Crispin Hull

There are more reasons for Kate Carnell not to be Cabinet than for her to be in it.

Surely, if she resigned because she faced a no-confidence motion because of her handling of her previous ministry, the same lack of confidence should apply to a new ministry. The two independents whose vote would have been critical in bringing her down – Dave Rugendyke and Paul Osborne – have argued that the loss of the Chief Ministership is penalty enough. Mr Rugendyke said , “”I watched her in the chamber this morning. She looked like a truly broken woman. I feel genuinely sorry for her.” It is an inappropriate crime-and-punishment approach to ministerial responsibility. But it is a matter of governance and politics, not crime and punishment. If they no longer had confidence in her administration, that would hold for the Treasury portfolio under which she was responsible for a great deal of the Bruce Stadium redevelopment, and the chief ministership and any other portfolio. If they thought it were a matter of punishment, it would have been more appropriate to censure her.

It is untenable and inconsistent to say a person should not hold one ministry but can hold another. If they thought that, they should never have come to the position where they would vote for a no-confidence motion in the first place.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader21oct kate no cabinet”

Labor Leader Jon Stanhope has the moral claim to government after yesterday’s election, even if Labor gets an equal number of seats as the Liberals. It seems that the Liberals’ vote in Molonglo held up enough for them to retain three seats. However, overall the Liberal vote was substantially down on the 1998 result and Labor was substantially ahead of the Liberals in primary vote. Labor was more than 10 percentage points ahead of the Liberals in Ginninderra and Brindabella and slightly ahead in Molonglo.

In any event, the three independents who held up the Liberal Government are all gone. Michael Moore retired and Dave Rugendyke and Paul Osborne were defeated. The two defeated independents were socially conservative and have been replaced by more centrist Democrats. It indicates the mood of the electorate is to move to the left.

But the moral claim to government is one matter. Getting the numbers is another.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader21oct act poll”

A very high percentage of ACT voters remain undecided just a couple of days out from the election, according to the latest Canberra Times-Datacol opinion poll. It indicates that many will need to do some serious thinking today and early tomorrow about who they want to govern this territory after Saturday.

Unlike the House of Representatives election, the ACT have multi-member electorates. It means all voters should decide which or the major parties they prefer; which candidates within each party they prefer and which of the minor parties or independents they prefer. To get the best value out of a vote therefore a voter should express preferences right to the end, not just five or seven. It is often the case that the last seat is a tussle between minor parties and independents can be decided by preferences flowing from voters who have voted for a major party first and marked preferences to the end.

Despite constant criticism – which is fine in a democracy – both the Liberals and the Labor Party are capable of governing. The Liberals have been careful with the finances on the large scale, but have squandered on frivolities on the smaller scale. Under Kate Carnell they were particularly fond of PR stunts and funding bonanza events. Chief Minister Gary Humphries has fortunately be disinclined to follow suit, but the baggage is there, particularly on the poor processes on Bruce Stadium. The Liberal Government’s budgetary position has also been helped by additional Federal grants.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader19oct act poll”

It is difficult to see how 1550 Australian soldiers, four fighter aircraft, two refuellers and two maritime surveillance aircraft will make much difference in the mission by the United States to capture or kill those responsible for the September 11 attack on New York and Washington by suicide terrorists in hijacked aircraft. It is an act of symbolism to say that we are an ally of the United States.

Prime Minister John Howard was coy about where the ships and soldiers would be used. He said this was for security reasons. But it may be that they are not really needed at all, in a military sense, so there is no clear role for them in a specific place. At present the activity in chasing the perpetrators consists of intelligence work and some bombing in Afghanistan which appears to date to have been singularly unsuccessful in either killing Osama bin Laden, the man the US accuses of being responsible for the September 11 attack, or killing those the US accuses of harbouring him, the Taliban leadership in the Government of Afghanistan. Australia is already contributing whatever it can on the intelligence front, so we are now going to war to join the US in bombing Afghanistan and perhaps help in a later ground invasion to capture Osama bin Laden. We are not really needed militarily. We are just giving moral support.

