Month: August 1996

Independent Michael Moore has unveiled a plan to increase the term of the ACT Legislative Assembly from three years to four years. It is getting support from other MLAs.

When the ACT first got self-government in 1989, the Federal Parliament provided for a form of proportional representation and fixed three-year terms. The first proportional election system proved unworkable. In 1992 a indicative referendum overhwhelmingly supported the Hare-Clark system.

In order to give effect to that result, the Federal Parliament repatriated control over elections to ACT Legislative Assembly in 1994, giving it power to make general electoral law. The Assembly implemented the spirit of the referendum. That implementation, though, was marred by unsuccessful attempts to circumvent the spirit of the decision by the then governing Labor MLAs bent on serving themselves with a de-facto party voting method. Because of that, the cross-benches and the Liberals forced a further referendum in 1995 to entrench the Hare-Clark system. It was passed overwhelmingly. It means a referendum or a two-thirds majority in the Assembly are required to change it. The entrenched elements are: compulsory voting; a minimum five members per electorate; Robson rotation; no party voting and optional preferential voting.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader26aug four-year terms”

The political numbers in the Senate have been rearranged on the whim of an individual rather than the verdict of the masses at the ballot box. Mal Colston was placed high on the Queensland Labor Senate ticket and was duly elected, as indeed would any one who could breathe when put in that position. The fact is that the occupants of the two top places on the Senate ticket of each of the major parties get elected, irrespective of merit.

Last week, Senator Colston, after 20 years of being elected on the Labor ticket and voting the party line in the Senate spat the dummy and resigned from the party. Apparently he was disappointed at not getting the nod for the position of Deputy President of Senate. Senator Colston, from the Labor right, did not get the party’s endorsement for the position. That went to left-winger Sue West. Further, after 20 years of a not-too illustrious career, many in the Queensland branch of the Labor thought it might be time for him to recognise that the party had given him a fair innings and he should move aside for younger blood, particularly as there were several younger people of talent kicking their heels after being defeated in the House of Representatives election who might want to re-enter Parliament. Senator Colston might well have thought his time was up anyway, so it was better to serve his remaining three years as Deputy President of Senate with the better salary and retirement provisions and having the feeling that he served his country better than on the back-bench. So he went Independent in the knowledge he would get the Coalition vote in the Senate for the Deputy President’s job.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader26aug columnston”

Once again, the rhetoric and reality of the Budget do not meet. The Government would like us to believe that it has attacked the deficit by hacking government spending and sparing taxpayers from further impost. No so. In fact, the sum of government outlays were left unchanged, though there have been big cuts in some places and largesse elsewhere. All the attack on the deficit came from the revenue side, which is up 4 per cent in real terms. Most of this is in natural growth and bracket creep by individual income-tax payers.

That said, the Government has had to face an underlying deficit of substantial proportions. A decade of figure juggling has meant that Australia has been deluding itself thinking that the Government can go on providing without us having to pay for it. The deficit had to be dealt with, the question was whether it was to be sooner or later. The Government elected to do it sooner. It wants to deal with the pain early so it can bask in the gain later.

Overall there has been an unwelcome income redistribution from the very poor to the lower middle … cynically, from people who would mostly vote Labor to people the Government wants to convert to Liberal voters.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader21aug budget”

The ACT Government and the ACT Greens should not take much credit from the fact that the National Competition Council let them off the hook over their disgracefully hypocritical decision to re-regulate shopping hours. The Liberals and Greens joined forces in the Assembly to get the legislation through and it has now been gazetted to come in to force from September 9. It will mean an end to supermarket shopping after 7pm at the big malls.

The Government is hypocritical because the Liberals say they stand for free enterprise and a level playing field. The Greens are hypocritical because they say they stand for employment and opportunity for young people.

Fortunately, the law has a two-year sunset arrangement and by then, the Government might see sense. Further, it is fortunate that the move will not cost the ACT millions of federal dollars in “”competition compensation” as asserted by the Opposition, though the possibility was there and it was as well to have the matter tested before it was put into effect.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader19aug shop hours”

It is now mid-way through the third term of ACT self-government. Kate Carnell came to power with a great deal of vigour and enthusiasm and some worthwhile reforms in mind. Some of that has worn off in the face of a range of set-backs, some expected and some unexpected; some beyond her control some within it. None the less, she and her government hope that having achieved some reforms, especially in public-sector management, more visible achievements should start to flow.

The set-backs have been a cultural hostility to public-sector reform; a lack of talent among her colleagues; minority government; and the profound affect of the Howard Government’s policies on Canberra. In Opposition it was easy for Mrs Carnell to say we would do this and that and the world will be sweet. In Government, it is not that simple. There are constraints created by other power centres: unions, the federal sphere, the legislature, Cabinet, the parliamentary party, the party at large and the media.

Mrs Carnell has achieved some pluses that eluded some earlier governments. She has worked a minority government well by not alienating the cross-benches to the extent that she is thrown from office while not compromising her agenda too greatly. She has avoided any hugely embarrassing scandals. She has not increased the total tax take. She is far ore accessible than her predecessors and has not fallen into the trap of adopting a siege mentality in the face of criticism. Some of that, no doubt, is due to her being a good media performer and having the personality to bounce back. However, as she and her government get further into their term, electors will be looking for some tangible evidence of dividends from the reforms … some gain from the pain. People will be watching things like hospital waiting lists, grants commission measures of efficiency to ensure we are getting value for money and fairness in dealing with public spending.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader17aug kate half-way”

The Treasurer, Peter Costello, is still determined to impose his fight-inflation-first policy on the Reserve Bank, despite the independence granted to the bank by statute.

