Month: September 1996

Actew Corporation has a fairly good reputation for sensitivity to the environment, efficiency as a service deliverer and being a good employer. Indeed it has won awards to that effect. But every large organisation attracts it critics. Some would disagree with the assessment of whether it deserves its reputation. Actew has 1200 staff and it would very surprising if one or two could not be found who are dissatisfied. Actew has 300,000 customers and service receivers and once again one would be bound to find some critics, and critics who are willing to voice their criticisms publicly, in the letters column and on the airwaves.

Actew also has a very strong public critic in the form of the NSW Liberal Member for Burrinjuck, Albe Shultz, whose electorate takes in the Murrumbidgee downstream from Actew’s main sewage-treatment plant. Mr Shultz has been caught several times exaggerating the extent and effect of rare plant by-passes of partially treated sewage in times of high flood when they have little or no effect.

The public discussion of the matter has painted Mr Shultz as an irresponsible exaggerator. But Actew is not satisfied with the remedy of public debate. It has threatened Mr Shultz with action for defamation. Presumably, he will call on public funds to defend the action.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader11sep actew”

Prime Minister John Howard asserts that youth unemployment is one of the greatest social problems facing Australia. He would probably rightly say the same thing about unemployment in general. He further asserts that there are two elements to reducing unemployment: getting a freer labour market and getting sustainable economic growth. The latter, he asserts can only be obtained if the Budget is structurally balanced … that means in deficit during economic downturns and in surplus during growth periods.

These assertions have been made in the lead up to the second parliamentary session of his new government during which legislation for the Budget and for workplace reform go before the Parliament, in particular the Senate.

The Labor Opposition, the Democrats and the Greens have said they will oppose substantial parts of the workplace reforms and many cuts to spending programs that are not contained in standard appropriations Bills. If they are joined by one of two independents in the Senate on any measure, it will be defeated.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader10sep howard budget”

Residents putting up a garage are required to engage in more community consultation than was done before the futsal sporting stadium was approved and construction begun on Lake Burley Griffin foreshore at Acton Park. As Labor’s planning spokesperson Roberta McRae said, “”It is normally almost impossible to get permission to plant an extra tree in the national area.”

In the past people wanting to anything at all in the central national area have been beset with what they might see as bureaucratic obstacles, but are there to protect national-capital standards. But now the National Capital Authority has dropped the word “”planning” from its title it seems to have dropped it from its functions, despite statutory obligations to the contrary, and it has become little more than a national tourism promoter.

That is not to say that the project is without merit. It has several worthwhile points.

It is going on land that is otherwise vacant and surrounded by plenty more vacant land and with many nearby carparks that stand virtually vacant at weekends when the futsal stadium is likely to be used. Its only permanent mark will be the concrete playing field; the seating for 10,000 is temporary and will be carried away when the stadium is not in use.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader09sept futsall”

The Federal Parliament has a stake in all the Federal Territories; the Constitution makes that clear. That stake stems from the fact that they are usually underdeveloped and do not have the wherewithal to functions as full states. The Federal Parliament has from time to time grated self-government in varying degrees to the Territories, holding back some state-type functions and giving other functions to elected bodies. To date those arrangements have always been couched in traditional constitutional terms giving heads of power to the territory and retaining heads of power for the Commonwealth.

Having devolved some power, the Federal Parliament must retain a hand in ensuring the constiutional integrity of the territories is not undermined through abuse of the electoral system or other power weilded by the territory elected bodies of executives.

In the case of the Australian Capital Territory, the federal role also will always include an element of guardianship and trustee of the national-capital elements of the city in the name of the whole Australian people.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader09sep”

The Minister for Communications, Richard Alston, tells us that he has all he needs to know about the composition and terms of reference for the inquiry into media ownership in his head and he will be putting it on the table in due course.

The Coalition promised an early inquiry into media ownership but we are still waiting and the timing is getting crucial, not so much on the inquiry but on the regulatory regime that might flow from it. Inquiries into public policy these days are largely window dressing. Their conclusions are far more likely to be determined by who is doing the inquiry than by the process of the inquiry itself.

Timing is crucial because both Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Packer are circling the Fairfax group which at present is controlled by Canadian Conrad Black, though with only a 25 per cent holding and some pressure from his other business transactions to cash out.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader08sep media ownership”

The High Court’s judgment this week on the challenge by conservative states to aspects of Labor’s industrial-relations legislation has given a very large blank sheet to the Federal Parliament in an field previously dogged by jurisdictional limitations. The effect of the judgment is that by and large the ambit of federal industrial-relations law is now a political matter, not a legal one.

In 1901 the Constitution gave the Federal Parliament power to makes laws with respect to “”conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one state”.

