Crispin Hull

Elitism was the downfall of the Keating Government. In 1996 that Government was seen as unaccountable; as knowing what was best; as ignoring the views of “ordinary” Australians, whoever they might be.

It was a fair call. In our democracy, the views of the “ordinary” Australians – the voters – are paramount. For Paul Keating and some of his ministers to say, “Look, we really know what is best for you, don’t worry about what you think, trust us,” is condescending. It is an open invitation for voters to say, “Thank heavens we get a chance to vote you lot out of office before you go one step further and say, ‘Trust us, there is no need for any more free voting’.”

Keating used executive power. He spent large amounts of taxpayers’ money to notionally inform people about Commonwealth programs, but really to propagandise about “wonderful” things his government was doing which warranted their voting for him. The voters thought otherwise.

The Keating experience shows that the arrogance of power and the sheer elitism of presuming to know what is best for a country are the ingredients of the loss of that power. It is almost like a law of physics.
Continue reading “2004_08_august_forum for saty 28aug iraq elites”

The Statute of Monopolies was passed in England in 1623.

Nearly 400 years later its basic tenets remain intact in our patent law. The very law that deals with technological changed has remained in substance unchanged.

Before 1623, the King granted monopolies to his cronies in whatever field of trade in whatever geographic area he saw fit – corn in Norfolk, leather in Essex and so on. Enough, said Parliament. There would be freedom of trade and manufacture. But to encourage innovation a monopoly “for the term of 14 years [would] be made for the sole working or making of any manner of new manufactures within this Realm to the true and first inventor”, but such monopolies should not be “contrary to the law nor mischievous to the State by raising prices of commodities at home or hurt of trade”.

Another important element of a the Act was that the patent applicant had to make the details of his invention public, so that after the 14 years exclusivity it would be open to anyone to manufacture the invention. That was the trade-off. The state gave protection for exclusivity for a time after which the public would benefit because the invention was public property.

It is now 20 years, but the same questions of novelty, raising prices, and hurt of trade face us with pharmaceuticals and the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement.
Continue reading “2004_08_august_forum for saturday fta”

A Governor. That’s what we need in the ACT. That is the critical part of the ACT political system that is so necessary and yet so missing.

It is difficult to imagine how we have done without one in these 15 years since self-government.

Anyone designing a wholesome political system would start with a Governor and work their way down.

The Tasmanian model is instructive because, Tasmania, like the ACT has the Hare-Clark system of elections, with the likelihood of frequent minority governments. Who better than to arbitrate between which side of politics should govern than an independent person like a Governo

A glance at the pedigree and history of the position of Governor (and Governor-General for that matter) reveals how pertinent and relevant it is to today’s political system.
Continue reading “2004_08_august_forum for saturday a governor”

Labor’s proposal for local content on radio and television (unlike its pharmaceutical changes) are effective and important because of the wording of the Free Trade Agreement.

They are certainly not superfluous.

Present rules and the FTA allow for 55 per cent local content for programming and 89 per cent for advertising. That is the cap. The FTA requires that if they are ever reduced later they cannot be raised again. It is called ratcheting down.

At present the level is set by the Australian Broadcasting Authority. The authority could cut the levels and the Government or Parliament could not restore them without facing penalties under the FTA.

Labor wants the present levels legislated, so only Parliament could lower them.

The Government says that legislating the existing levels is superfluous, so as it does not matter the Government will go along with it.
Continue reading “2004_08_august_breakout forum for saty aug 7 local content”

This black swan nesting on the shore of Lake Burley Griffin provided plenty of interest for Canberrans and tourists yesterday. Black swans (Cygnus atratus) – subs: cap C and lower case a – usually nest in June and July. This one has the lake’s stone embankment to protect it from the winter westerlies and has a splendid view to the National Library. Black swans usually lay between five and eight eggs which take about 35 days to hatch. The swans will defend their nest, eggs and young ferociously and will not hesitate to attack humans who come to close.

The cygnets stay with their parents for nine months. Usually only one or two of the five to eight hatched will survive. Black swans mate for life. The female does most of the egg sitting while the male protects, but the male does some sitting. The cygnets swim almost immediately after hatching, but they are easy game for predators when they are small and the parents have too many to protect.

Black swans are native to Western Australia but they have been taken throughout Australia and New Zealand and even in the northern hemisphere where they have established themselves.