Earlier he said, “”One of the things I would like to do in the appointment of a new governor is have an exchange of letters which will set out, from the government’s point of view, the targets it would like the governor to have, and the governor, of course, by exchange of letters to agree to do that.”

That was tantamount to the Government laying down the law. Now he appears to have given ground by saying that both the governor-designate and the Government would confirm their commitment to the bank’s target of averaging underlying inflation between 2 and 3 per cent.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader15aug reserve bank”

The ACT Government has the right attitude on Floriade, but appears to have gone about it the wrong way. The Minister for Urban Service, Tony De Domenico says, “”It is about time interstate visitors, particularly those from Sydney, paid their way and stopped expecting everything for nothing.” True enough. But his solution is to impose a $5 parking fee around Floriade. The trouble with this approach is that a very large proportion of interstate visitors come by bus and therefore will not pay the $5 fee. On the other hand, the greater portion by far of Canberra visitors to Floriade will arrive by car and be hit by the fee.

Mr De Domenico wanted to have it both ways: to be able to say that Floriade is still a free event and to say that interstate people are contributing to the cost. The result has been that for most Canberra families Floriade is now no longer free, but for most interstate people it still is. It is the worst of both worlds. He should have bitten the bullet and charged an entry fee of, say, $5 a head or $10 a family. The busloads of interstate visitors would then contribute a fair share. The fee would not deter significant numbers because there is so much else to do and see in Canberra and it is a particularly pleasant time of year to do it. To the extent that some numbers drop off it may not be such a bad thing, especially send- and third-time visitors and those who wander (or cycle or blade) through just because it is there. Those who pay will get more space to enjoy the flowers.

Mr De Domenico is right to say people should not expect everything for nothing, so he should make them pay … for seeing the flowers, not for parking the car.

The Government faces a difficult task convincing people that screening for prostate cancer carries no proven benefit. The Australian Health Technology Advisory Committee concluded this week that “”it does not seem that finding and treating early prostate cancers will increase men’s life expectancy or quality of life.” As a result the Government will not fund a mass screening program.

Overall, that seems like a sensible approach. When the whole population is considered, money spent on prostate-cancer screening could save more lives and reduce more suffering by being spent elsewhere. It may be that screening and treating reduces life expectancy and increases suffering because of their invasive nature. Prostate cancer is usually very slow growing and most men getting it would die from another cause.

That said, 2500 men die of it a year. If discovered early enough it can be cured by removal of the prostate, though that carries a risk of incontinence, impotence, bowel injury and death under anaesthetic. But on an individual level, patients might prefer to take that risk, on medical advice, rather than waiting for symptoms to appear before treatment. If so the question is whether the public should fund it.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader14aug prostate”

The statement by the Prime Minister, John Howard, that a goods and services tax should be more widely debated is a welcome one. From the moment of the defeat of the Coalition under John Hewson at the last election the GST has been a taboo subject. The Coalition was rightly concerned that Labor would again run a huge scare campaign at the slightest hint of it.

Now, however, with a huge majority in the House of Representatives it can afford to be a little more comfortable and relaxed about at least discussing tax reform. Mr Howard said this week that he had openly supported a GST when first put by then Labor Treasurer Paul Keating in the mid-1980s and again when proposed by Dr Hewson. He thought it would be a worthwhile reform, but he rightly recognised that he should live by his promise before the election and not consider it until after the next election. Ruling out a GST was a significant promise, on par with Telstra and industrial relations on the other side of the electoral ledger.

Even so, the next two and a half years should see extensive debate not only on the GST but on tax reform in general. Over the Labor years, middle-income earners have been significantly hit by the tax system. Lower income people have been helped by well-targeted social welfare. People on very high incomes have managed to rearrange their affairs to lessen tax. The pay-as-you-earn taxpayer has copped it badly.
Continue reading “1996_08_august_leader14aug gst”

A final draft of a report on speed limits is expected to be presented to the Australian Transport Council (of state, territory and federal transport ministers) later this year. Apparently it recommends that the standard speed limit in suburban streets be lowered to 50km/h. No doubt there will be a certain amount of needless political and bureaucratic give and take about how and when the limit should be introduced. But speed limits are of their nature of purely local application. A state or territory government could move almost immediately in some or all of its urban areas to reduce the limit.

The case for a reduction is clear. Australia has one of the highest suburban limits in the world. Sixty-two per cent of Australians agree that the limit should be lowered, according to a Federal Office of Road Safety survey. The people most in favour of the same or a higher limit are those aged 15 to 24 … the very people involved in the highest proportion of accidents.

European countries that dropped the limit saw worthwhile reductions in road injuries and fuel consumption. The minor loss of convenience of a 10km/h cut is easily outweighed by considerations of safety and residential amenity. Going below 50km/h would probably be too inconvenient.

It is a question of physics … the force of the impact increases exponentially with velocity of the impact. A reduction in the speed limit by 17 per cent will result in a much greater reduction in the force of impact. Moreover an reduction in speed results in a huge reduction in stopping distances. If one car is travelling 60km/h and another 50km/h both brake at the same time, the car doing 60km/h will still be doing 45km/h by the time the other car has stopped.