Blogging can be fun!

Tomorrow the nation will focus on horses.  Elsewhere in the world someone focused on a donkey.  This is too funny not to share.

A MAN caught having sex with a donkey stunned a court on Monday by claiming that the animal was in fact a hooker he pulled from a  nightclub.

Sunday Moyo, 28, from Mandava township in Zvishavane, was charged with bestiality on  Monday.

Image via Wikipedia

Zvishavane magistrate Mildred Matuvi heard how Moyo was found by  police officers  on routine patrol performing a sex act on the animal  inside his yard just after  4AM last Sunday.

The donkey, which had been tied by the neck to a tree, was lying on the  ground.

Although he was not formally asked to enter a plea, Moyo admitted committing the crime but told the magistrate an enthralling tale which  had the  court in stitches.

“Your worship, I only came to know that I was being intimate with a  donkey when I got arrested,” he began.

“I had hired a prostitute and paid US$20 for the service at Down Town night club and I don’t know how she then became a donkey.”

The magistrate remanded Moyo in custody to October 27 and also ordered that  he be examined by two government psychiatrists.

Hopefully that sets the scene for a fun-blog-day.

Note: the donkey pictured is not the prostitute.

So, who won?

I’m borrowing Meta’s comment for this thread:

News Ltd’s preferred spin and timeline: Qantas CEO Alan Joyce made phone call to PM Julia Gillard but was ignored.

The SMH’s take: Fair Work ends Qantas industrial dispute.

It certainly has sparked some discussion about media bias and the way they present the news.

Qantas – I Still Call Australia Home?

Qantas and Employees have been engaged in a routine industrial dispute for 7 months so why has this been elevated to a “National Emergency” status ? What possible circumstances could be in play that makes this dispute worthy of closer examination.

The Background and Time-line

• The Prime Minister looking forward to three months of “clear air” with photo ops and handshakes;
• CHOGM and Queen in Perth;
• Friday morning, Victorian and NSW Liberal Governments call on PM to intervene in dispute although no actual action current. PM calls action by Victorian and NSW Liberal Governments a stunt;
• Friday, no indication at the Qantas AGM that management is planning extreme disruption to Qantas operations. Despite shareholder rumblings a massive pay rise for Qantas CEO Joyce;
• Saturday am Qantas board meets;
• Saturday afternoon Queen flies out of Perth, Joyce contacts Anthony Albanese, Minister for Infrastructure and Transport;
• Saturday 5 pm Qantas grounds all flights;
• Anthony Albanese press conference;
• Saturday 8 pm Prime Minister press conference, Fair Work Australia (FWA) called in on a matter of national importance;
• Saturday 9 pm FWA convenes, under FWA provisions NSW and Vic Governments can join.

Is our system of democracy under attack? There is prima facie evidence that Qantas and both the NSW and Victorian Liberal Governments have colluded in raising the level of this dispute.

The Liberal Party opposition, Business Leaders, NSW and Victorian Liberal Governments have turned up the volume and are blaming the PM. A lot of effort, careful planning and coordination has taken place to bring on this issue at this time.

Some questions need to be answered, who on the Qantas Board knew that this was going to happen?

When did they know?

Abbott and his supporters will try anything to bring down the present Government, the AstroTurf grass roots “Ditch the Witch” campaign was a dismal failure maybe it’s time for a try from the big end of town.

Footnote it is now three days after the original post (above).

I include the following post covering some interesting follow up events:

Posted November 1, 2011 at 12:37 am | Permalink by Kate: Ok here goes. I’ve been brewing on this for a few days . In the shock of the Saturday grounding of the QF fleet I found myself home alone on Saturday night watching the FWA updates (sad but true). Bugger that, so I headed into FWA in Exhibition St and quickly got hooked on the night’s proceedings. I realise this is a poor reflection on my personality!

A procession of key players would walk past every now and then, and as the proceedings dragged on I befriended the night-owl brigade of cameramen. They filled in the gaps when unfamiliar punters came into camera shot. Their interest rose when the Victorian Minister for Transport arrived at the FWA hearing (and quickly left) with a grin from ear to ear. Apparently he was also representing the NSW transport minister too. Dare I spell out to all readers 12 year old’s and under, that both gents conincidentally are Liberal MP’s.

Now here is the clunker that I missed. The cameramen (and a fair few journo’s) were keen to know why the Minister was so easily available on a Saturday night (remember this is a long weekend and Oaks Day in Melbourne and half the city is tanked) to attend proceedings all suited up. Noteworthy given the only participants on Saturday night were journo’s, lawyers and union representatives, oh and a handful of tragic’s like me.

Given the said Ministers letter writing stunt to the Government, specifically calling for industrial action to be terminated(we all know the letter went to media outlets enroute to the PM) and was felt premature at the time, is it possible that Liberal party members were in the loop regarding the grounding of Qantas well in advance of Minister Albanese et al???? Did Olivia Wirth sneak a peak of the lock out letter posted to unsuspecting staff to her former boss Joe Hockey???? Why did Tony Abbot weigh into the debate blaming the Government????……….ah gottcha there…..

Kudos to Bill Shorten for showing up the following day for 12 hours, and Adam Bandt for spending a lot of time there too.

