Month: November 1999

The Australian Federal Police Association’s stand to uphold the law without fear or favour on its face is highly commendable. The association has said “No police officer in the ACT will abrogate this responsibility under any circumstances. Any attempt to stop members from carrying out their duty could be met with a charge of hinder police in the performance of their duty.”

The association was referring to the safe injecting room proposal being put by Independent MLA Michael Moore. The association’s stand would carry far more credibility if there was greater evidence around Canberra of a similar attitude of vigilance by police with respect to burglaries, car theft and young hoons speeding in side streets away from the easy dragnet of the open major streets where they usually set up radar and speed cameras.

Continue reading “1999_11_november_leader18novinject”

ACT Opposition Leader, Jon Stanhope, is quite right when he says that the Coroner’s report into the hospital implosion is a matter of major public importance deserving wide debate in the ACT Legislative Assembly. However, he has chosen a poor vehicle with which to drive that debate. By all means, he should raise the question as a matter of public importance in the Assembly and raise aspects of it in question time. But by choosing the mechanism of a no-confidence motion in Chief Minister Kate Carnell he runs the danger of crying wolf and of causing delays of consideration of other important matters for the ACT community.

The trouble with a no-confidence motion is that it requires seven days notice and the suspension of all Assembly business in that seven days. So as a result of yesterday’s notice by Mr Stanhope of a no-confidence motion the Assembly’s scheduled sittings for the rest of the week are now lost. The reason for the suspension of Assembly business when a no-confidence motion is called is presumably because the matter is one of such gravity that all other matters should be held in abeyance because the Chief Minister could be seen as almost in caretaker mode until the no-confidence motion is dealt with. That principle would be fine if no-confidence motions were only put when there was a serious prospect of them getting up. However no-confidence motions have now become almost dime a dozen. Indeed, as independent MLA Dave Rugendyke points out, this is the third no-confidence instigated by Mr Stanhope within six months.

Continue reading “1999_11_november_leader17nov noconfidence”

It would be nice to say that White House drugs policy director General Barry McCaffrey should be told to butt out of the question of drugs testing at the Sydney Olympics. General McCaffrey’s interest in drugs in sport is more an adjunct to his pushing a wider US agenda of zero tolerance and prohibition of all drugs than an interest in clean sport. Australians could more easily support a butt-out message if they had reason for confidence that the International Olympic Committee and the Sydney Organising Committee for the Olympic Games were capable of organising any event cleanly. However, fiasco after fiasco within the Olympics in the past half decade do not inspire any confidence whatever.

It seems that, leaving aside the irrelevant prohibitionist agenda, General McCaffrey has a point in calling for an anti-drugs body independent from the IOC and SOCOG. In January the IOC announced that it would set up a world anti-doping agency. However, the merely setting up of such a body is not the end of the story. Several questions remain: to what extent would it be able to randomly test outside the Olympic Games periods; where should the agency be based; and how independent should it be of the IOC?

Time is running out for SOCOG on this issue. Performance-enhancing drugs have marred the Olympics movement in recent times. Even some of the Games in the 1970s have been tainted long after the event as new technology reveals that it was most likely that at that time performance-enhancing drugs could have been masked so they were not capable of being detected. By then it was too late to strip winners of medals and losers are now left with a sour taste in their mouth.
Continue reading “1999_11_november_leader16nov olympicdrugs”

There is no such thing as a free (business) lunch. Measures proposed by the Federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, this week to reform business taxation have caused widespread anguish in the business and farming community in direct contract to the reception he got in September this year when he revealed the first part of the Government’s overall business tax plan. In September Mr Costello revealed his aim for a 30% corporate tax rate and a halving of the Capital Gains Tax rate. These measures, of course, were received very warmly by the business community. However, tax reform can never be just a case of reducing taxes. There have to be swings and roundabouts. This week Mr Costello announced the nasties to pay for the earlier proposed changes.

To his credit Mr Costello has had a firm eye on the bottom line. He knows that reductions in corporate tax and capital gains tax will have to be funded without blowing out the Government deficit. Destroying the Government’s good record on fiscal responsibility would only result in worse anguish later for the business community.

Of equal importance to addressing the bottom line Mr Costello has focused on fairness and simplicity in the tax system. He has announced a range of anti-avoidance measures which are long overdue. For far too long in Australia PAYE tax payers have been shouldering an unfair burden. As the burden has got greater more people have attempted to avoid tax through artificial schemes in particular becoming contractors instead of employees. Mr Costello now wants to call a spade a spade and any “contractor” who receives more than 80% of their income from one source will be deemed to be an employee and will be required to pay PAYE tax.
Continue reading “1999_11_november_leader13nov businesstax”

O
verwhelmingly, Australians want an Australian head of state, someone who is chosen on merit. They do not want to continue with a head of state who lives in Britain, who is chosen on hereditary principles, who cannot be a Catholic or married to a Catholic and who is chosen in a way that discriminates against females.

These things are unAustralian. They grate against modern Australian ideals an aspirations.

This is the cental matter in tomorrow’s referendum — to get an Australian head of state. This is why The Canberra Times supports a Yes vote for the proposal to establish Australia as a republic.
Continue reading “1999_11_november_leader05nov republic”

Employer and business groups have expressed displeasure verging on indignation that the Reserve Bank put interest rates up a quarter of one percent yesterday. They fear that the extra costs come at a bad time in the face of the costs of the introduction of the GST and the costs of dealing with the Y2K bug. Maybe so, but it is far better that business and individual borrowers cop a small rate increase now, rather than a bigger one later.

The Reserve Bank’s timing is perfect. It sends a small psychological shock to both business and domestic consumers that is far more important than the small increase itself. The shock comes just before people begin thinking about Christmas spending. The messages the Reserve has sent are: interest rates do not fall indefinitely. There could be another one. Be careful in spending and investment decisions. Be careful in dealing with wage increases and price increases.

Business thinks that the economy has changed so much that the bank could be more carefree. Business wanted the bank to let business growth go because, its spokespeople argued, we could have greater growth without inflationary pressure. This sentiment is a mixture of short-term greed and short-memory economics.
Continue reading “1999_11_november_leader04nov interst rates”

The following explains how the ACT’s vote will count today, and it can make a difference.

In 1977, the Constitution was changed to allow people in the territories to vote in future referendums. Before then, only people in the states could vote.

The Yes and No votes in the ACT (and other territories) get added to the national total. They do not get added to any state total.

That can make a difference to the result, but only in exceptional circumstances.

For a referendum to be passed, a majority of people in a majority of states have to vote Yes. And a majority of people voting Australia-wide (including the territories) have to vote Yes.
Continue reading “1999_11_november_how act votes”

The ACT voted solidly for the republic yesterday.

At the close of the count last night, the ACT had voted 63.77 per cent in favour of the republic and 36.23 per cent against with a tiny 0.87 per cent informal.

It was the highest Yes vote by far of any state or territory.

The ACT also had the highest Yes vote of any state or territory for the preamble, at 43.15 per cent. As with every other state and territory it rejected the preamble.

The next highest Yes vote for the preamble was Victoria on 42.69.

The republic vote was the highest Yes vote recorded in the ACT since it was granted the right to vote in referendums in 1977.
Continue reading “1999_11_november_act vote”