28 thoughts on “Monday message board”

  1. I wonder whether anyone has a view on Howard’s recent floating of the proposal for non-compulsory voting?

    I used to be in favour of compulsory voting (and find the supposed ethical argumetns against it to be very weak), but given teh standards to which the major parties have sunk in undertaking their campaigns, and the general disinterest in the issues that I think should be integral to a healthy democracy, I’ve now changed my mind. Basically, if you’re not paying attention, and can’t separate the utter bollocks from the actual policies put forward, then go right ahead, stay asleep. At least your interest rates will be kept low, right?

    I think non-compuslory voting would skew the distribution away from the outer-suburban mortgagees towards the inner urban and rural voters. But that’s just a hunch – I bet the political parties would have some real data on it.

  2. Wilful,
    The ones who tend to vote under non-compulsory systems are the old and committed. The old favour the Liberals and the Nationals, the committed tend to be more single issue driven. The result would tend to favour the Greens and the Labor left.
    Overall, it tends to polarise the results as the mass in the middle do not bother to vote and the parties tend to concentrate on getting out their core, rather than appealing to the middle. The result could be seen in last year’s US presidential election where the democrats tried to appeal to the middle and the Republicans concentrated on getting out th econservative vote. The Republicans got out the vote and won.

  4. Where’s The Curry, Kim?

    The ‘culture’ in the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (DIMIA) is broken. Mick Palmer apparently says so. The ALP says so. So too does the Anglican Church, some opinion writers and a whole bunch of the department’s clients.

    But it is apparently not the fault of the Minister. “If there is a failure for which the Minister is not directly responsible, it’s not fair to say the Minister should lose his or her head – that’s a fair principle,” says the Prime Minister. “I think ministers should go when plainly they have been directly responsible, and I think ministers should be in difficulty if their continued presence is an embarrassment to the Government. I don’t think that could ever be said of Mr Ruddock or Senator Vanstone.”

    So, by the Prime Minister’s logic, the Minister is not directly responsible for that which occurs within his or her department, and the criterion by which the Ministers’ competence is determined is whether they become an embarrassment for the Government. Forget right and wrong. Forget due process. Just manage to keep your head below the firing line and you’re there for the life of the Government. That’s why ministers get the big taxpayer funded salaries; to deflect embarrassment away from the government.

    Neither, apparently, is it the fault of the Head of the Department. As we now know, the bureaucrat who presided over the discredited ‘culture’ within DIMIA has since been awarded the highest order which can be given in this country, the Companion of the Order of Australia, and presented with a coveted diplomatic position well away from the domestic media spotlight. Little chance then of his continued presence proving ‘an embarrassment to the Government’. And he leaves the department with the carefully worded endorsement of the Prime Minister. “Bill Farmer has been a very loyal and professional and very effective person in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and he’s also led Immigration during a time of unprecedented strain on the resources of the department”.

    Just where does the back stop with this government? How low can they push the level of accountability for spectacular blunders like those at DIMIA over the past couple of years?

    As low as they like, apparently. Kim Beazley told the National Press club on April 13 that his opposition would return to the traditional role of holding the government to account. “We should be tested on how we perform our real role in the Westminster system – giving the Government curry when it does the wrong thingâ€?, he promised. Right. So who is accountable for the DIMIA Debacle and what is the ALP doing about it? Where’s the curry, Kim?

    Isn’t it time we started talking about government accountability? We should demand a ministerial code of conduct that does not resemble the ozone layer in the magnitude of the holes it contains for ministers to step through. It should be a code which requires ministers to accept responsibility for the performance of their departments; good and ordinary. It should measure the performance of the minister across a range of criteria which include public, client and stakeholder satisfaction. It should promote ethical and transparent decision making, and decry blatant political manoevreing. It should state clearly, and reinforce, the apolitical nature of the role of departmental staff. Maybe (heaven forbid) we could measure each department against their stated Client Service Charter. (DIMIA’s charter is, in light of their recent performance, very amusing reading).

    If the barely recognisable parliamentary opposition is afraid to push for such a code of conduct, we should establish 150 of our own electoral committees to assess the performance of each elected representative.

    Perhaps there is some merit in not blaming Ruddock or Vanstone or Farmer for the deplorable state of the ‘culture’ of DIMIA. Perhaps we should be focussing not on the ‘culture’ of one department, but on the ‘culture’ of this government. Who then accepts accountability for the ‘culture’ of deceipt, arrogance, nepotism and politicisation of the previoulsy apolitical institutions of this country?

    “One extra hot curry for the small chap with glasses sitting alone at table one.� If only we had a chef.

  5. the newest Harry Potter book comes out soon – i bet you Dumbledore’s turned evil and Ratzinger’s appalled.