Alan Joyce grounds an airline… a cunning stunt. Indeed.

This cross post is from a comment on “Crikey” thanks Tom R for the alert.

Royal Blush?

Could Tony Abbott have predicted
A time he’d ever be conflicted
Twixt loyalties rightly his Queen’s
Or Crown Casino’s poker machines?

Asked that question about a year ago
He would for sure have answered, “No!”
But then hurt pride and thwarted ambition
Hadn’t goaded him into near sedition.

Wondering how to please James Packer,
He dreamed up what he thought a cracker
Of a stunt. A promo for strip poker!
He’d be hailed an Ace! Our own Oz Joker!

Front page pix of Tony Abbott’s arrest
Reveal much more than his hairy chest.
Notorious now as the ‘CHOGM gate crasher’
He’s certified; the world’s most famous flasher. 

Mad for power and media attention,
He broke every constitutional convention.
His defence?  He was irrational, confused,
Unaware Her Majesty was not amused.

Tony Abbott’s gatecrashing of  CHOGM for bi-lateral talks with leading figures like the British PM, David Cameron, and as well to give press conferences which upstaged the Prime Minister led to speculation at  Cafe Whispers and other sites like The Political Sword about other attention seeking stunts he might pull.  

Which got me thinking about his  prediction that he and the Liberal Party would rescind any legislation Julia Gillard’s government might pass on a mandatory pre-commitment scheme brought in to reduce problem gambling. 

This naturally enough had me wondering what the Leader of the Opposition could do to help his friend and political ally, James Packer who has been hurt and upset by accusations from leftie latte drinkers that his poker machines cause suffering to addicts!
 
Inevitably too it had me indulging in a bit of wishful thinking!   Wouldn’t it be wonderful if the political career of the Mad Monk was ended by one last stunt which went too far!  And one involving over exposure of that manly physique we’ve seen far too much of already!  What better defence could he offer for an act of gross indecency than that of another Liberal party politician who claimed confusion and irrationality when recently on trial for shop lifting and assault of a security guard.

Friday on my mind: timeless legends edition

It seemed to me that throughout many cultures how different stories and legends persist, stories about creation, legends of heroes, the children who fell to earth. No matter the people or culture that there is a certain consistency. Perhaps it’s all to do with all being a part of the human family, that irrespective of people or culture that our imaginings all remain consistent.

Here is one story that I remember my uncle telling me. I can’t remember the name of the tribe but it was the story of Yillin.

Woyodho, a great and powerful chief had five daughters all skilled and high of courage. The middle daughter Yillin was the bravest and the wisest, and many men wished to marry her, but her father knew that once she did that her status would be the same as every other woman who joined another man’s family, thus her father rejected all suitors.

One day Woyodho grew ill and the tribe asked for the help of a medicine man who painted him with many designs and cut him with shell knives. When these methods of healing didn’t work and the tribe became angry the medicine man declared that someone must have cast a spell on Woyodho: a hidden enemy. The medicine man looked with jealousy at the middle daughter Yillin and declared that it was she.

Yillin and her sisters fled to the water, “Jump in” Yillin’s sisters cried out to her. For days Yillin remain hidden in the water but eventually emerged.

Yillin’s eldest sister pointed a shaking finger at Yillin’s body and looking down, Yillin uttered a bewildered cry. No longer was she smooth-skinned and black. Her body and legs were thickly covered with shining scales, so that she gleamed like the stars.

An old man suddenly appeared and said, “This is indeed a great journey, the water has clothed you in silver so that you might be more glorious than any chief’s daughter has ever been before. And now comes the greatest adventure of all”. The old man rose and pointed to the sky. Yillin looked up and cried in awe for as she looked the clouds parted, and she saw behind them that great and gentle Being who lives in the sky. He looked down at Yillin kindly, let down a silver cord and beckoned to Yillin. And so it was that Yillin became the brightest star in the Heavens. It is also Yillin who is the great connection between Earth, Water and Sky.

Please also consider this our open weekend topic.

What is this mandate that politicians and their supporters spruik with great certainty.

It seems such a simple word, that one would think looking in the dictionary would soon give one the answer. 

Maybe we need to look in a political dictionary, still no simple answer.

I looked in the Constitution that did not throw much light on the meaning.

For a word that everyone appears to use with ease, it is hard to pin down.

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Dictionary meanings.

In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.[1]

The concept of a government having a legitimate mandate to govern via the fair winning of a democratic election is a central idea of democracy. New governments who attempt to introduce policies that they did not make public during an election campaign are said to not have a legitimate mandate to implement such policies.

Elections, especially ones with a large margin of victory, are often said to give the newly elected government or elected official a mandate to implement certain policies. Also, the period during which a government serves between elections is often referred to as a mandate and when the government seeks re-election it is said to be seeking a “new mandate”.

In some languages, a ‘mandate’ can mean a parliamentary seat won in an election

 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

“…..An election promise is a promise made to the public by a politician who is trying to win an election. They have long been a central element of elections and remain so today. Election promises are also notable for often being broken once a politician is in office…………

………Elections promises are part of an election platform, but platforms also contain vague ideals and generalities as well as specific promises. They are an essential element in getting people to vote for a candidate. For example, a promise such as to cut taxes or to introduce new social programs may appeal to voters……….

