Project Democracy http://www.projectdemocracy.com/ This is a Project Democracy feed of posts related to NickXenophon. Project Democracy is an initiative of GetUp.org.au aiming to make public representatives more accessible to their constituents and raise the level of debate in Australian politics. Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:00:00 +1100 Project Democracy Tech Team en Frustrating end to the Senate's Spring sitting http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1555 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 15:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1555 Estimates this week have covered a number of issues that are pressing for all Australians. But the treatment of these issues hasn't always been as serious as we might have hoped. Australia's response to the financial crisis has been under scrutiny - in particular the role of Treasury honcho Ken Henry in providing advice leading to the guarantee of bank deposits. Opposition Senators grilled Doctor Henry about whether or not he'd consulted adequately with the Reserve Bank before offering his advice, but as Bernard Keane pointed out in Crikey, in doing so they squandered the opportunity to reflect on the ramifications of international events for all of us:


The dominance of the (deposit caps) issue in Estimates was particularly wasteful. Given the crisis besetting the world economy, untrammelled access to Treasury officials for eight hours should have been used by senators of all persuasions to tease out the consequences for Australia. Instead we had senior officials beingcalled liars and threatened for refusing to cooperate

At a time when the future of the ABC as a national broadcasting institution is not clear, in Estimates, Senator Abetz has been on the ABC's case about alleged bias - including, if you can believe it, in the selection of audience for it's Q&A programme. He requested figures about the voting intention of audience members, and found the audience was 32 per cent Labor supporters, 24 per cent Coalition supporters, and 17 per cent Greens. He was concerned:


The test surely is that the ABC provide a balanced audience, because the cheering, the support, the commentary out of the audience can potentially be off-putting for some people that are part of the panel.

ABC Director Mark Scott said the problem was that Liberal supporters just wouldn't come along - Scott said he had invited


politicians and political parties including the Liberal Party of New South Wales, the Young Liberals and every state Liberal MP within one hour's drive of the ABC studios

That's that, then. But again, why can't Estimates be thinking about the ABC's present and future in a much broader and more considered way? On a whole range of these and other issues (like Internet filtering), Estimates hasn't brought us the level of debate we might have hoped for in these serious times. If you expect more from your Senators, let them know by contacting them through our site. You can find them by State or from our interactive map of the Senate floor. The Senate is now on a sitting break until the 10th of November - but remember, they should still be working for you. Keep up with their media appearances and have your say here at Project Democracy.

]]> P-FLAG supports same-sex equality http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1552 Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1552 Judy Brown is Preseident of P-FLAG NSW.

Speaking as president of PFLAG NSW Inc. (a support group for parents, families and friends of lesbian & gay people), I have come across many same-sex couples who have been together for more than twenty years. In most cases they are very committed to each other and have endured many years of social discrimination and human rights abuse. They feel that it is their social right to make a formal and legal commitment to each other and we support them in this. If they are committed in a loving same-sex relationship, they virtually have no legal rights when compared to a married or de-facto couple. They have no access to next of kin rights, family medicare/ health funds, superannuation, etc. Being a parent of a gay child raises awareness of these inequities and I am not prepared to have my child treated as a second class citizen all his life. It must be remembered that being gay or lesbian is not a lifestyle choice. Many go through years of anxiety trying to accept themselves, before they have the courage to reveal their same-sex attraction to family or friends. Many, who are not accepted by family, suffer depression, often resulting in suicide.

There is simply no logical reason why same-sex couples should not be allowed all the same benefits and rights as heterosexual couples. To legislate otherwise is not only discriminatory but demonstrates the irrational prejudice against homosexuality that exists among many of our politicians and legislators. Civil unions and partnership registries are a start, certainly, but marriage in Australian society affords benefits and status beyond civil unions. Not all same-sex couples want marriage and neither do all heterosexual couples, but in a fair society, they should all have the same option.

My husband and I have three children. All have loving partners, good jobs, mortgages and all pay tax. Five years ago, we celebrated the marriage of our eldest daughter and presently we are preparing to do the same for our youngest daughter. We yearn for the day when our son and his partner can have that same experience and for it to be widespread, official and legal.

]]> Should the weatlhy be taxed more? http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1550 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1550 Richard Dennis is the Director of the Australia Institute.

The wealthiest one per cent of Australians receives more than 35 per cent of all dividend income and more than 38 per cent of all capital gains according to the ATO. Luckily for them, both company profits and capital gains are taxed concessionally, ensuring that the tax system helps to exacerbate the gap between high- and low-income earners.

At the other end of the spectrum, the bottom 20 per cent of income earners receive just 3.2 per cent of all dividends paid and only 4.2 per cent of all capital gains.