  6. I would support a move to voluntary voting.

    However what I want to know is why there is such a restricted market in which I can sell my vote. Howard can buy my vote or Beazley can buy my vote but I can’t sell it on eBay. If I was allowed to sell it on eBay I recon that I could get a better price than that offered by either Howard or Beazley.

    Why is vote buying allowed with public funds but not with private funds?

  7. “…ministers to accept responsibility for the performance of their departments; good and ordinary.”
    I think you will find there is no problem getting them to accept responsibility for good performance – so we’re half-way there, no?

  8. Terje, probably because the wealthy would then have the opportunity to buy a whole lot of votes and do what they wanted with the country.

    Howard and Beazley might need to buy your votes, but if you don’t like either of them, you don’t have to vote for them.

  9. Of all the arguments, philosophical and technical, I have heard for and against compulsory voting, only one seemed to have real substance: If the vast majority of the voting age population cast a valid vote then the political parties and candidates need to take account and be more inclusive of a much greater range of political and social views. This tends to lessen the potential for serious political and social disharmony and disintegration. (If you think that having a government elected by just over 50% of the voting population is problematic, think about the possible consequences of them being elected by say 30%.)

    If this argument is true, then compulsory voting is a very small price to pay for that greater inclusiveness and social harmony. And compulsory voting could hardly be described as an onerous infringement on personal liberties and resources. Indeed, it could be described as the minimum political obligation in a democracy.

    I support compulsory voting. There are far, far more important and urgent political issues in Oz than voluntary voting. And always will be.

  10. On 3LO this morning Peter Costello opined that the fact that an Anglican bishop has a theology degree doesn’t make him an expert in industrial relations. I can’t disagree with that.

    However.

    Given Costello’s cozying up to the Pentacostals, perhaps he should clarify his attitude to the authoritativeness of persons who speak in tongues.

    Do pronouncements on Industrial Relations delivered in tongues, allegedly under the influence of the Holy Spirit, carry more weight than pronouncements supported by a degree in theology?

  11. How about moral pronouncements on topics such as euthanasia and homosexuality by one John Winston Howard, a suburban lawyer from Western Sydney?

  13. I listened to Costello on 3LO also. Very rich of him!
    Following his logic, I would suggest that the wrong brother was up on the pulpit at Hillsong. And since when did a law degree mean you’re an expert on economics or euthanasia?

    The logical dead-end Costello got himself into was created by his refusal to declare Andrews was wrong to tell the Anglican Archbishop to ‘butt out’ whilst declaring that every citizen is free to express an opinion and criticise the Government. Unless, of course, they dont have a uni degree in that specific field of… and no bets for guessing if you have a uni degree in the relevant field the ole Ivory Tower cliche will re-appear.

  14. Double dipping… on voluntary voting:

    Per Wilful Basically, if you’re not paying attention, and can’t separate the utter bollocks from the actual policies put forward, then go right ahead, stay asleep. At least your interest rates will be kept low, right?

    I reckon the last US election is a clear indication of just how much lower the tactics can go: ie mobilising red-necks and bigots on the basis of gay-bashing. The tactics used in recent Western campaigns have a lot more to do with subjective and ill-informed journalism (and thus an ill-informed public) than outer-suburban mortgagees voting conservatively.

    I reckon if non-compulsory voting started next election you would see a massive swing to Hillsong type campaigning and One Nation policies dressed up as ‘defending the family.’ Or ‘supporting our troops’… or ‘supporting our troops’ families’… or…

  15. I’m with wilful’s anticipation of the possible effects of voluntary voting (but not his justification for it). I don’t go for the trad view that compulsory voting necessarily favours Labor. Especially her/his point about outer suburbans, who tend to be Liberal voters. Statistically (and lumping them together) outer suburbanites are over-represented by the self-employed, perhaps less likely to get around to attending the local primary school on a Saturday.

    But I doubt the political parties “have any real data on it”. Apart from anything else, a question like: “would you vote if voting wasn’t compulsory?” would be best approached with a ten foot poll.

    The arguments for compulsory voting remain strong, but given that at the federal election before it was introduced in the 1920s participation was in the 50 something percent range, its abolition might give us all a needed boot up the bum.

    The government’s plan to close the rolls on election is more important in terms of blatant partisan advantage. That it would help the Coalition is almost beyond doubt.

  16. Non-Compulsory voting? Bring it on. Make them earn the funding they so desperately need. Get out the vote – at least it will get my local member(s) out of wherever it is they have now scurried away to since the last elections.

  17. QUOTE: Terje, probably because the wealthy would then have the opportunity to buy a whole lot of votes and do what they wanted with the country.

    RESPONSE: Only if people chose to sell their vote. I would personally only sell my vote to somebody who shared my values. In any case at the last election enough people sold their vote to John Howard so now he can do what he wants with the country. So whats the big issue.