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_(politics)

 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

 

“2: an authorization to act given to a representative <accepted the mandate of the people>

 Example

He won the election so convincingly that he believed he had been given a mandate for change….”

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mandate

 

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

What does a mandate mean in the Australian context.    I have gone to the aph Government library.

Research Paper 19 1998-99

Mandate: Australia’s Current Debate in Context

J.R. Nethercote

Politics and Public Administration Group

11 May 1999

• an explanation of why mandate debate in Australia is more frequent and more complex than in other Westminster-based parliamentary systems, especially since introduction of the proportional method of electing Senators in 1948
• an authoritative account of debate about the mandate arising during and after the 1998 national elections
• appendices include material on dictionary definitions and academic analyses.

The principal findings of the research are:

• during and following the 1998 elections there was debate about the Government’s bid for a mandate for its tax proposals, especially the goods and services tax component. Debate centred on both voting and seats won in the Senate and the House of Representatives. There have been similar debates during the Whitlam Government, 1972-75, and following election of the Howard Government in 1996
• because of the character of Australia’s bicameral Parliament, both Houses of which are elected and have comparable powers, debate in Australia about the mandate is more frequent, more complex and more vigorous than in other Westminster-style parliaments, for example, in the UK and Canada, where the lower house’s preeminence over a non-elected upper house is well-established
• mandate is a political idea in two senses. Mandate doctrine derives from the politics of responsible government on a democratic basis. It does not derive from constitutional, legal or parliamentary prescription. Moreover, a mandate is not a substitute for prescribed constitutional, legal or parliamentary procedures, though it may influence the workings of such procedures
• second, mandate doctrine has been mainly developed by politicians in political forums rather than by philosophers or academics
• the purpose of mandate doctrine is to accord a larger role to the people than simply casting a vote at specified intervals. It is about politicians declaring the philosophies, principles, policies, plans and programs which they will support if they win office. President Eisenhower furnished a succinct definition of what mandate is about. He entitled the first volume of his presidential memoirs, Mandate for Change, and the relevant chapter, ‘Promises to Keep’
• there is considerable debate about what a mandate is. Does it apply to the entire platform (or manifesto) of a winning party only to the more important item or to matters mainly the subject of contention during a campaign? And can others, apart from winners, claim to have a mandate? Likewise, there is considerable debate about how a mandate may be discerned-seats in a legislature, seats in which chamber of a legislature or the voting strengths which lie behind respective party strengths in parliament? And what of voting strength not translated into representation?
• in the UK, mandate ideas were related, first, to the rise of campaigning and the need to tell the voters how power, if won, would be exercised. They were also important in the ascendancy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords
• in Australia, it has been a different story, especially since adoption of the 1948 method of electing Senators. As a consequence, disputes between the Houses are more likely than previously, but it is less likely that they will be resolved by recourse to simultaneous dissolutions of the Houses except with respect to the legislation on which the dissolutions are based
• the debate in Australia during and after the 1998 elections reflected the long history of discourse on mandate doctrine and embraced many of the elements which have arisen during the past two centuries of democratic responsible government
• academic analysis of mandate matters is divided. Some authors consider it is a political idea which seeks to give meaning to elections and that criticisms are based on overly literal definitions of the term. Others believe that the legitimacy of democratic politics requires that, as much as possible, commitments made on the hustings should be honoured once the election result is settled (recognising that there are circumstances where a mandate will lose its relevance or be overtaken by events), and
• critics of mandate doctrine portray it as a device for nullifying or circumventing due processes of government and legislation. The conception of mandate doctrine which they criticise is the product of rhetoric rather than more considered expositions.
• during and following the 1998 elections there was debate about the Government’s bid for a mandate for its tax proposals, especially the goods and services tax component. Debate centred on both voting and seats won in the Senate and the House of Representatives. There have been similar debates during the Whitlam Government, 1972-75, and following election of the Howard Government in 1996
• because of the character of Australia’s bicameral Parliament, both Houses of which are elected and have comparable powers, debate in Australia about the mandate is more frequent, more complex and more vigorous than in other Westminster-style parliaments, for example, in the UK and Canada, where the lower house’s preeminence over a non-elected upper house is well-established
• mandate is a political idea in two senses. Mandate doctrine derives from the politics of responsible government on a democratic basis. It does not derive from constitutional, legal or parliamentary prescription. Moreover, a mandate is not a substitute for prescribed constitutional, legal or parliamentary procedures, though it may influence the workings of such procedures
• second, mandate doctrine has been mainly developed by politicians in political forums rather than by philosophers or academics
• the purpose of mandate doctrine is to accord a larger role to the people than simply casting a vote at specified intervals. It is about politicians declaring the philosophies, principles, policies, plans and programs which they will support if they win office. President Eisenhower furnished a succinct definition of what mandate is about. He entitled the first volume of his presidential memoirs, Mandate for Change, and the relevant chapter, ‘Promises to Keep’
• there is considerable debate about what a mandate is. Does it apply to the entire platform (or manifesto) of a winning party only to the more important item or to matters mainly the subject of contention during a campaign? And can others, apart from winners, claim to have a mandate? Likewise, there is considerable debate about how a mandate may be discerned-seats in a legislature, seats in which chamber of a legislature or the voting strengths which lie behind respective party strengths in parliament? And what of voting strength not translated into representation?
• in the UK, mandate ideas were related, first, to the rise of campaigning and the need to tell the voters how power, if won, would be exercised. They were also important in the ascendancy of the House of Commons over the House of Lords
• in Australia, it has been a different story, especially since adoption of the 1948 method of electing Senators. As a consequence, disputes between the Houses are more likely than previously, but it is less likely that they will be resolved by recourse to simultaneous dissolutions of the Houses except with respect to the legislation on which the dissolutions are based
• the debate in Australia during and after the 1998 elections reflected the long history of discourse on mandate doctrine and embraced many of the elements which have arisen during the past two centuries of democratic responsible government
• academic analysis of mandate matters is divided. Some authors consider it is a political idea which seeks to give meaning to elections and that criticisms are based on overly literal definitions of the term. Others believe that the legitimacy of democratic politics requires that, as much as possible, commitments made on the hustings should be honoured once the election result is settled (recognising that there are circumstances where a mandate will lose its relevance or be overtaken by events), and
• critics of mandate doctrine portray it as a device for nullifying or circumventing due processes of government and legislation. The conception of mandate doctrine which they criticise is the product of rhetoric rather than more considered expositions. …………………

