Crispin Hull

The count is done on a exhaustive quota preferential system. Individual candidates with quotas on the first count are elected. In Molonglo the quota is 12.5 per cent of the vote and it is 16.6 per cent in the other two seats. Any over quota surplus for elected candidates is distributed according to preferences. This is done by distributing all the elected candidates’ ballot papers, but they will be transferred at a reduced value to account for the percentage of them used to elect the candidate. If that distribution gives any candidates a quota they are elected and again surpluses are transferred. If after all the surpluses have been distributed, vacancies remain, the candidate with the lowest vote is excluded and his or her ballot papers are distributed according to preferences. It is likely that the last one or two seats in each electorate will be decided on preferences and the others will be decided by distributed surpluses among the major-party candidates. The suburbs in the three electorates are as follows:

Ginninderra: Aranda, Belconnen, Bruce, Charnwood, Cook, Dunlop, Evatt, Florey, Flynn, Fraser, Giralang, Hall, Hawker, Higgins, Holt, Kaleen, Latham, Lawson, MacGregor, Macquarie, McKellar, Melba, Page, Scullin, Spence, Weetangera.
Continue reading “1995_01_january_count1”

Please ensure last sentence stays in to correct the misimpression. A semantic correction is not enough! The log of conservation claims for Assembly candidates published yesterday was made by the Canberra Conservation Council, not the Greens as stated in the headline. The text was correct. This was a sub-editor’s error. The council does not stand candidates and has a different view on issues such as urban renewal and light rail than the Greens who are standing candidates.

The ACT Opposition promised yesterday to renew all commercial and residential leases free of charge. Opposition Leader Kate Carnell said that, if elected next month, the Liberals would overturn the ACT Government’s decision to charge 10 per cent of unimproved value to renew commercial leases.

Last week the Minister for Environment, Land and Planning, Bill Wood, announced the renewal policy for 99-year and 50-year commercial leases. He said they could be renewed any time in their last 30 years for a payment of 10 per cent of value, provided the land was not needed for public purposes.

Residential 99-year leases can be renewed upon payment of an administrative fee. Mr Wood said that as commercial leases were for profit it was appropriate to charge a renewal fee and it was necessary to preserve Canberra’s leasehold system.
Continue reading “1995_01_january_comlease”

Ministers of the Crown probably have the direct least training for their than any occupation in the nation. The wonder is not that you get an occasional Collins, Bedall or Kelly, but that there are not more of them.

The most stark illustration of lack of theoretical knowledge of the job of Minister came when Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen was asked during the Fitzgerald inquiry what he understood by the doctrine of separation of powers. He had been a frontbencher for two decades yet did not have a clue. As Premier with a rubber-stamp Parliament he had no need for such a doctrine. He imagined that as the practical power to create or change legislation was his, too, Ministers did not have to bother much about what it said. In theory, the courts interpreted and applied legislation in particular cases and could question executive action made under it. And so the separation of the powers helps prevent tyranny and abuse of power. When, however, one party led by one person gets a majority in a single-house parliament for a long time, the legislative and executive functions and powers tend to fuse. And sometime later parts of the judiciary fall, too. In the future, I suspect we are going to see the doctrine of the separation of powers less easily pushed aside, for several reasons: the composition of parliaments; greater intrusion of federal power; and more active pressure groups. Australia is seeing more minority governments and Upper Houses not controlled by the governing party. It means more legislation has to go through by compromise and watchful non-government MPs do not like legislation that gives Ministers too much power. Legislation tends to have far fewer words like “”The Minister may do X, Y or Z” and more words like “”The Minister (ital) shall (end ital) do X, Y and Z”. Greater federal intrusion comes when the Federal Government wants to make political forays in fields not specified in the Constitution as federal powers. Human rights and the environment are prime examples. It does it is two main ways.
Continue reading “1995_01_january_column30jan”

