Month: January 2000

The Government will have to think seriously about revisiting its appalling legislation on digital television before too long. It was obvious at the time the legislation imposed unnecessary restrictions on digital television technology and now that digital has arrived it is apparent that consumers are voting with their wallets.

The Government’s mistakes were to impose high definition television on the three commercial and two public networks; to prevent any significant multi-channelling which the technology is ideally suited to and to restrict the way datacasting can be used, even though the technology would allow huge datacasting innovation.

The requirement for high-definition, rather than standard-definition, digital was at the behest of the three commercial networks. With high-definition, only one program can be transmitted at the time, with some minor enhancements. It means the commercial networks could concentrate their production costs and their advertising revenue. The Government obviously did not want to offend the commercial networks. If standard definition had been chosen, the five networks could each have delivered four or five different programs at the same time – increasing choice and diversity.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_leader04jan digital”

The decision by President Clinton to sign a treaty to establish a permanent international war crimes tribunal under the United nations was a good one, even if its timing suggests that there were ulterior motives. Mr Clinton obviously wanted to get a few achievements on the board given his presidency ends this month. Further he would like to get up the nose of his Republican opponents who oppose the treaty.

He left the decision to the last possible day upon which the treaty could be signed as an originating nation. The pity is that the US did not sign it earlier. It would have given a very worthwhile cause great impetus. That impetus was illustrated by the decision of Israel to immediately change its mind after the US decision from being opposed to the treaty to being in favour.

Hitherto, the US objection was based on a Catch-22. It was opposed to signing a treaty which would subject soldiers and nationals of non-signing nations to it – it was opposed to extraterritoriality applying to its troops. But if it signed, then that objection would disappear. US troops would be subject to the treaty without breaching US sovereignty because the US would have agreed to US troops being subject to an international tribunal by force of it ratifying the treaty and incorporating it into its own domestic law.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_leader03jan war crimes”

One of the reasons Australia put itself forward to host the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in 2001 was that they year would be the centenary of federation. That being the case, Canberra was the obvious city to hold the event. And in due course, Prime Minister John Howard announced it would be held in Canberra. In the lead up to that announcement he warned the Premiers that they would be wasting their time if they engaged in any lobbying to get the meeting in their state.

Last week Mr Howard changed the decision on the venue. In October 2001, just before the federal election is due, CHOGM will now meet in Brisbane. Queensland is critical to the Coalition’s fortunes in the election. It is there that it faces the greatest threat from One Nation and where it lost the most seats in 1998.

The ACT does not matter to the Coalition electorally. Indeed, Canberra-bashing is a Coalition sport. The ultimate Canberra bash is Mr Howard’s refusal to live here. Mr Howard just does not like Canberra.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_leader03jan chogm”

The revelation that Konrad Kalejs lied in his application for citizenship puts the Australian Government on the spot — especially as the key evidence is held by the Government itself in its own archives.

Up to now, Australia has said it does not have enough evidence to prosecute Kalejs for war crimes. Maybe. But it now appears it does have the evidence to question Kalejs’ right to continued citizenship.

And that changes the equation. As a citizen, Kalejs cannot be forced out of the country except by extradition, presumably to Latvia. Extradition can only take place if there is a warrant for his arrest issued in Latvia, which there is not.

If he is not a citizen, however, he can be deported, presumably back to his country of origin, Latvia, irrespective of whether Latvia has charged him or issued a warrant for his arrest.

Latvia has launched another investigation, however, and because it is in the county of the alleged crimes it would have more chance of leading to prosecution than Australia’s merely-keep-the-file-open approach. And in any event, life in Latvia would be more uncomfortable for Kalejs.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_kalejs”

The past couple of weeks have seen a carry-on over the GST, over whether it should be imposed on tampons, local governmetn services, movie tickets and so on. There has also been a carry on over other minor teething problems like lay-bys and the like. These and the other debates over food and the cost of introducing the new tax have shifted attention away from the fundamental, long-term political change the tax will have on Australia.

The case for reform of the wholesale sales tax system was clear. There has been an argument over whether the compensation to low incomes and people on welfare is enough to counter the GST. But the move to an efficient, broad-based tax which included services has many benefits.

The trouble is that John Howard gave far too much away in his determination to introduce the tax. Not just to the Democrats, but more importantly to the states and territories.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_gst oped states”

ADD… GST…

Hockey has no idea… GST too complex… like 28cent cheque.