…………… Mandates may be challenged where parliamentary majorities are at best insecure; where the outcome in one forum is not reflected in others (as in Australia when a substantial majority in the House of Representatives is not matched by even a small majority in the Senate); where they are not supported by voting majorities, or unambiguous pluralities; where party manifestos are so long and complex that the significance of particular items is unclear; and where a policy to which a government subsequently attaches great weight attracted little or no attention in the relevant campaign. A mandate also has greater force immediately following an election; the legitimacy it confers wanes as a new poll approaches.

Practical problems aside, the mandate has been roundly criticised on general grounds as a means for avoiding, circumventing, short circuiting or nullifying parliamentary process in the making of legislation. In this view, the mandate is portrayed as a bludgeon in the hands of a majority party for imposing its views on others; behind this lies a fear that the view of the majority party is only that of a majority within it and therefore a minority within the whole.

Critics of mandate doctrine usually focus on its rhetorical rather than philosophical expositions. Few if any defenders of the mandate eschew the need for parliamentary process in law making. For them the mandate is about the significance of commitments to the electorate before and during elections; the need subsequently to realise obligations made during campaigns; and the importance of these for maintaining the legitimacy of democratic parliamentary politics.

In the debate about the mandate these apologia are critical for they demonstrate that such authority as is conferred by a mandate has its source in undertakings given by a winning side during a campaign. Authority thus flows from obligation and commitment. The integrity of politics will be diminished if promises made on the hustings can be readily discarded once victory has been achieved.

Recent debates centre on incumbent governments seeking to honour obligations made during campaigns in the face of continuing resistance from opponents with a footing in the parliament and, thereby, also able to claim electoral support for their position.

There are occasions, however, where it is the victors who wish to turn away from undertakings made in the course of a campaign. That the main sanction against their doing so is their likely fate at the next election underlines the political character of mandate doctrine, and, in illustration, the fact that the penalties, such as they are, are themselves political, not constitutional nor legal…………….

 ………………”The concepts of mandate and ‘broken promise’ are the opposite sides of the same coin in the Australian political game, but all players know that policy commitments are always open to various interpretations and that some must be adjusted or abandoned as circumstances in the political, legal, economic, social and technological environment change or as new information becomes available.(33)…………..

 

 

……….. … the right to govern does not give an executive an automatic right to convert its policy into law. It must explain itself fully. It is obliged to defend itself against charges of inconsistency: that a Bill departs noticeably from what was foreshadowed, or confers too much discretion on minister and public servants. With controversial policies, the government cannot necessarily invoke its own mandate as a trump card.(92)…..

 

…. Sharman asserted:

[The mandate] does not mean that the government can make any new law it wants by the stroke of the prime minister’s pen. Governing is not the same as legislating … the only body that can make laws is the Parliament … the whole point of parliamentary democracy is that governments are forced to submit new legislation to a representative assembly to gain consent for it.(105)………..

Murray Goot of Macquarie University provided another commentary on the current debate in Australia. Goot followed Dahl in seeking to use public opinion polling as a means of probing beyond election results to ascertain the voters’ minds on questions at issue.

He believed a claim to a mandate is difficult to sustain in a bicameral parliament in which each house has comparable powers. In Australia, he pointed out, ‘the Senate turns out to be a better-not a worse-mirror of the nation’s mind than the House of Representatives’.(106)

Goot traced growing criticism of mandate theory but believed that opinion polling provided a means to ascertain whether or not there is substantial support for particular policies. On the basis of the polls he found, in the case of Australia, that there is often popular support for Senate actions and, moreover, cases where the public does not have any objection to a Government failing to honour a promise.…..

… Most analysis of the mandate question focuses on a simple set of circumstances-a party makes promises during an election campaign which it is expected to implement in the event of victory.