I know the name of the person against whom a sexual harassment charge was made that resulted last week in the ACT Liberal Party getting an injunction against media organisations to prevent the publication of the name or of any details of the case. I also know the name of the person who made the allegations. So, too, do at least 10 of my media colleagues, nearly all members of the House of Assembly and their staffers and several lawyers in town. And I have little doubt that many of them have told many of their professional colleagues. The reason we know and you don’t is because journalists, politicians and lawyers _ through their training and life experience _ are more responsible, non-judgmental and fair than people in the community at large. Why should the public have the same information? Bus drivers, electricians, welders, accountants and dentists, for example, are less well-educated or have narrower educations, and clearly could not be trusted with the same range of information that journalists, politicians and lawyers have access to. The electricians and dentists are far more likely to jump to prejudicial conclusions than the rightly privileged select few journalists, politicians and lawyers who are in the know.

It is important therefore that strong measures are in force to stop the information from getting into the wrong hands, or wrong heads. It is important that the information should be denied the mass of the ill-educated, narrow, ignorant and stupid people who make up the occupations bus driver, electrician, social-welfare recipient or house carer, for example. Notice that Liberal and Labor MLAs are at one on this; so it must be right. If anything, its seems the $5000 maximum fine under the ACT Discrimination Act for imparting the dangerous information is too light. It is only at a similar rate as the far less dangerous crimes of negligent driving and speeding. I suppose the basic problem with giving this information to the masses is that they are incapable of drawing a distinction between mere allegations and proof.
Continue reading “1995_01_january_column24jan”

I was having a wine over the New Year break with a Sydney friend who berated me for the failings of Australia’s media. In particular, he wanted to know why hadn’t anyone written the story about where the Australian economy would be if Hewson had won the 1993 election. He said we were facing taxes and interest rates far worse than the GST.

“”You’re from Canberra you must have the inside knowledge. What will the government do?” he asked. I told him he was inconsistent in blaming the media for not running the full story, but seeking some inside knowledge from someone in the Canberra media as if that was a fountain of wisdom. None the less, he should not rely on the predictions of Canberra-based journalists, nor rely on the predictions of market economists _ you know those guys who said the All Ordinaries would hit 2500 last year. As this was not very helpful, I also suggested the following rule of thumb: Governments say they are in the business of smoothing out the economic boom-bust cycle. It is in their interest, therefore, to predict things will be smoother than they are likely to be. They want to look good. It is also true that governments invariably are not as good as they would like to make themselves out to be. Therefore you could safely add one or two percentage points to any prediction made by government. This is for both boom and bust statistics. So coming out of the cycle, as we are now, you could add a couple of percent to Budget forecasts for growth, business investments, inflation and interest rates. “”But what about tax rises?” he asked. They are baying for them in Canberra, I told him. And they may have to happen because _ short of a Maciavellian rope trick _ because the government has given itself no out. My friend glumly took another sip of his wine: “Why?” he asked. “”Because of that,” I said, pointing to the wine. “”I don’t follow.” I explained that tax changes people’s conduct.
Continue reading “1995_01_january_column17jan”

Swedish legalisation of homosexual marriages and the call for greater recognition of homosexual relationships by the Chief Judge of the Family Court, Alistair Nicholson, sent me scurrying to the Constitution. How could it be done in Australia? The Constitution grants the Federal Parliament power to make laws with respect to “”marriage”. Is this enough to give Federal Parliament power to make a law recognising homosexual marraiges and to regulate divisions of property and custody and access rights to any adopted or artifically conceived chidlren? Or would it remain a state matter. It depends on what is meant by the word “”marriage” and the question is an excellent example of how the Constitution works.

