Month: December 1996

The haste with which the Government has returned the Bill on migrant eligibility to the Senate indicates a double dissolution is still an option.

The possibility remains, despite Prime Minister John Howard’s tipping of cold water on double-dissolution hints a week ago by his deputy, Peter Costello. Mr Howard has himself resurrected the hinting process with his statement that the Labor Party was making a huge political mistake in opposing the tougher rules for migrant welfare. Mr Howard did not elaborate, but the hint is that Labor would be enabling a double dissolution trigger.

If it is an option, the Government must be careful in its exercise. Usually, the twice rejected Bills that form the constitutional basis for the double dissolution form little or no part in the ensuing election campaign. Arguably that shows a corruption of the system. It indicates that double dissolutions are use not for the proper constitutional purpose of breaking a legislative impasse between the Houses, but to seize electoral opportunity to extend the life of the Government. In this instance, however, it would be a destructive thing for the election campaign to be fought on the merits of the rejected Bill, because that Bill is about migrant benefits. It would have the potential to unleash more divisive “”debate” on race and migrants.
Continue reading “1996_12_december_leader04dec double dissolution”

John Howard and the Coalition are putting the cart before the horse over the republic. It is a waste of time and money to have a constitutional convention about constitutional reform and whether Australia should become a republic and then to have a vote on some sort of consensus. It should be now obvious that a majority of Australians do not want the British Head of State to be the Australian Head of State and that a majority does not want the Queen (or, worse, King Charles III) to open the Olympic Games, or indeed any other major event in Australia. Australians want an Australian citizen whose primary loyalty is to Australia as Head of State.

It would be better if there were an advisory referendum with the next election on the issue, asking a simple yes-no in favour of an Australian Head of State and an Australian republic. When that inevitably returns a yes vote, the whole of Australia, monarchists and republicans alike, could then devote itself to the question of what sort of republic. Only then is a convention of much use.

As it is, a convention will achieve nothing … perhaps that is what it is designed to achieve. If it is all or partially elected, the money and effort that goes into that election would be better spent on an advisory referendum. But that might be too revealing for Mr Howard who wants to cling to the constitutional monarchy against the wishes of an increasing majority of Australians. If the convention is all-appointed it will mean nothing other than a talkfest that will generate no ideas that are not already in circulation.
Continue reading “1996_12_december_leader03dec republic”

So now Jeff Kennett wants to privatise a view. The Victorian Premier has defended plans by a private developer for a visitor centre, restaurant and carpark for 300 cars at the Twelve Apostles on the Great Ocean Road. The $8 million to $12 million development will be at the best vantage point to see the dramatic geologic formations and probably charge a fee. Mr Kennett defends the plan on the ground that there are a lack of tourist facilities at the site.

Mr Kennett seems to misunderstand the nature of tourism at the site. The reason the Twelve Apostles is such an attractive place is precisely because it is a wild and rugged coastline. The development proposal is crass and unnecessary. There are many places to eat and stay in nearby Port Cambell, Peterborough or Warrnambool. Mr Kennett should take a look at Uluru, where all development has been moved back eight kilometres.

The Twelve Apostles development proposal is symbolic. If it goes ahead it will reveal that we are prepared to turn anything into a buck _ even a view of the coastline. Where will privatisation stop if we are willing to privatise a view of the nation’s coast? If the development goes ahead it will reveal that Australians agree that the pursuit of money transcends physical beauty, that we are a nation of spoilers not creators.

The Twelve Apostles is a site of national significance. It and the other nearby extraordinary coastal islands and formations are places where people can go to marvel at the forces and beauty of nature and to obtain some understanding of coastal geology. They do not have to be able to buy a hamburger and Coke at the same time.

Chief Minister Kate Carnell and her predecessor shadow attorney-general Rosemary Follett have both rightly encouraged a wider range of candidates for Act Legislative Assembly elections. Ms Follett pointed to the silly rule in the federal ACT Self-Government Act that forbids anyone holding an office of profit under the Crown from standing as a candidate. That means, in effect, that public servants have to resign before standing with no guarantee of getting their job back if they fail. And certainly, if they win a seat, there is no prospect of getting their job back. In the ACT, this is a bar to about 45 per cent of the workforce. It should be removed. If the Assembly requests it, the Federal Parliament should agree, even if it reveals the folly of a similar defect in the provisions for Federal Parliament.

Mrs Carnell was speaking on the eighth anniversary of self-government. She said self-government and the Assembly should not be seen as the cause of the ACT’s woes, but the vehicle for fixing them. She rightly pointed out that the Federal Government had defaulted on the terms of self-government by slashing funding to the territory and not taking a proper interest in the national elements of the national capital. However, there was not turning back the clock and on the funding terms given since 1989 direct rule by the Federal Government would not have produced as good a result as self-government. Those people who opposed self-government and attacked the Assembly should stand for it and get it to do a better job, she said.

There is merit in that argument. The quality of government will depend on the quality of the people in it. Everything possible should be done to encourage good candidates to stand.

Johnny has done far better in Legislative Process I than we thought possible, but has not fulfilled the high hopes we had for him in Executive Action I. If Johnny is to move to Second Term he will have to make sure other students in his gang do not let him down. And he should have dealt with the Class Nerd quickly and decisively instead of allowing her to get a far greater share of the classroom attention than she deserved.

“”Johnny seems far too interested in students’ pocket money than whether they join in games and feel part of a unified school playground. And he has not paid enough attention to school governance, seeming satisfied with retaining the existing Monday-morning anthem and flag-raising ceremony.

In all, though, he made a tentatively good start to First Term and shows promise as a diligent, but not a star, performer. It is obvious he will remain as class captain but he is fortunately more aware that any of his classmates that he cannot take the position for granted.””
Continue reading “1996_12_december_howard end of year”