2001_05_may_tax fraud

This week saw the great tax spat. It began with the Labor Party in difficulty over the merest hint of a slight suggestion that it could it possibly leave itself open to looking at increasing some taxes at some it indeterminate period in the future. This was followed by an utter denial by Labour leader Kim Beazley that Labor would increase any tax ever. And that was followed by Prime Minister John Howard matching the promise with one of his own that the coalition would never increase taxes – – to be later qualified, it would seem, as not increasing any core taxes. This was accompanied with that the bombastic claims by Howard that his tax cuts that came with the GST were greater as a percentage of GDP than those given by President Bush in the United States.

It was only so much humbug by two political parties that over the past several decades have engaged in a charade of allowing inflation to silently increase taxes for them and then to grandstand with false generosity by making much of winding back the silent tax rises by calling them tax cuts.

The present government has engaged in even worse humbug by imposing higher indirect taxes in the form of a GST and pretending to more than compensate by giving “cuts” in income taxes. However, the figures presented in the Budget papers and other figures give the lie to this pseudo-generosity.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_tax fraud”

2001_05_may_onetell

Communication Minimiser Richard Alston: We can’t run the company’s business for it. It would be I think the most chilling effect on competition and the operation of the marketplace if you were to go in there and second guess the business and say, you should not buy this; you should not sell that; or you should do something else. I mean that’s just not real life. What we do is we provide subsidies such as the customer service guarantee arrangement, such as the universal service obligation, such as price caps. In a whole range of areas we apply community standards to telephone services. But we don’t try and tell businesses how to run particular parts of the operation.

The above quotation is taken from Senator Alston on the ABC programme AM yesterday morning. It is an explanation of why it is not the Government’s fault that telecommunications company One.Tel appears to have gone belly up. One its own it might be a perfectly reasonable statement of Government policy. In the context of what the Government has been doing in the telecommunications portfolio in the past six years, it is a damning piece of inconsistency. Indeed, it encapsulates all the worst elements of this Government’s communications policy.

Senator Alston was defending the Government’s decision to do nothing in the face of the collapse of One.Tel. Oh gosh, he protested, it is not for the government to lay down detailed rules about how a telecom business should conduct itself.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_onetell”

2001_05_may_libs implode

Fraser a Gorton supporter (like costello to Howard) esp over significant policy Cw state rels seabed legislation (made after 69 election without mention during campaign) …. But critic quietly about Gorton brow-beating brash way esp unilateral decision to go ahead without states even though Min for Nat Dev, David faribairn todl states cw wd not move without further consultation. 1970.

Feb 2, 1971, challenge by sen Ian Wood (grassroots queenslander) no seconder. March 10, 1971, he was out.

Harry Turner (noth shore seat)… told party meeting Gorton was secretive and offhand in formulating policies. Instead of white paper public and party comment method.

5 pre-war

Gorton turning on Fraser.

Fisher tipped out by Hughes 27.20.15

Gorton by McMahon 10.3.71 (21 mnths)
Continue reading “2001_05_may_libs implode”

2001_05_may_leader16may vol vote

The question of voluntary voting was raised again this week. This time it was the case of a Canberra man, Maxwell Smithies, who was prosecuted by the Australian Electoral Commission for failing that to vote in the 1999 referendum. He was fined $50 in the ACT Magistrates’ Court and ordered to pay $350 in costs. Mr Smithies is a crusader against compulsory voting, arguing that it was against his conscience to vote under such a regime.

The commission was rather stupid to rise to Mr Smithies’ bait, though the commission is in somewhat or bind. If it allows people who say their conscience is offended by compulsory voting to escape prosecution, anyone could use that excuse and de-facto voting would become voluntary, defeating the philosophy and purpose of he law requiring compulsory voting.

In fact, it would not matter too much if the commission allowed the odd case of conscientious objection to slip through. It would hardly open up a floodgate because, by and large, Australians are law-abiding. The commission has fallen into Mr Smithies’ trap, namely, to make a martyr of himself and to bring the question of compulsory voting into public debate.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_leader16may vol vote”

2001_05_may_leader16may medical records

One of the more ridiculous arguments put up by the Australian Medical Association against giving patients access to medical records was that doctors have kept their patients information confidential for more than 6000 years. The federal vice-president of the association, Trevor Mudge, argued that many people could be harmed by looking at their own records, such as psychiatric patients, children and adolescents.

The comments came after the federal privacy commissioner, Malcolm Crompton, published draft health privacy guidelines which, subject to a consultation process, will come into force in December. Under the guidelines, people’s medical records, including doctors’ written opinions, would be made available to patients for free within a month of a personal request. Doctors are resisting. In doing so, they are putting forward quite a few spurious arguments which are just a decoy for what is probably their real concern: that their diagnoses and treatment prescriptions might be exposed to questioning, either informally or through formal complaints or legal avenues. The President of the National Council for Civil Liberties, Terry O’Gorman, made a pertinent point when he said, “It is those doctors who practise on a pedestal and look down their noses at patients, as it not being entitled to any information, who have something to fear from these proposals.””

Fortunately, the AMA does not stand for all doctors. Very good doctors – – those that have excellent relationships with patients, take good records, make good diagnoses and prescribe best-practice treatment – – have no difficulty with giving patients access to their records.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_leader16may medical records”

2001_05_may_leader14may women fight

The minister for veterans affairs, Bruce Scott, has indicated that the Federal government it is about to consider a report by the Department of Defence that recommends that women should be able to serve in front-line military combat duties. The suggestion has drawn immediate fire from the Returned Services League which objects strongly to the idea of women serving in that frontline combat positions. A leading at feminist academic, either Cox, on the other hand has applauded the suggestion.

