be a fly on the wall or (given events in Senate Estimates yesterday) a camera.
Labor has now decided to block $2.6bn in budget savings from the freezing of family tax benefit payments, despite some in the party arguing it should be waved through.
On Monday senior Labor sources were clear the freeze in the payment was very likely to be supported, but after a meeting of the shadow cabinet on Monday night, the families spokeswoman, Jenny Macklin, announced it will be blocked.
“Labor will not support a freeze to any family tax benefit payment rate,” she said as she arrived at parliament.
“We want to make it clear to those families in Australia, especially the poorest families in this country, that Labor will stand up for them. Labor will make sure that they continue to get the family tax benefits support they need.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/labor-resolves-to-fight-family-benefits-freeze
“@bkjabour: Labor caucus has deferred debate on Melissa Parke’s motion against offshore processing of asylum seekers”
“@abcAndrewG: Roger Rogerson lawyer, Paul Kenny; ‘he was treated like a dog’ @ABCNews24”
1792 is comment on conduct of police arresting Rogerson.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/roger-rogerson-arrested-over-alleged-murder-of-jamie-gao-20140527-390×2.html
“@FactCheckJohn: “I don’t know what television shows they’ve been watching” Rogerson’s lawyer Paul Kenny. Hmmm maybe Blue Murder?”
[The Chief Justice of the Family Court has expressed concern about cuts to legal aid in the federal budget.
Justice Diana Bryant said access to legal aid was already a problem in the Family Court, and she was worried about the impact of a further $15 million in Commonwealth funding cuts outlined in the budget.
She said a lack of legal representation was particularly problematic in cases involving allegations of domestic violence.
“In Victoria, for example, in the last 12 months they’ve not been funding one party where the other party is unrepresented, so that a mother who is asserting violence where the father is unrepresented would not get legal aid,” Justice Bryant said.
“It’s bad enough to be cross-examined by the violent party, but it’s worse if you have to run the case yourself and people can’t do it.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-27/family-court-chief-concerned-about-budget-cuts-to-legal-aid/5479044
STEVEN – I’m sure that Tony is spouting slogans at the party room as we speak. They are the only mob in this country who deserve one of his bullshit showers.
I don’t know what Rogers Lawyer was on about by the way the Plod treated his client.
He should of been at Thommos office and seen how the Plod and the arranged media treated him.
BW
[Use of dissmissive, emotive and incorrect terms such as ‘meh’, ‘abducted’ and ‘held without charge’ is more of the same.]
Actually, these are all, in context, aptly used. Whatever Pspehos believes should happen to the guilty parties, his position, expressly stated by him (and my you below) is to set this death against the prospective deaths at sea arising from the intersection of people seeking asylum and the determination of successive Australian regimes to frustrate their attempts to seek protection in some bizarre piece of brutal misanthropic “pain with a purpose” calculus.
One may infer that the death of Barati serves utility even if one doesn’t expressly endorse the end, because it is cautionary, as is the systemetic misery imposed by our regime on those abducted.
[BTW, I have yet to hear a Greens congratulate Morrison for stopping the drownings which had reached the cumulative total of around 1600.]
I hope none of us ever does anything similar, and if someone does, I will work to have them removed from our ranks. No such person ought to be abided in our party. Of all the many horeendosu things put by the enemies of asylum seekers, the claim that our regime in some way serves human wellbeing by resort to systematic and entirely self-serving brutality is surely the most offensive of claims.
[r wasn’t it about stopping the mass drownings of men, women and children after all?]
As you well know, that was mere eyewash, designed to assuage the consciences of the insistently cognitvely dissonant. The openly xenophobic reactionaries scarcely bother with it, except when speaking outside their tribe.
If casualty rates were not 5% but, say, 95% that too would “stop the boats” and “prevent future drownings”. Indeed, it might even be that Australia wouldn’t bother having a policy at all on “boats” precisely because most who tried it failed. The costs of “border security” (note it is not called “asylum seeker safety”) would be virtually zero, and all that expensive brutalisation wouldn’t be needed. From a reactionary perspective, that would allow the illusion that they are at heart good and decent folk easier to tell themselves.
So the real problem, for reactionaries is not that 5% of people about whom they at best care little, drown, but that 95% of them do not.
lizzie – And, of course, cutting back legal aid is a false economy because it means cases are less likely to settle and run for much longer. Self-represented litigants can make cases last two or three times as long.
And it’s not as if Legal Aid is good money