Month: March 1993

The Prime Minister, Paul Keating, said at the weekend he wanted to have another bash at getting a four-year term.

You’d think these politicians would learn.

We have already had a referendum on four-year terms, in 1988. And it was knocked back. It was not just a minor rebuff, but it failed in every state and territory. Less than a third of voters approved it.

The cry goes up that we have too many elections. The constant uncertainty is bad for business. A four-year term would reduce the number and allow politicians to make decisions for the long-term good of the nation, not in the short-term interest of getting re-elected next time.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_referen”

One of the major debates in the industrialised world two to three decades ago was how to deal with increased leisure time.

That debate was sadly irrelevant if this election is anything to go by.

This election has been about work, more than anything else _ or more accurately paid work.

Both parties predicate their policies on the aim of getting one million unemployed people back to paid work. Both had an auction over who would pay the most money to (mainly) women for childcare while they were at work. A central part of one party’s policy is to change the relationship between those who get paid for work and those who pay to get work done. And a debate has raged about whether people should be taxed immediately before they get paid for work or only when they spend what they get paid.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_pollsaty”

The past week saw two chapters in the drawn-out dismal pay-TV saga: an election and a court decision.

The story so far. Intelligent scientists and engineers invent new ways of delivering images on television screens inside lounge rooms. The owners of the lounge rooms and television screens will get many more channels delivering lots of specialist services and are willing to pay for them. Clever business people have worked with the clever engineers to devise a way to charge the people in the lounge room according to how much television they watch.

Around the world this has happened, broadening the choice of viewers, providing employment and keeping people off the streets and in front of television screens.

But not in the clever country. We have been waiting, waiting, waiting. There is only one reason for the delay: the misguided hand of government.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_paytv”

Nearly all the marginal seats in NSW are rural. Unlike some past elections, the Sydney metropolitan area will not play a large part in deciding who is to govern Australia.

The Coalition thinks its tax reforms will be a winner in rural NSW, and not the millstone they are in other areas. In the rural areas, the abolition of petrol excise counts for a lot. Taxing consumption rather than business inputs is attractive to rural exporters. However, these people might be Coalition voters anyway. The expansion of Sydney has caused some significant redistributions which do not help Labor.

The Labor-held marginals in NSW are: Lowe (0.5) Richmond (0.6) and Page (0.7) Parramatta (1.0), Calare (1.4), Macarthur (2.8), Robertson (3.5), Eden-Monaro (4.4).

The Coalition-held marginals are: Paterson (0.1), Gilmore (0.6), Macquarie (2.1).
Continue reading “1993_03_march_nswmarg”

We’ve have the Kennett Factor, the GST Factor and the Tired Government Factor.

Let’s add another _ the 1990 Factor. The 1990 Factor says that, leaving aside policies and personalities, the vote and seat distribution this election makes life very difficult for Labor.

In the 1990 election came down to less than 5000 votes in a total of 9.9 million.

Taking away the unemployment figure, the GST, the unappealing leaders, Medicare and the other accoutrements of the campaign, the Government’s task to get re-elected is now the most difficult of any government in Australia’s history.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_marginal”

Prime Minister, Paul Keating, and the Leader of the Opposition, John Hewson, are now committed to looking at whether a referendum should be held for a four-year term.

The theory is that a longer term would provide better economic management and enable politicians to make the tough decisions without fear of an immediate electoral backlash. They could be making long-term decisions which would bear fruit further down the track. This would be better for the nation. Great theory. But wrong.

What has been the Australian experience? All states except Queensland now have four year terms. Could anyone seriously argue that Victoria, South Australia or Western Australia were better managed under their four-year terms than Queensland under its three-year term? The contrary is demonstrably true. The Cain-Kirner and Burke-Lawrence four years were not brilliant examples of prudent economic management. The longer term only meant that voters had to put up with those Governments for one year longer than they should have. Carmel Lawrence used the extra year to do a repair job and went some distance in doing it. However, Joan Kirner did not make things any better in her state while the voters waited to throw her out. South Australia was similarly mismanaged under John Bannon and now the voters have to wait out an unnecessary extra year to get rid of Lynn Arnold’s lame-duck Government. Tasmania’s four-year term did not save it from an early election after the breakdown of the Green-Labor Accord, and its finances are still fairly sick. Queensland, the only state with a three-year term, is the only state which has had sound financial management over the past half decade. The Australian experience shows there is no case for a four-year term on economic grounds, or indeed on any other ground.

Queenslanders very sensibly rejected a referendum proposal for a four-year term in March 1991. When they look at what has happened in the other states since they can be proud of their decision.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_leader29”

A UE1 JUDGMENT in the Federal Court on Thursday has shown serious weaknesses in the Government’s pay-television policy. The judgment itself was confined to a narrow point of statutory interpretation. It did not canvass the broader issues and the court was not invited to do so. None the less, the judgment ruled that the Minister for Communications, Senator Bob Collins, had acted beyond power in making a decision about the issuing of multi-point distribution system (MDS) licences.

Until very recently it was thought that MDS technology had only limited application to domestic television. When it was realised that MDS could be used for city-wide domestic pay TV, the Government attempted to stop a tender process under way for the issuance of further MDS licences.

The Government’s action put a spoke in the wheels of two businesses which had intended to use the technology. One was Steve Cosser’s Australis which wanted to launch a domestic pay-TV service in Sydney and Melbourne. The other was Kerry Stokes’s Australian Capital Equity which wanted to use the technology for other purposes, probably text and high-quality radio transmission. ACE successfully sought to have the Minister’s action declared invalid. As a result the Government must serious rethink its pay-TV direction.

It must be said that Kerry Stokes, through a family company, owns The Canberra Times, but he has not had any input in the preparation of editorial matter on the subject. In any event, his aims were not specifically directed at pay TV. He was caught up in a wider web. The broad question is not and never has been the delivery of text and still graphics through MDS which is Mr Stokes’s interest. The broad question is pay TV.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_leader20”

Prime Minister, Paul Keating, has said that if the Coalition wins the election he would allow the GST legislation through, but would combine with the Democrats to defeat the Coalition’s industrial-relations legislation.

He says that the GST would be a money Bill and therefore should pass. On the other hand, he says that because the Coalition had not presented its IR Bill before the election it would not have a mandate for it.

The arguments are specious and ill-founded.

Mr Keating no doubt is still smarting from the Whitlam dismissal in 1975. That watershed in Australian politics is an event likely to colour perceptions of the role of the Senate in Australian politics, and rightly so.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_leader11”

Electrical workers employed by the ACT Electricity and Water, through their union, have entered into an enterprise agreement with their management about wages and conditions. They have lodged it with the Industrial Relations Commission. There is no cogent reason why that agreement should not go ahead and the parties who entered into it should be able to rely upon it.

However, the Minister for Industrial Relations, Wayne Berry, does not like it. He says that it runs counter to an agreement with 15 other unions about wages and conditions throughout the ACT Public Service. He thinks that the ACTEW agreement could jeopardise that agreement.

At Mr Berry’s instigation, it appears that the ACT Cabinet will overturn the enterprise agreement.

Mr Berry’s position is at odds with the general trend in industrial relations to break down monolithic structures and to enable and empower workers in given enterprises to work out their own conditions with their own managements.
Continue reading “1993_03_march_leader1”