Already, 95 per cent of positions in the Australian armed forces are open to women. In theory, it would be possible for a woman to be Chief of the Defence Force or chief of any of the three armed services. However, while women remain excluded from some combat roles, they will always be at a disadvantage when it comes to promotion at the higher echelons of the Australian Defence Force. And there is every reason why women’s ills should be used there. After all, Queen Boadicea, with modest forces, cut the Roman ninth legion to bits in defending her homeland in the first century.

On a superficial level, there are practical difficulties for women at serving in front line combat positions. Some of them relate to questions of physical strength, in particular, the capacity to carry large amounts of weaponry and gear, and others relate to – – to put it euphemistically – – the special hygiene requirements of women. However, it would be a mistake to make too much of these things. It would be a mistake to take a war-movie view of the role of the defence forces. Sure, in the past, Australian troops have had to engage in a horrific fighting conditions – – conditions which strained the physical capacity of the strongest men. But all war is hell, whether it engages only men or whether it engages women girls and boys as well.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_leader14may women fight”

2001_05_may_leader11may digital

The federal government’s policy on digital television is now in tatters. This week the Government was forced to withdraw the auction for national datacasting licences. These licences were an integral part of the Government’s overall policy on digital television. That the auction has been withdrawn is not only a blow up to the Government’s budgetary position but a blow up to its overall broadcasting policy.The policy or was doomed from and the start. This week’s events merely hasten the inevitable: that the Government must revisit its digital television policy and extensively rewrite it.

The original policy allocated the extra spectrum that has become available with digital technology. It would have extended the present triopoly of the commercial networks until 2007. In an the meantime, they would have been required to broadcast a minimum of the 20 hours week of high-definition digital television. The requirement for high-definition digital burns up a lot of the additional spectrum. In particular, it prevents extensive use of multi-channelling of standard definition digital. The three commercial networks and the two public broadcasters were denied the option of producing, say, three or four completely different program streams of standard definition instead of a single high-definition program stream. The commercials were quite happy with that because it is cheaper to produce at one rather than four program streams for about the same amount of audience and about the same amount of advertising revenue.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_leader11may digital”

2001_05_may_leader04may stone leak

It was just as well that the treasurer, Peter Costello, was in Washington when the memo from the Federal President of the Liberal Party, Shane Stone, to Prime Minister John Howard came to light. If Mr Costello had been in Australia, it would have been easier for the Liberal Party to have closed ranks and for the Australian public to have been denied an insight into the state of dissension that plagues the ruling party in this country.

Faced with reporters’ questions in Washington, Mr Costello expressed surprise and innocence at the existence and contents of the memo. He even questioned whether it was authentic. He told reporters that they should seek answers from the author of the memo. He did his best to be as the least damaging as possible to his party. But it was apparent that Mr Costello was unaware of when that the memorandum had been written and when it had been delivered to it Mr Howard. If he had been, his reaction would have been differently constructed. As it happened, his display of innocence exposed poor communication and a critical lack of trust within various elements of the party.

It is now apparent that Mr Stone wrote the memorandum shortly after the February 17 Queensland state election and at that it had been delivered to it Mr Howard very shortly thereafter. The gist of that the memorandum was that the Queensland members of the federal parliamentary Liberal Party thought that the Government was mean and out of touch and that Mr Costello was the main offender in that regard. It means that Mr Howard had been aware of the criticism of his deputy, Mr Costello, for more than two months and yet he had it not communicated the source of that criticism or the and nature of it to Mr Costello. Moreover, without this leak Mr Howard might never have told his deputy about the memo.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_leader04may stone leak”

2001_05_may_leader03may kirby

High Court Justice Michael Kirby went about as far as a judicial officer should go in commenting about public affairs when he called for greater funding for public schools in a speech at a graduation ceremony at the University of South Australia last week.

The public should not expect judges to be completely silent outside the courts, however, it is important that judges do not enter debates of major current political controversy. Justice Kirby has never been afraid speak on a wide range of topics. His words are usually chosen carefully and his tone is usually measured. In his role as chair of the Australian Law Reform Commission in the 1980s, Justice Kirby got into the habit of commenting on a wide range of topics. That was a critical part of his job. But now he is a High Court judge. And while no one expects him up to go into a cocoon, it would be more prudent for him to be a little more circumspect about what topics he talks about and what he says on those topics.

Last week, for example, he picked at particularly controversial topic – – the balance between public and private schooling. It has been a policy objective of the current government to set new parameters in this balance. Moreover, these have been roundly opposed by the opposition and key community groups. Whatever it one thinks of the Government’s position and the actions it has taken in the past five years on school funding, it is a matter of concern that a High Court judge should be seen to be taking sides in this debate.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_leader03may kirby”

2001_05_may_leader02may act budget

It was a dribs and drabs Budget. A little for everyone and nothing large to offend anyone. And yes, there is an election in October.

A cynical view of yesterday’s Budget would be that it was a vote-buying one. And there was a certain amount of that. Treasurer and Chief Minister Gary Humphries found his way to dish a few goodies out to a great variety of groups and individuals: cyclists and motorists; public and private school attendees; high culture and petrol heads. A little bit here and a little bit there. Something for everyone.

But several factors soften this cynical view. First, the framing of the Budget and the allocation of the goodies has not been done on an overtly ideological basis, in the way that Mr Humphries’ federal counterparts have engaged in. Secondly, the additional spending (or vote-buying) has not been done in an economically irresponsible way. The Budget remains in surplus. The ACT retains its triple-A credit rating. The economic projections are not hopelessly optimistic. Indeed, the budgetary position now is in far better shape than was projected three budgets ago when it was predicted that the Budget would still be in deficit by $57 million and be some distance from turning the corner to surplus — and at the time that was thought to be optimistic.
Continue reading “2001_05_may_leader02may act budget”