Insurance pro rata.

Lay-by. Delivery not payment… check the Bills.

The much ado about little in the past week over the GST is just a foretaste.

With Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello away on holidays, Financial Services Minister Joe Hockey made a complete hash over the rounding-up issue, aided and abetted by Acting Prime Minister John Anderson.

Neither Hockey or Anderson appear to understand their own new tax system. That is perhaps understandable given its complexity — several volumes of taxation Acts. But you would think that the Government would have left someone on deck who did.

This is just the beginning. Several things will conspire to make the introduction of the new tax fairly hellish for Howard. This is a shame because Australia’s tax regime needs reform of this kind.

The rounding-up furore was unnecessary.

Last Friday week, Hockey said prices could be rounded up beyond 10 per cent for the GST but, overall, companies would not be allowed to profit from higher prices.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_gst for forum”

Year after year the same cry goes out. Too many people getting gongs for just doing their job. Too many top gongs going to people in top jobs. Too many ex-politicians. Too many sportspeople. Too many volunteers in the bottom rungs of the gong list. Not enough women, except in the bottom rungs of the gong list among the volunteers.

And it never changes.

Every year, hand-wringing is done calling for changes

The awards go: companion, officer, member, medal. Getting the medal were those working, usually as volunteers, among the down and out – people working for nothing or next to nothing with little help and few resources. The companions and officers went to people paid perfectly good salaries for doing their job – people who were already getting a good share of life’s riches: high pay, interesting work, plenty of subordinates to do the menial tasks, power, air-conditioned offices invitations to glittering functions, and even gold medals in their field.

Paul Keating had the right attitude. He refused an award under the Order of Australia, saying being Prime Minister was honour enough and that he had been amply rewarded.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_gongs forum”

John Howard may well describe the Liberal Party as a broad church, but God help you if you are on the wrong side of the nave. Or should that be knave?

The past week has seen a further break-out of ideological warfare (or at least skirmishing) in the Liberal Party. There were two sources of the skirmishes. One was a statement by retiring MP Michael Ronaldson that Peter Costello was the natural successor to John Howard. The other was the Young Liberals’ conference in Canberra condemning former Liberal Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser and an equivocal speech by newly appointed Cabinet Minister Tony Abbott defending Fraser, much as Mark Antony defended Brutus. In doing so, Abbott referred to the broad church, while smugly sitting on the right side of the nave.

Ronaldson’s remark on its face was remarkably unremarkable. Ever since the Telecard affair damned Peter Reith’s chance at the leadership – if there ever was one – it was obvious that Peter Costello was in the box seat. So why would any on-record formal statement by a retiring back-bencher to that effect be of any moment? Well, because every leader prefers two or more leadership aspirants, rather than one. Two or more cancel each other out. Reith and Costello cancelled each other out. When both were in the game, it was seen that they would only fight it out after Howard voluntarily decided to quit. If only one were in the game, Howard might not have the luxury to deciding when to quit. There would be a challenge.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_forum libs”

Proposals to change the electoral boundaries in the ACT, like those put yesterday, will have a profound effect on who is elected and ultimately how we are governed.

At present we have three electorates. Molonglo in the centre is a seven-seat electorate. Brindabella based on Tuggeranong is a five-seat electorate. Ginninderra based on Belconnen is also a five-seat electorate. That makes 17 seats.

Under the Hare-Clark system we have multi-member electorates. This was approved twice in a referendum. The system is more complex than the system of the federal House of Representatives, but it is better suited to small places like the ACT and Tasmania.

The reason is that the ACT is a fairly uniform place. If the political mood swings it swings evenly. There are no pockets of die-hard Labor or die-hard Liberal voting like there are in the Australia-wide profile. In any national election Melbourne Ports, Newcastle and Fremantle will always vote Labor. Toorak and the North Shore will always vote Liberal. It means that nationally we will always get an Opposition.

In the ACT, however, if you extrapolate electoral figures from previous elections into single member seats you would get results like 16 Labor, 1 Independent or 15 Liberal, 2 Labor. The results would be so skewed even from fairly even two-party preferred votes that there would be no effective Opposition. A 53-47 two-party preferred vote in the ACT could lead to the Government having 16 seats and the Opposition just 1.
Continue reading “2000_01_january_forum act seats”