The words do not describe a power over working conditions generally, though for 95 years federal governments have been trying to make it so. On their face, the words limit the power to cases where there is an interstate element and a dispute. Initially the way around the narrowness of the clause was to legislate for working conditions through allowing federal unions (which extend beyond the limits of any one state) to register with a commission and for the commission to set awards that would in theory settle industrial disputes. The Constitution forced Australian mangers and workers to predicate their relations upon a dispute, however artificially created, and to deal with federal unions, which were often remote from the needs and aspirations of workers at enterprise level.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader07sept ir”

Communications Minister Richard Alston let the cat out of the bag and set it among the carrier pigeons with his remarks that it was both inevitable and desirable that the whole of Telstra be privatised. The Australian public was led to believe before the election that the reason for selling just a third of Telstra was to finance major environmental projects, notably in the Murray-Darling basin. And all along the real reason for selling a third of Telstra is to drive in the thin end of the wedge so that the remaining two thirds can be sold later … a move driven by ideology which may or may not be of benefit to the Australian people.

The leader of the Democrats, Cheryl Kernot, has quite pertinently taken some joy at Senator Altson’s comments. She says that the debate about the privatisation of Telstra should be wider and longer. There are many details yet to be spelt out. The key question is how is it better for Australia to sell one of the nations most profitable public enterprises? Is it better for Australia that the lion’s share of Telstra be sold to foreign hands, as it inevitably will be? Leaving the question of foreign ownership aside, would it be better for Telstra to be in private Australian shareholders’ hands than in public ownership. The Government has yet to demonstrate this. It may be that the taxpayers and telecommunications consumers will be better off, but it is yet to be demonstrated. Surely, private investors will only invest if they can make a buck out of it. And if the private investors can make a buck out of it, why is it not possible for public ownership to do the same thing?
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader04sep telstra sell”

TThe idea of Canberra having an international airport should be properly investigated. It is quite likely that Sydney will run out of capacity well before a second airport is built.

Canberra is in an ideal position to take up some of the slack … especially in freight aircraft taking perishables to Asia. Canberra has none of the traffic snarls that delay goods going from the farmlands of NSW on their way to Sydney airport. Not a great deal needs to be done to Canberra airport, especially compared to starting again elsewhere. The ACT Government, in a submission to the House of Representatives inquiry into air freight exports calls for a common domestic-international terminal; a runway upgrade to 747 standard; better taxiing; and a high-speed rail terminal.

For freight and passengers travel time is of far greater importance than distance. The distance of 300kms might seem daunting in European or Japanese terms, but large amount of open space and available transport corridors between here and Sydney mean it can be overcome by technology. It is typical for major airports to be an hour or more out of the centre of the city.

A upgrade of Canberra airport combined with a high-speed rail link, would enable the decision on Sydney’s new airport to be delayed because it would take not only international freight and some international passengers, but the rail link would enable the virtually closing of Sydney-Canberra flights. Rail to Sydney would be more comfortable, cheaper and not much longer and enable business people constant phone and computer use in a way not possible by the air-taxi trip to Sydney CBD.

Unless the Coalition Government is careful it faces a major policy fiasco over health. All the signs are there for a stupid repetition of the Fraser Government’s white-anting of universal health insurance for purely ideological reasons. Its Budget proposals on Medicare are wasteful, foolish and already have been eroded by the private health insurers. They are so transparently doomed not to work that one has to wonder about the intelligence of those who proposed them. The Government’s aim was to get more people into health insurance (or retain those who might otherwise leave). It wanted to do this to get more money into the health system. But its scheme is hopelessly optimistic. The Government’s own Budget figures put the cost of the health-insurance rebate at nearly $500 million a year. Health insurance costs about $500 a head. That means the Government must attract or retain about one million people into private insurance every year the scheme lasts. It is pie in the sky. This $500 million spending on rebates is as foolish as the most ludicrous grant that the former Labor government gave to its coterie of ideologically biased splinter groups.

What has happened. The private health insurers have jacked up their fees and swallowed much of the rebate. This is not economic rationalism; if only it were. This is a gift to ideological mates.

It would have been better for the Government to take a Menzies’ approach. When asked by a Cabinet member after the 1961 election why he was implementing some policies espoused by the Labor Party, he said: “”Fifty per cent of the people voted for them.” Now, 50 per cent the people did not vote for Labor in 1996, but all opinion polls show there is huge support for Medicare. Of more importance, it is good for the people of Australia and should not be sacrificed to ideology.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_leader01sep health”

The High Court did some fancy footwork this week to allow the Catholic Church a say in the medical-negligence involving abortion case that was before it. It blurred the lines that constitute the doctrine of the separation of powers and appears to have laid down one set of principles for other judges and courts that it was not prepared to apply to itself.

The doctrine of the separation of powers is a tricky one … as hard to understand as the Holy Trinity … but it is fundamental to our freedoms and democracy. Small wonder that Joh Bjelke-Petersen could not explain what it meant when posed the question during the Fitzgerald Royal Commission.

Let me try to explain what the doctrine is; why it is so important; and why the High Court should therefore not allowed the Church a hearing on Wednesday nor the pro-abortion lobby a hearing the next day.

Briefly the separation of powers means that we have a legislature, an executive and a judiciary. Each should stick to its own role. When they do not, individual liberty and accountability are threatened.
Continue reading “1996_09_september_forum separation of powers”