Politics is, nevertheless, a dynamic process; today’s promise may simply be irrelevant tomorrow. The question of realising a mandate may be as much a question of the party’s prospects at a succeeding election as one of keeping promises made during a recent contest. Public opinion about a policy or program may change and there is no impediment to an incumbent government responding to that change; indeed, in a democracy it would be wholly appropriate for it to do so. Opinion polls may inform decisions of this character but they cannot, of themselves, legitimate decisions having this effect.

The circumstances giving rise to a particular policy may likewise change necessitating change to the policy or even its abandonment…..

 

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1998-99/99rp19.htm#Australia

 

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

 

 

When we look at the Constitution, we find there is no mention of the Prime Minister.  There is no mention of parties.  When our Constitution was created, parties as we know them today did not exist.  In fact, preferential voting was introduced to weaken the Labor, one of the first political parties, which arose out of the Union movement.  Preferential voting has worked to favour one or another of the two major parties over time. 

Early, the Coalition has the support of Senator Harradine and the DLP.  The Democrats were harder to define.  They eventually sided with the Coalition in most serious legalisation.  The pendulum has veered to Labor with the growing power of the Greens.  Independents come from both sides of the political fence. The party in government has rarely controlled the Senate at the same time.

The people in each electorate vote in one MP.  Each MP gets their mandate directly from the people who vote for them.  After 1948, this also applied to Senator, which is elected on a State basis, obtaining a mandate from those in the State that voted for them.

We only vote for our local member.  The PM gets their mandate from their own electorate.  They have a duty to the people who give them a mandate.

To me, parliament does not care whether a MP or Senator comes from any party or are independent.  The parliament only has an interest in the vote they cast.

Governments do not make laws.  The parliament does. 

Voters in general cannot vote for a PM.  Therefore, the only mandate the PM have is the same as all other MP’s.

What each leader does is to make promises on behalf of the candidates that declare themselves belonging to the party they represent.  Some call these policies or promises a mandate.  At the very most, these promises can only be expected to be kept for a short time.  If we expect all promises to be kept, it would lead to a very rigid parliament. 

There has to be room for change and flexibility.  There must be room for change of mind. Government are elected to govern on our behalf and need to have the power to meet new situations as they arise.  Some, many still criticise the Rudd government for abandoning surplus budgets when faced with the GFC.  This is unfair and it would have been negligent if they kept the election promise or policy.

If one believes that the elected PM has a mandate, which gives them to put in place all promises made, how does this compute if the Opposition is given a mandate in the upper house?  In reality, a PM only has a mandate from the electorate that elects them.  All MP elected have a mandate, to act on behalf of their electorate. 

Whose mandate rules supreme is determined on the floor of both houses.

I believe that every elected MP and Senator first responsibility is to the people who elect them, not to any party.

I believe that every elected Member of Parliament have a mandate from those who vote for them.  These mandates are sorted out in parliament. 

Sometimes the promises are not practical or circumstances change after the election. Sometimes promises contradict one another.  Sometimes the election and new parliament throws up better options.

Sometimes the makeup of the parliament makes possible what before the election considered impossible.

Promises are what a leader hopes to achieve.  They are not set in stone, and change or be altered to suit the circumstances that exist when placed before the Parliament.

There would not be a voter alive that supports the full manifesto of any leader.  An example of this was the introduction of the GST.  It was a promise but many strongly opposed the introduction of the policy.  The majority of the people hated it.  The Opposition in Parliament fought it hard.

There has never been a government that kept every promise made.  There has never been a government that did not introduce new policies once they were elected, because they can. 

Did anyone expect the Howard government to take the dogs onto the wharves?  Did anyone expect that the same government would encourage firms to set up new companies, to pay wages?  Companies with no money in them, robbing the workers of their earned wages.

Mr. Abbott is wrong to claim he has a mandate to do, as he likes.  There is no obligation on the Opposition or any other MP to support him.

They all have a mandate from the people.  It is not winner take all.  That is not democracy.

It will be up to Mr. Abbott to manipulate his policies through Parliament.  It will be up to Mr. Abbott to work with other MPs.

MPs are obligated to get the best deal they can, on behalf of those who vote for them.

It is true; politics is the art of the possible.

What is a mandate is not black and white.  It can mean different things to different people.

To me, a mandate is not the manifesto or policies that one takes to an election.  It is the power, given by the people, which allow one to sit in Parliament. 

The vote on the floor of each house decides whether a mandate is legitimate or not.

Promises or a manifesto is what one hopes to do if elected.  Whether one gets to put all the promises into action, defends on the makeup of the Parliament and the circumstances of the time. There must be flexibility to do what is right or needed.

I’d be Lying if I said the Price on Carbon wasn’t Taxing me too

Guest Post by Tom R:

The climate of debate within our country at the moment has degenerated into a slanging match of who can fling the most vitriol towards our first female PM.

We have shock jocks wanting to “Put her in the same chaff bag as Julia Gillard and throw them both out to sea.” Spectators in the Gallery calling her “a lying scrag”,and who can forget the opposition leader appearing in a protest in front of the “Ditch the Witch” and “Bob Browns Bitch” placards. Yes, this is the kind of ‘debate’ we are having in regards to one of the most important legislations to face out country.