    If some politicians can use my tax dollars to buy my vote then why can’t I be allowed to simply sell it on an open market to some other third party if they are making a better offer.

  18. Terje, you’ve got it ALL wrong!

    You don’t sell your vote… you *lease* your vote (or parts of your vote) in a shell company to avoid the higher brackets of personal taxation. Not only do you now have a company for (questionable) business write-offs, you avoid the taxation incurred from selling your vote as a capital gain. Similarly, if you want an extra vote, you *lease* someone else’s vote with your company (or if you’re a leftie, you form a vote co-operative).

    The fit hits the shan in the bust years when the bottom falls out of the voting market (probably at the time just after elections when votes are at their lowest speculative value). Who knows what could happen in such vote market volatility? Foreign companies could buy up the votes, and before you know it, Australia is now the “Incorporated Republic of Nike”.

    The big problem is that not every one has the same voting power. If you live in the NT, your vote is 1/50000th of the electorate. If you live in the ACT, your vote is half that. In the senate, it comes down to if you live in a state or territory. So now we have an extra problem: how to scale in the different values of votes in our voting market. Not an easy one to overcome.

    Finally, the possibility of of politicians buying votes leads to an interesting scenario (similar to Bertrand’s model of Oligopoly). People with vote as individuals will lower their prices continuously as politicians don’t need ALL the votes, only 50%+1. Once they acquire that level (or once anyone acquires that level), the value of the remaining votes for sale in that electorate is effectively zero.

  19. “How about those Lions, eh?”

    After the end of the minor round the premiership table according to percentage only is:

    WC
    Adel
    Bris
    St K
    Geel
    Melb
    Syd
    Freo
    Rich
    Kang
    WB
    Port
    Coll
    Ess
    Haw

    Percentage doesn’t lie. Yep Brisbane are back and so are the Crows to take on WC, but alas Port your slip is showing badly. (Yeah we trounced the Dees, but the wimps made us look good)

  20. Observa,

    I realise Carlton aren’t travelling so well, but to be actually left OFF the table…..that’s a bit harsh.

    Anyway, I just got my first ‘tax-cut’ payslip and got a very nasty surprise. I had an Austudy Financial Supplement Loan way back. I finished paying it off a year or so ago, but left the deduction on my pay as a little bit of enforced saving.

    Opening my pay envelope today I find that my Fin Supp repayment has increased in size by 66%!!!! I called the pay people and wouldn’t you know it – they’ve been directed by the new ATO tax tables to direct all ‘tax cuts’ against any Fin Sup debt prior to handing on to the taxpayer. In other words, if you’ve got a Fin Sup debt – no tax cut for you (in your hand, anyway).

    Funny, but I didn’t hear anything about this when the greatest treasurer ever known on this or any other planet gave out his tax-cut candy.

    Looks like I’ll have to force myself to save the old fashioned way.

  21. Happily/unhappily for Port, their draw with Carlton means for them percentage is irrelevant. This weekend’s WC/Lions game looks to be the home and away clash of the season.

  22. Oops, sorry about the slip with the Blues Swade. I should have included them of course to make Port look better.

    The Crows are in the box seat to take the precious second spot now WC have a mortgage on top spot. The Crows are 2 games and 9% above Bris, and 1 game and 13% above their nearest rival Geelong. With 5 home games out of the remaining 7, the Crows should be 2nd priced favourites now.

  23. Alpaca, you’ve got it all wrong!

    The Australian government should be incorporated and then floated with each existing voter getting a single voting share. Shares in the government can then be traded on the ASX… Better still, do it for every country!

    International law and governance could be replaced by exchange rules and corporations law. The role of the WTO would be fulfilled by competition laws and by TPA provisions. The EU is a giant merger. Iraq is a wholly owned subsidiary of the USA. Oh it would be beautiful!

    Better still, the 50% minus one that didn’t vote for Howard would have protections under the TPA based on oppression of minority shareholders.

    Sure there are problems with people dying and people being born, but historical inequalities rarely concern us in the marketplace.

  25. Alpaca,

    Yes it is true that votes are not an entirely fungible market commodity. However each class of vote is fungible.

    The problem is that the value of a vote depends entirely on where it is exercised. So its a rather strange sort of instrument.

    So what would you pay for my vote? And is it more than Mr Howard or Mr Beazley is currently offering.

    Just think we could do away with state based welfare. The rich would buy all the votes and insist that income tax be abolished. The poor would not care because they could live of the proceeds earned from selling their vote. Its like a voucher system.

    Looking at it another way. What would you pay the poor to stop them voting for the welfare state and its associated high taxes?

    Regards,
    Terje.

  28. Terje, what you describe has many similarities with the Roman patron/client system. But that depends on a certain organisation of society already being present.

Comments are closed.