It is unlikely the main objective can be achieved. Winter is coming on in Afghanistan. Any action by ground forces will be fraught with logistic difficulty, even if air strikes have weakened the opposition. It is likely that the mission will become protracted. It may be that the northern alliance which opposes the Taliban will seize the opportunity and help the US overthrow the Taliban regime. Aside from the fact that the northern alliance contains a large number of thugs and criminals, even that will not achieve the objective of capturing or killing Osama bin Laden.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader18oct war”

The ACT Labor Party has announced a range of planning changes to be introduced if it gains government. It contrasts with the Liberal Party’s position of continuing with present policies and initiatives already announced.

The Liberals are putting much store on improving the design and siting of new dwellings under a new ACT code to be introduced next year. It will continue with the present system of using the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to hear objections to planning decisions. It will restrict the ability of third parties to engage in the objection process, leaving it to directly affected neighbours.

Labor promises to appoint government building inspectors, a referendum to protect open space, householders to get rights to sunshine, the establishment of an ACT Planning and Land Management Authority, an interim limit on dual occupancies until a system of neighbourhood planning groups can be set up to determine appropriate land uses and more revisons to ACTCode2 which regulates design and siting of developments.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader18oct planning”

Chief Minister Kate Carnell did the right thing yesterday by refusing to take up the possibility suggested by Independent Paul Osborne to change the Electoral Act to allow an early election to overcome the impasse cause by the Auditor-General’s report into the redevelopment of Bruce Stadium. That report caused Independent Dave Rugendyke to give notice that he would vote in favour of a no-confidence motion in Mrs Carnell. His was the critical number. It meant Mrs Carnell could not survive. Earlier, her Liberal colleagues said they would stand or fall with her. Yesterday, Mrs Carnell said she had rejected her colleagues’ pleas for her to stay, saying that would have resulted in a Labor Government. Rather, she thought Gary Humphries should take over the leadership and, presumably, the Chief Ministership until the scheduled election on the third Saturday in October next year.

That outcome is fairer than having a Labor Government, given that Labor got just 28 per cent of the vote last election. Labor needs more time to develop policies and its leader, Jon Stanhope, must gain more prominence. Also Labor, with just six seats, needs broader representation, including some women MLAs, before it can have a genuine claim to government. That test will properly come in next year’s election.

Mrs Carnell can be credited with doing much for Canberra. She transformed its public finances. She attracted business, particularly new technology, bringing virtually full employment to the city. But the same can-do style brought her undoing as she tried to ignore process and consultation.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader18oct humphries”

Opposition Kim Beazley won the debate against Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday night. This is according to the usual media commentator group, and, more importantly, according to a group of 80 uncommitted voters who were in a Channel Nine studio audience who voted Mr Beazley the victor 67-33.

The debate itself will probably not amount to much come election time in four weeks. However, it ahs changed the election dynamic in several important ways. First, a lot of the media will now see Mr Beazley and Labor in with a real chance having written them off a couple of weeks ago. These were the same people who wrote Mr Howard and the Liberals off several months ago. It will mean a more serious coverage of Labor’s policies because they have a prospect of being put into effect. It will have a flow down effect that there is a real contest here and generate some excitement into it.

Secondly, the debate gave Mr Beazley a chance to make it plain that he has no differences with the Liberal party on refugees and the war on terrorism. That goes some way to neutralising the “”leadership” question in relation to external security. On that point Mr Beazley did well to point out the flaw in Mr Howard’s argument that voters should stay with his Government in these insecure times. Mr Howard may not be there for the full term and key Ministers in his leadership team are retiring at the election (Defence, Finance and Health).

