Crispin Hull

THE CLOSING down of the 6pm news service at Canberra’s Capital Television and several other regional outlets of the Ten Network in Queensland and the Northern Territory is a betrayal of the public trust given to television broadcasters in return for their access to an exclusive part of broadcasting spectrum, which is public property.

Capital was Canberra’s first and, for a long time, only commercial television channel. It ran a mix of programs from the three main commercial networks, but always had a strong local news programming and very often local current affairs programming. Then came aggregation in 1989. Under that scheme, regional stations were to affiliate with one of the three commercial networks and would be able to increase their coverage to two other adjacent regions which had original stations affiliated with other networks. The aim of aggregation was that regional audiences would get access to the full range of commercial programs enjoyed in the major cities while retaining local news coverage. It was a worthy aim.

The networks gained because they could pipe programs down the line at fairly low cost.

It was always assumed that there would be a news coverage that would satisfy the reasonable expectation of the viewers in the licence area. A news service piped from Sydney does not do that. Crash and bash stories from Sydney and a political coverage that deals with NSW events to the exclusion of ACT events is not good enough.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader22nov news cut”

There is a delightful scene in a British movie called the Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer. The movie, released in 1970, starring Peter Cook with a screenplay written by John Cleese among others, should be compulsory viewing in the next week for Prime Minister John Howard, ACT Electoral Commissioner Phillip Green and authorities in Florida where the US presidential election is being decided.

Rimmer is a young Tory whose political motivation is to gain and remain in power. He achieves leadership of his party through machiavellian means and contests an election against a bumbling, pipe-smoking Harold Wilsonesque figure, promising to give the alienated dispossessed a real say. He wins easily.

Upon attaining power he gives every household an interactive television with a red flashing light and siren that activates when a nationwide vote is being sought on issues of national importance. Rimmer bombards the masses until they are sick of the red light and siren. In the final scene, he organises a final vote that would relieve the masses of the obligation to vote on every issue morning, noon and night. Do you agree that President Rimmer can have the sole vote on all issues henceforth so you no longer have to have your lives interrupted by irrelevant matters of national importance? You would never have to vote again. The masses vote overwhelmingly Yes and the movie ends.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader18nov voting”

Fiscal alarm bells should be ringing. At the Federal level, Treasurer Peter Costello, finds himself with a much larger surplus than predicted at Budget time six months ago. The surplus is now predicted to be $4.3 billion, up from $2.8 billion at Budget time. At the local level, ACT Chief Minister Gary Humphries finds himself with a surplus of $31 million, up from the predicted surplus of just $4.2 million. The most alarming thing is that both Governments are due to go to the polls in about a year’s time. The temptation will be strong for them to buy votes.

Already Prime Minister John Howard has indicated that some money will be spent on rural and regional roads. That suggestion came after a fortnight of persistent refusal to give some relief on petrol tax, in particular, not to apply the usual consumer-price-index rise next February because a large part of that rise can be put down to a CPI spike generated by the GST. The Government had promised that petrol would not go up as a result of the GST, it gave plenty of ammunition to the Labor Opposition to argue for petrol tax relief. Mr Howard was right to hold firm, however. It would be better to repay debt and for the Government to take money out of the economy at this stage of the business cycle. That would, as Mr Howard acknowledged, reduce the pressure on interest rates.

So, why the change in tune now. The surplus is slightly bigger, but the fiscal principle should be the same. In the boom part of the cycle, Governments should be running surpluses, to slow the boom and even out the effects of the cycle. It also enables the Government to have money up its sleeve when conditions worsen so it can stimulate the economy. There is no guarantee that Government action on its own can even the business cycle, but it can help if done responsibly. However, in the past three decades, Governments have been too fond of spending without commensurate saving in good years. Moreover, it keeps expanding its role as the economy grows.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader18nov surplus”

This week 22 members of the Australian Labor Party lined up for pre-selection for next year’s election for the ACT Legislative Assembly. There are more candidates than seats in all three electorates so a pre-selection vote will be taken on November 25.

Some people might be concerned that the ACT is in for a year-long campaign and wonder why Labor is pre-selecting so far out from an election. They need not be. It will not be possible to maintain an intense campaign for a year.

The pre-selection timing is well worthwhile in the context of the ACT’s Hare-Clark system and Labor is to be commended for abandoning the idea of attempting to run party tickets or to aim to change the electoral legislation to allow for above-the-line party voting. Instead, the party is to permit candidates to run individual campaigns with individual fund-raising and spending in addition to the overall campaign. Candidates would obviously have to be careful to remain consistent with overall party policy if they want to avoid the appearance of disunity. In the past Labor has insisted on a single campaign and with rare exceptions centralised the funding of the campaign – both with respect to the collection and spending of money.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader14nov act pre-selection”

There is no need for any hurry in the count for the US presidency. The framers of the US Constitution deliberately put a gap between the election date and the swearing in of the new President. In the meantime, President Bill Clinton goes about the task of chief executive ensuring that the governance of the United States run smoothly. Indeed, at the very moment officials are counting the crucial vote in Florida, Mr Clinton is engaging in talks at the highest level on the situation in the Middle East. Whoever takes the White House will no doubt take up where he left off.