And all of this vitriol is apparently based on an alleged lie perpetrated by Gillard on the eve of the election. A lie which, if it were ever to be examined truthfully by our meeja, would be exposed not as a lie, but actually as a PM pursuing, at its core, precisely what was promised on the eve of the election. Our media is simply (and imo deliberately) refusing to acknowledge the reality of this statement, and preferring to perpetuate the ongoing hatred and vehemence this ‘alleged’ lie has exposed.

To begin with, why don’t we examine the statement made by the PM, instead of the cherry picked snippet we are fed daily by the meeja and the opposition. From the oo itself (so they really have no excuse for their subterfuge).

“I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”

Now, that is pretty clear. She is saying, clearly, that her Government will pursue a Carbon Pricing mechanism, but not a Carbon Tax. There is a reason that the two options are raised in contrast to each other here, I would speculate, in that perhaps she was worried that someone, perhaps through ignorance, or perhaps through ideological grounds, may decide to conflate the two, and try and claim that she had broken an election promise on that basis. Because, simply put, they are very similar proposals in a broad, overarching view of public policy, although largely different in their core implementation. Hence the two can be easily confused, particularly, as it appears in retrospect, if you do not want to look at them too closely; which the media are steadfastly refusing to do. There is a very good, simple and concise explanation over at the The Conversation “Explainer: The difference between a carbon tax and an ETS” that explains this difference in a manner that our broadsheet media appears unable to do.

An ETS works by setting a cap on emissions and requiring emitters to hold a permit for each tonne of CO2 that they emit. The level of the cap determines the number of permits available.

There is no cap on emissions in a tax-based system. People are free to emit as much or as little as they like, but if they do emit, they must pay the tax.

Well, Gillard was very specific, but, in our brave new, unhinged world, conflating issues is the least of the PMs worries. Here, the media as a whole have simply cherry pick the portion of the promise they want to, and (deliberately??) ignored the caveats implicitly stated within that promise. From there, they can run with the whole “No Carbon Tax” meme. So, a few days after the announcement by the Government on its proposed Carbon Reduction Scheme, we had the media noticing that the ‘fixed’ price on the Carbon Credits ‘acts essentially like a tax’. Gillard, for reasons unbeknown, agreed with them, and, no matter how correct the statement is, it was politically damaging. The truth is, if it is fixed or not, an ETS is similar to a tax, as even Malcolm Turnbull accedes to.

You can argue it’s a tax, whether it’s cap-and-trade or a fixed-price.

The trouble is, the media are happy to run with the perception, and actively re-inforce it at every turn. In the same article, the author runs with this line.

Ms Gillard never properly attempted the distinction.

Well, that is entirely untrue. The PM laboured, extensively, and vainly, on attempting to draw the distinction, but was shut down every time by a press who had their story, and were prepared to ignore all evidence to the contrary to pursue it. Grogs Gamut had a post up at the time which details the arguments Gillard (futilely) used to prosecute her case:

PM: …. I have agreed that we would start with a fixed price and then move to the full emissions trading scheme.

HOST: And you have agreed that the fixed price is the same as the carbon tax?

PM: Laurie, I didn’t want to get caught up in what I knew would be one of those semantic word games about whether or not I would say the word ‘tax’. You know how these games are played, Laurie. A politician decides they are not going to say a word, and then media, people like yourself, Laurie, spend weeks trying to make them say it. I wasn’t going to do any of that
Along with

ALEXANDRA KIRK: So your problem is that you’ve had two opposing positions on carbon tax. The fundamental problem is that you broke an election promise. You said before the election there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead, and now you’ve shifted your position. So you don’t have a mandate for a carbon tax.

JULIA GILLARD: Alex, we went to the 2007 election saying we had to price carbon and the best way of doing that was an emissions trading scheme where the market sets the price for carbon.

ALEXANDRA KIRK: But you went to the last election…

JULIA GILLARD: We went to the 2010 election saying we need to price carbon and the best way of doing that is an emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon. What will we deliver? An emissions trading scheme where the market prices carbon.

Yes, there will be a period where the price is fixed, effectively like a carbon tax. But we will end up exactly where we promised Australians we would go.

That doesn’t look like somebody who ‘never properly attempted the distinction’. It looks more like somebody banging their head against the brick wall of somebody else who didn’t want to listen. Unfortunately for Labor. It may be too late to change the perception (in fact, I think they gave up on that months ago). Which is a pity, as this isue will dog them forever now.

Another argument that is run a lot in the resultant ‘debate’ is the “it is a tax by definition”. There are cases both for and against this, and, barring a high court decision, we will probably never come to a clear conclusion. I personally lean to the case that it isn’t a tax by definition, based largely on the finding in the Journal of Australian Taxation 391 TAX OR PENALTY? – THE LATEST SEQUEL By Vince Morabito which finds:

The passage above clearly indicates that the concepts of taxes and penalties are mutually exclusive. A given exaction may be either a tax or a penalty, but it cannot be both.[9] Consequently, if the Commonwealth Act under challenge deals with only one exaction which is characterised by the court as a penalty, rather than a tax, then the law is not authorised by the taxation power and will be declared invalid by the court, unless the Commonwealth can place reliance on other heads of legislative power.