On the Canberra coat of arms the black swan represents the indigenous population and the white swan the European settlers.

Australia is perhaps the only country on earth that permits a bunch of foreigners to play a decisive role in of its elections.

They will do so again at the next election.

Incidentally, that election might be held much later than many think, but more of that anon.

So who are these decisive foreigners and what influence do they have on the election result?

When Australia was founded at federation, people in Australia saw themselves as British subjects. Indeed, a sizable minority had been born in Britain. The right to vote was based on whether one was a British subject – not whether one had been born in Australia or had become an Australian citizen. There was no such thing as an Australian citizen in 1901.

But by 1984 Australia had grown up a bit. Changes to the Electoral Act required someone to be an Australian citizen before they could be put on the electoral roll. You had to be born here or have become a citizen before you could vote – a fairly standard requirement for a nation, you would think.

But in 1984 several hundred thousand British subjects who had not been born in Australia and who had not taken out Australian citizenship were already on the electoral roll. The legislation did not remove them. Some remain on the roll to this day – non-citizens voting in our elections.

The Australian Electoral Commission estimates there are 174,000 of them.
Continue reading “2004_07_july_forum for saturday foreigners decide poll”

Opposition Leader Mark Latham could have gone one step further, but did not.

He said that if Labor won it would back-date legislation so that Government advertising that was really party political advertising would be charged to the political party, rather than letting the tax-payer pay.

Good. But he could have gone further in the clean-up of pre-election madness by taking up the proposition put by Democrats Leader Senator Andrew Bartlett. Bartlett suggested fixed parliamentary terms so that everyone knows the election date years in advance and can plan accordingly.

At present, the Prime Minister says he will rely on his gut instinct to determine the date of the election.

Meantime, a minor media frenzy came and went about August 7 as a possible date. Speculation was rife because the Government had passed its Budget and did what most governments do: went a spending spree to buy votes.

But the polls indicated that that ploy was not working, so August 7 was dropped.

Electoral law and the Constitution give the Government a huge range of possible dates – from the first Saturday in July to mid-April.

It gives the Government a great advantage. It can open the coffers – as this Government has done. It can spook the Opposition into releasing policies prematurely, as this Government and the one before it tried to do. It can take advantage of ephemeral rises in the polls. It can book advertising space and take other tactical advantages.
Continue reading “2004_07_july_forum for saturday early poll”

Buy land, young man; they are not making any more of it, are the sound words of Mark Twain.

Notice, though, he did not say, “Buy a house young man, they are not making any more of them.” They plainly are.

In the past few weeks we have had a couple of reports about the housing boom (notice, it is not called a “land boom”) that have not made enough of the distinction between land and building.

It is a fair enough error. People usually say they are going to “buy a house” or a unit. They do not say they are going to buy some land and a dwelling.

But the distinction helps give a better understanding of the property (neutral term) boom; why there will be another and another; why it is too bad for the new generation of first home-buyers and why it is not such an inequitable thing.

Last week (ending July 17), the Reserve Bank was bemoaning the difficulty of measuring changes in property prices.
Continue reading “2004_07_july_forum for saturday buy land”

In the same week that two Australians were granted relief by the US Supreme Court after two years of harsh detention without access to family or lawyers of choice, Australia got its first Bill of Rights.

It is in a very limited form (legislative only) and a limited jurisdiction (the ACT only). But it is a start. Australia needs a nationwide Bill of Rights now more than ever. The issue is laced with contradictions and ironies. We are in a war against tyranny and terror because we want to preserve liberty. In our eagerness to pursue the war it will be self-defeating if we compromise liberty. The US Administration and the Australian Government have been doing that.

The Australian Government has been keen to please the present US Administration, to suck up to America, if you like. In doing so, though, it has not embraced everything American. It has deliberately excluded the greatest gift America has given to the world – a system of government where power is checked by the rule of law; a Constitution, approved by the people, which guarantees certain rights; and a culture of liberty.

The Australian Government was faced with the choice between, on one hand, approving the Bush Administration’s denial of basic human rights that the US Constitution gives to all people (including Australian citizens) in US jurisdiction, and on theother hand, demanding that the rule of law as provided in the US Constitution be applied, on the other.
Continue reading “2004_07_july_forum for saturday bill of rights”