The Constitution passed the British Parliament in 1900. But the meaning of the words are not frozen at that time. Let’s pretend that the Constitution gave the Federal Parliament power to make laws with respect to “”aircraft”. In 1900 that would have meant hot air balloons and kites. In 1915 the biplane would have been added. In 1945 the rocket and in the 1950s the jet. The connotation of the word “”aircraft” is things that fly in the air. In 1900 the denotation of the word meant balloons and kites and the denotation widened ever since. Then in 1998, say Queensland wanted to launch a spacecraft to the moon. Would it be an “”aircraft”? Does it fit the connotation “”aircraft” or is it a “”spacecraft”? It is the same with the words “”postal, telegraphic and other like services”. As time goes on more things come within their ambit.
Continue reading “1995_01_january_column10jan”

Apparently small-ticket items like airport noise and woodchips prevented the Government from responding last year to the Australian Republic Committee’s report, but judicious leaks published last week suggest Paul Keating is to get to it first thing this year.

Apparently he is convinced that the President should not be elected directly by the people, but by a special majority Parliament. This has aroused the suspicion of various knee-jerks around the place saying is a cynical grab for power by politicians.

But life is more subtle than that. If the president is chosen directly, inevitably there will be a Liberal candidate and a Labor candidate and a politician will be elected. Howver, if the president is chosen by a two-thirds majority of both Houses, for example, no Liberal or Labor politician or ex-politician will get the job. Can you imagine the necessary number of Liberal MPs supporting a Hawke candidature? Let us call this the Politicians’ Self-Veto Syndrome.
Continue reading “1995_01_january_column03jan”

Australian courts are forcing people to litigate rather than settle commercial disputes, according to Sydney lawyer Peter Keel. Mr Keel said yesterday that judges, especially in the Federal Court, were taking a very restrictive view of a principle that gave credit to parties that attempted to settle when it came to assessing costs awards. Usually if one party proposed a reasonable settlement in what is called a Calderbank letter and the other side refused to accept it and subsequently won litigation the winning side would not get costs, as would be usual for a winning side. However, judges were not giving credit for Calderbank letters unless they offered a settlement in the sorts of terms courts themselves would give. This precluded non-disclosure clauses, settlement of multiple claims and refusal to admit liability. “”This means Calderbank letters are losing the muscle they once had to force parties to settle on reasonable terms,” Mr Keel said. Parties could take advantage of this to delay paying out because it took a long time to get to court. Mr Keel cited several Federal Court cases where the “”black-letter”, legalistic approach had been taken. He called for legislation to ensure a more effective approach.

People will be able to pursue and defend small claims more easily without fear of legal costs under ACT Government plans announced yesterday to revamp the Small Claims Court. At present people have a choice with claims of up to $5000: they can go to Small Claims, where there are no costs awarded, or the Magistrates Court, where costs can be awarded. ACT Attorney-General Terry Connolly said business and large organisations, including the ACT Government, usually pursued under-$5000 claims in the Magistrates courts using lawyers where they could get costs. This exposed many ordinary people to awards for costs. Now they would be required to go to the Small Claims Court, which would be renamed the Small Claims Tribunal. The tribunal would have much less formality and less legalistic procedure. Claims under $1000 would be determined by a referee, who would be legally qualified members of the court staff. There would be only limited appeal rights (to the Supreme Court with leave), bearing in mind the relatively small amounts of money at stake. Cases which involved legal complexity could be referred by the tribunal to the Magistrates Court. Mr Connolly thought that lawyers would object to being forced to start actions for under $5000 in the Small Claims Tribunal, but he defended the move saying it would improve access to justice because people found it difficult to defend claims in the more formal atmosphere of the Magistrates Court. Further, cases could be dealt with more quickly in the tribunal and the tribunal was less adversary and more aimed at finding a solution without strict application of the rules of evidence. Comment from the Law Society could not be obtained yesterday. Mr Connolly said that to date the Small Claims Court had improved access to low-cost justice in the ACT since being set up in 1974. But the time had come to improve it. The Chief Magistrate would head the tribunal and magistrates would be members. Other legally qualified people would also be appointed members. Mr Connolly said that when relatively small amounts were involved cheapness and speed of resolution tended to outweigh some of the problems that might arise with the streamlined procedure.