The Florida Secretary of State, Katherine Harris, has announced that the outcome in Florida will not be announced until next Friday. The 25 electoral college votes in Florida will determine the result. Vice-President Gore might have won more of the popular vote, but the presidency is determined by voting in the Electoral College which comprises delegates from each state. The number of delegates is determined by the number of members of Congress (both House and Senate) a state has. The framers of the Constitution wanted to ensure smaller states got a reasonable say because every state has a minimum of two senators and one representative. It gives the least populous states like Hawaii three votes. On the other hand, California has 54.

Under the US system there is no proportional or preferential voting. The candidate with the most votes in a state takes all of the Electoral College votes of that state. Thus Mr Bush might win Florida by a handful of votes, collect the 25 Electoral College votes and together with the other states he has won win the presidency even though Mr Gore has more votes overall.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader11nov uspoll”

Prime Minister John Howard and the Coalition have won a third term, but it was not a resounding endorsement. The Coalition picked up an increase of primary vote of just over 2 per cent and just under 2 per cent on a two-party preferred basis. Much of that primary swing came from the decline of the One Nation vote.

It was apparent that the Government was headed for defeat before the Tampa sailed towards Christmas Island and the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Mr Howard cleverly exploited those issues. The election timing was fortuitous for the Government. The Coalition managed to play on people’s fears. The ploy worked – just.

It means that Labor’s strategy did not. Opposition Leader Kim Beazley slavishly agreed with everything Government did on asylum seekers and the response to the terrorist attacks. He suffered for it. Labor – despite having the edge on domestic issues before the international issues bit in – lost nearly three per cent of its primary vote.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader11nov election”

Politicians frequently portray whatever election they are fighting as “”the most important” for decades. They frequently argue that the choice voters must make is a stark one between them and their opponents. Never has this been less so than at this election. The choice Australians must make tomorrow is perhaps the least important of any election in recent times. And the choice is perhaps the least stark.

That said, it is perhaps the worst offering Australians have had at election time for 40 years.

Both sides support the immoral treatment of asylum seekers and the folly of shoulder-to-shoulder support of the United States in its ill-directed attempts to bring to justice those responsible for the terrorist attacks on September 11. Even if a voter were minded to decide on those issues, there is nothing to suggest that Kim Beazley is any less capable than John Howard in dealing with foreign policy or defence matters. Indeed, Mr Beazley’s experience as Defence Minister and Mr Howard’s hitherto concentration on economic issues and lack of interest in foreign policy would give Mr Beazley the edge. Mr Howard’s foreign policy has left Australia in a position where the leader of its nearest neighbour will not return his phone calls.

So it to domestic issues that voters must turn.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader09nov election1”

It seems that Texas Governor George W. Bush will narrow defeat Vice-President Al Gore in the US presidential election. Many people in Australian agriculture and many business people may greet this news with some joy. The theory is that Mr Bush as president would favour more freedom of trade. That would help open US markets, particularly agriculture, to Australian and other world producers. The theory is also that as a proponent of small government Mr Bush would not be such a big spender. That should relieve pressure on interest rates in the US which in turn would relieve pressure on Australian interest rates and the Australian dollar.

However, the Australian view should not be so optimistic. On the agricultural front, the election result does not augur especially well for freedom of trade. Mr Bush won a high proportion of his vote in the mid-west farm states. He will not be wanting to upset them by withdrawing subsidies and allowing in foreign goods. On the financial front, the noises of a small spending presidential candidate will not translate into a fiscally responsible president. In fact, Mr Bush is likely to hand very large sums of money back to consumers in the form of tax cuts. That is just a risky for surplus and balanced budgets as the bigger spending by government promised by Mr Gore.

There might be a slightly bigger danger with a Bush presidency because of Mr Bush’s attitude to defence. He wants to continue with high-spending programs like the missile shield. Mr Bush has likened himself to President Ronald Reagan. Mr Reagan spent so much on the military that he turned a healthy Budget situation to large deficit, but at least Mr Reagan – faced with the Soviet threat – had some reason for his action. It is doubtful whether Mr Bush’s advocacy of bigger spending on programs like missile defence can be off-set by more isolationist defence policies. He will find huge pressure from the military, the bureaucracy and other governments for the US to continue playing a major international security role.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader09nov bush wins”

The two major parties and the ACT Greens have put the question of an increase in the size of the ACT Legislative Assembly on the agenda.

Greens MLA Kerrie Tucker wants an increase. She says, quite rightly that an increase would ease the workload and improve democracy. Labor and the Liberals also want an increase, but they want to avoid coping the flak from the typical knee-jerk reaction of the politician-hating public. So they watered down Ms Tucker’s motion in the previous assembly to a call for community consultation on the question.

As things stand, the ACT has the fewest politicians per head of population than anywhere else in Australia. Out 17 MLAs perform all the state functions as well as the functions of local government. Federally, we have just two members of the House of Representatives and two senators.
Continue reading “2000_11_november_leader08nov act members”