Thirdly, it made Mr Beazley look like the man of the future and Mr Howard as the man of the past. Mr Howard urged voters to stay with him for security and did not talk about the future, rather relying on his past record. Mr Beazley was more forward-looking.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader16oct debate”

Federal Labor has placed a lot of store over the past three years in saying that it would roll-back the goods and services tax and make it simpler. It might have sounded like a good idea at the time – when business was screaming about extra paperwork, the complexity of the tax and the horror it presented for cash flow. But now businesses have settled into the system. As with any new system, the first time it is used it is difficult. But it gets easier as time goes on. Even those businesses which deal with a mixture of taxable and non-taxable items have now established systems and streamlined them. In fact, the imposition of the GST has forced many businesses to upgrade their accounting and computing systems so that they have a better idea of their cash flow.

Last week Labor proposed a fundamental change in the way that small businesses pay their GST. Instead of calculating it on every item they sold minus the GST they had already paid on inputs, they would be able to simply pay a set percentage of their turnover. The percentage would be set by the Tax Office according to past experience. But if a business wanted to, it could continue with the present method. The plan is flawed. Labor claims it will be revenue neutral, but it is likely that many businesses will just pick the method that yields the lowest tax. Many smart businesses will continue to do the accounting necessary to do a monthly or quarterly business activity statement anyway because it is good business practice and the accounting has to be done and the tax paid eventually anyway. If Labor gives them an option to pay less tax, they will snap it up. It may well be that a few small businesses will like the idea of postponing the detailed accounting until the end of the year. If so, they will be losing the valuable discipline of knowing how their business is travelling.

If Australia was to have a broad-based consumption tax it necessitated a transition of business practice. Perhaps the Government could have done it better at the time, but now it is established it would be folly to change significantly the way it is calculated and paid.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader15oct gst”

The ACT is now facing an unnecessary election. It seems the Liberals, Michael Moore and the two Osborne Group Independents, Paul Osborne and Dave Rugendyke, will agree to change the Electoral Act to change the normal fixed-term election and bring forward the election set for the third Saturday in October to sometime before Christmas. They will do it to save Chief Minister Kate Carnell from a certain vote of no-confidence on Wednesday over her handling of the Bruce Stadium reconstruction. If they do so it will be a constitutional outrage. It will be a warping of the ACT’s normal constitutional framework for short-term political expediency. The Hare-Clark voting system and other electoral matters were entrenched in 1994 by referendum. True, the fixed term was not included in the entrenching provisions, but it was always understood to be part of the fundamental constitutional set-up. If anything, the proposal to change the Electoral Act by a simple majority of the Assembly highlights the need to entrench the fixed term. The whole aim of the fixed term was to take away from the Chief Minister the power to set the election date so there would be no short-term advantage-taking by the Executive with all that entails for engineering spending and vote-buying.

It became apparent Mrs Carnell would lose the no-confidence motion after Mr Rugendyke took his stand a week ago on the Auditor-General’s report on the Bruce Stadium. But the question now has gone beyond the stadium and the Auditor’s findings. It a way it is not a question of whether Mrs Carnell has done anything wrong. Maintaining the confidence of the Assembly is not a question of right or wrong. A no-confidence motion is not a trial or a judgment. It is a political statement. It may arise out of ministerial misconduct, but it might also arise out of just policy differences.

In political systems where majority governments are the norm, Mrs Carnell would have no difficulty.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader14oct kate to go”

The ACT electorate has not embraced either of the major parties with any great enthusiasm, according the results from the latest Canberra Times Datacol poll. The poll revealed also a high number of undecided votes given the closeness of the election.

Perhaps it is excusable given the dominance of other events: the war on terrorism, the federal election and the refugee crisis.

It indicates that the people of the ACT should turn their minds in the next few days to local issues and who they think are best placed to deal with them. There is little excuse for not getting informed. The much-maligned media in the ACT has carried an extraordinary amount of material about the election, even if it has played second or third fiddle to other events.
Continue reading “2000_10_october_leader12oct act poll”