Of course, others may bring out other disputing case, but this misses the elephant in the room. The PM did not say that the Government would not be implementing a tax, she said they would not be pursuing a ‘Carbon Tax’, but a ‘Carbon Price’. As seen from Malcolm Turnbulls comments earlier, an ETS can easily be seen as a tax, and may well be defined as a tax in certain respects. It is highly likely that sections of the bills will refer directly to sections of the tax code. Whatever a classification of a ‘tax’ or not a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme holds, it is still the scheme that Gillard took to the election, as opposed to a Carbon Tax scheme. Note the difference here between the generic term of ‘tax’, and a specific ‘Carbon Tax’. A CPRS is still a different concept to a Carbon tax, and, even if the high court deemed it a tax, is still an CPRS, and, therefore, still what was promised prior to the election.

To delve deeper in the moronic nature of the debate, and, assuming that everything I have written here is dismissed for whatever reasons, there still remains one final hurdle to cross, which truly brings in the contradictory nature of the oppositions claims. This fixed price period of the trading scheme is, well, fixed, for three years (initially). Now, while many refer to absolutely anything the Government extracts from a private entity a tax, broadly, regardless of the details, not everyone is as free with the terminology. Here is an example of one such person, who, when presented with a question by joni over at Cafe Whispers, enlightened us on his own interpretation of the intricacies between certain terminologies:

JON HARRIS: Over here. The Opposition will impose a levy on business to fund a paid parental leave. When does a levy become a tax?

JOE HOCKEY: When it becomes permanent.

Of course, these rules only apply to certain political parties, which is all well and good, if you agree that rules for one and rules for another exist. But for the rest of us??

But will this rancid argument over a falsely alleged lie go away, and will we ever be able to actually discuss the actual merits or otherwise of the actual legislation? Going on the opposition’s behavior in parliament who, when presented with this opportunity, then proceeded to walk out en masse, only to appear outside and complain that the bills were being rammed through without any time for debate, I would guess not. And, more importantly, until our media can get back to reporting the facts, clearly and concisely, without picking through morsels to suit their agenda, while ignoring the core of what is said, I largely doubt that.

Should the GST be raised?

You may recall that one of the fabricated fears planted in people’s’ minds before the last election was that a Labor Government would raise the GST.  Those of us who remember the perceived threat may also remember the public outcry expressed by readers who left comments on popular sites like news.com.

Someone, somewhere, dreamt up that Gillard would raise the GST, the papers ran with it, and public rage followed.  Now who would have raised such an idea?  Given the negative aspects and the timing of the alleged threat I’m sure the Liberal camp might have had a small bit to play in it.  Might they now be a little bit bemused that there are genuine calls to have it raised, with many of the callers being the end of town that the Liberals party with?

The calls became more vociferous leading up to the recent Tax Summit.

But you may ask: “Why should we raise such a repressive tax?”  Well, there are a number of reasons.  Independent MP Tony Windsor starts of with the most simplest of these.

Tony Windsor has suggested the GST should rise by 1 percentage point to allow 115 “inefficient” taxes to be eradicated.

Mr Windsor and fellow crossbencher Tony Crook . . . called for the GST to be examined . . . following Treasury warnings that the tax has become increasingly inefficient.

Mr Windsor’s suggestion was in the wake Treasury’s executive director of revenue Rob Heferen’s statement that the GST was costing more to collect than other taxes and was “less than robust” because of increased spending on tax-free items.

The OECD Centre for Tax Policy and Administration highlighted the “practical reality” of an increase, being was essential to achieve many of the reforms recommended by the government’s tax review (The Henry Review) of 2009.

“There would seem to be a fairly compelling logic to GST base broadening and a slightly higher rate (eg 12.5 per cent) as a means of rationalising the major state taxes and compensating low-income citizens who would otherwise be unfairly impacted by GST expansion,” said the centre’s senior adviser Richard Highfield.

Viewing the current tax system as unfair and inefficient, accounting bodies also put their weight behind the call.  Among them, CPA Australia suggest that:

increasing the GST to 15 or 20 per cent, accompanied by cuts to business and personal tax rates, would improve the economy and raise the standard of living. “Our research helps demystify concerns that an increase in GST would hurt Australians,” CPA Australia chief executive Alex Malley said.

But the sharpest call and strongest argument comes from the big end of town; the business groups with the Australian Industry Group leading the call.

The Australian Industry Group is urging an increase in the rate of the GST – or  a broadening of its application to more goods and services – as a way to pay for  the removal of inefficient state taxes.

The Ai Group – whose chief executive Heather Ridout was involved in  the  Henry tax review – says the states and territories have among the most  inefficient and poorly designed of all Australia’s taxes.

Ideally, the group says, insurance taxes and conveyancing duties would be  removed and payroll tax remodelled or removed. Land tax could be improved  substantially.

Compliance costs could be reduced by harmonising remaining state taxes, and  economies of scale exploited by using the Australian Taxation Office to collect  state revenue.

A more broadly based or higher  GST should finance the removal of as many  existing state taxes as possible, it says.

Another architect of the Henry Review, Professor Greg Smith has also extolled the reasons and benefits of raising the GST, in particular the pressure it could take of income tax, and believes the increase to be inevitable, but is wary of one major obstacle, profoundly declaring it:

would require a selling job of which governments no longer seemed capable.

The tax summit has been and gone.  So has any talk of an increase to the GST.  In numerous media releases leading up to the summit the Government clearly ruled out the increase, or that it will be tabled for discussion.  To do so would have been political suicide.  It may have also been seen as an easy solution to return to surplus, even though it clearly would not have been for that purpose.  It is a mute point that the Government has been widely criticized for not heeding many of the recommendations of the Henry Review, namely from those critics who sit on the opposition benches.

I was opposed to the introduction of the GST and the manner in which the Howard Government hoisted it upon us, as many people were.  But it is with us, and despite its obvious flaws it nonetheless could unwittingly be the vehicle that will be used to overhaul the inequalities of the current tax system.  However, this is unlikely to happen for a few reasons:

• The negativity around the GST during the last election campaign and the Government’s reluctance to pursue the matter, particularly as it is in the minds of the electorate that the Labor Government has been painted as the party most likely to raise the GST if it ever were to be raised.
• Foregoing the above, the Government has a poor track record in selling major policies or extolling the virtues of those policies.
• An Abbott Government – should the country ever suffer one – after having planted the fear of an increase to be the child of a Labor Government, would also continue to ignore the benefits that an increase to the GST could deliver.

I must admit that I’m a bit swayed by the arguments in favour of an increase.  What do you think?

Tony Abbott demands..and demands..and demands

Source: The Courier Mail

Tony Abbott pushes his call for an election states the media reporter adding: “If as Tony Abbott says we are but a heart-beat away from an election then Tony Abbott’s policies need to be scrutinised a lot more”. Oh really??? Who would have thunk it.

27th August 2010: Tony Abbott is hedging his bets for another election. The Opposition Leader is an uber-competitor – not the type to baulk at the finish line.

27th September 2010: Just after Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor decided to back Labor, a relieved minister observed that, throughout the election campaign, Tony Abbott had reminded him of the Terminator, the Hollywood-created cyborg that made Arnold Schwarzenegger a star.

The seemingly indestructible cyborg assassin travelled back in time from 2029 to 1984 Los Angeles, programmed to kill its target, Sarah Connor.

In the kill-or-be-killed game of politics, the minister was paying Abbott a compliment with the analogy to the cold-blooded and emotionless killing machine.

”Abbott was like the bloody Terminator,” he said. ”It didn’t matter what we did, shoot him, blow him up, run him over with a truck. He’d get up, repair himself and keep coming after us. We got him in the end but we had to dump him in a pit of molten metal.”

The molten metal moment, the minister opined, was when the independents sided with Labor. That is where the analogy ends. In the sequel to The Terminator, the cyborg came back but had changed sides.

In the election sequel, Abbott returned as hell-bent as ever on exterminating the Gillard government.

10th October 2010: Tony Windsor has revealed for the first time why Tony Abbott is not prime minister today.

Remarkably it was because in the crucial early days of negotiations over the formation of a minority government Abbott didn’t want the job.

26th February 2011: Tony Abbott calls for election on carbon tax.

23rd March 2011: Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has called for a fresh election to test the federal government’s plan for a carbon tax.

Mr Abbott today addressed an anti-carbon tax rally outside Parliament House in Canberra, which organisers say attracted 3000 protesters.

12th May 2011: TONY Abbott has demanded Julia Gillard call an early election as soon as she finalises details of her carbon tax, declaring in his budget reply that her government lacked legitimacy and integrity.

23rd May 2011: Julia Gillard and Bob Brown reject Tony Abbott’s calls for an early election..Last night Opposition Leader Abbott used his formal reply to Tuesday night’s Budget to demand the Government quickly present its plans for putting a price on carbon pollution, and then call an election.

30th June 2011: TONY Abbott today demanded an immediate election to end “the experiment that failed” in minority government. However, the Opposition Leader did not want to discuss the workplace relations policy he would take to the election were it called.

16th August 2011: Tony Abbott got a rock star welcome from several thousand protesters at a boisterous anti-carbon tax rally outside Parliament House, though he was plainly wary about some of them.

The chant of “Tony, Tony, Tony” rose to a crescendo as the Opposition Leader repeated his mantra “no tax collection before an election”.

3rd September 2011: From Tony Abbott. “This is a government which has no right to ram through the parliament a carbon tax that it has no mandate for. The leadership of our country should be determined by the people at an election, not by the faceless men plotting behind the scenes.”

Tony, have you ever considered that just because you demand something it does not mean that you are going to get it. I do realize that Matthew 7:7 states Ask and ye shall receive, however there is also an old Proverb:

So be careful what you wish for
Because you just might get it
And if you get it then you just might not know
What to do with it, because it might just
Come back on you ten-fold.

The war is over!

Breaking News

Sorry lunalava and wixxy, I don’t mean to drown out your posts, but news.com has just reported that Obama has announced a withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.  They report that:

Mr Obama’s statement ended months of wrangling over whether the US would  maintain a force in Iraq beyond 2011.

Mr Obama spoke of a promise kept,  a new day for a self-reliant Iraq, and a focus on building up the economy of the  United States instead of a land far away.

“I can report that as promised,  the rest of our troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year,” Mr Obama  said.

“After nearly nine years, America’s war in Iraq will be  over.”

This story appeared under more important stories, such as Lindsay Lohan’s volunteer work at a soup kitchen.