‘Capital gain’ refers to any profits associated with an increase in the price of an asset; for example, shares rising from $1 to $3 or the value of an investment property rising from $200,000 to $400,000.

The fact that capital gains on the family home are tax-free is widely known, but there has been virtually no public debate about the 50 per cent tax discount that applies to all capital gains. That is, if the value of shares held by a stockbroker rise by $1 million, tax is payable on only $500,000 of the gain.

This 50 per cent capital gains concession costs the Commonwealth more than $7.8 billion per year in lost revenue and, because of the very uneven distribution of income described above, more than $3 billion of that benefit goes straight to the wealthiest one per cent of the population.

The Australia Institute has recently suggested that a new tax rate of 50 per cent be applied to incomes over $1 million per year. At present, the top tax rate of 45 per cent kicks in at $180,000 and, while there is no doubt that people living on more than three times the average income are doing well, there is also no doubt that people earning $1.8 million, or even $18 million as is the case with some CEOs, have a much greater capacity to pay than those on $180,000.

Tax rates for high income earners were 75 per cent in the 1950s, 65 per cent in the 1970s and 50 per cent in the late 1980s. Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy as soon as he became President of the US, and Barrack Obama has already announced he will do the same, even if Joe the Plumber doesn’t like it. Kevin Rudd has declared that it is ‘game over’ for corporate excess; the question is will he put their money where his mouth is?
]]> Senate Estimates http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1548 Wed, 22 Oct 2008 12:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1548
Estimates hearings originally came about so that the Senate could keep a closer eye on how budget money was being spent. Since they were initiated in 1970, they have grown into an opportunity for oppositions to put Governments under pressure. Harry Evans explains on the Senate website:

From the start the estimates hearings were an opportunity to question ministers and officers about any activity of government departments and agencies. They were a general inquisition into the operations of government.


Estimates Hearings are a crucial part of the Senate's role as a house of review - a role it always performs more effectively when it is independent of Government control.

Perhaps it's inevitable that due to its inquisitorial nature, part of the Estimates process comes down to political point-scoring - at the expense both the Government and other Government-run or funded organisations. So far, this round has seen a few Opposition and cross-bench Senators go for the jugular. We'll be offering reports on the Estimates process here on the Project Democracy blogs. ]]> ABC Pours Fuel on Radio National's Fire http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1545 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 13:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1545 Darce Cassidy is a former Radio National broadcaster, and a former senior executive with the ABC

Presenter of highly acclaimed RN program The Religion Report, Stephen Crittenden, has been suspended by ABC management following his on-air comments last week regarding the axing of his program.

The ABC has announced an inquiry, but not into the decision to wind up nine programs - the inquiry will be into Stephen's comments! He has, of course, been instructed by ABC management not to make any further statements.

There is a link on Crikey's site to an MP3 of Crittenden's remarks.

Radio National is not the ABC’s highest rating network, but it is the most valued by its listeners, who have been outraged by the loss of these programs.

It is not often that all major political parties agree, but last week both the Government and the Opposition supported a motion by Greens leader Bob Brown calling on ABC management to explain the reasons for its decision.

The motion reads as follows:

I move that the Senate:

(i) Notes ABC Radio National's decision to axe the Religion Report, Media Report and the Sports Factor;

(ii) Notes that the Religion Report is one of the most important programs on the ABC with a rapidly growing international audience;

(iii) Notes that this program broke the Peter Hollingworth scandal, has applied critical analysis of the Exclusive Brethren, Anglican, Catholic and Muslim religions amongst others and provided insightful commentary of various religions over many years;

(iv) Calls on ABC management to publicly reveal all formal and informal criticisms made against this program over recent years; and

(v) Calls on ABC management to immediately make public the reasons for this decision.


The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Stephen Conroy, has announced a two month public consultation on the future of Australia's national broadcasters, the ABC and SBS. Comments from the public are welcome. Details are on the Department's site.

Please let both the government and ABC management know your views.]]> Time for Drug Law Reform? http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1543 Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1543
I had my first panic attack when I was around 16, walking through the streets of Darlinghurst, stoned on pot. I heard a police siren a few blocks away and suddenly I was consumed by one terrifying thought. The police car could sense me. The red flashing light on the top was actually a special sensor that could zero in on pot smokers. They knew I was there and they were coming for me. Any minute, maybe any second they would pull up next to me in this quiet, little street, where I stood frozen. I couldn't speak, I couldn't breathe, I couldn't move, I was so terrified.

They would take me away and that would be the end of my whole life. At that age I believed I would die if I was sent to jail. I couldn't imagine surviving that terrible experience. My friend was up ahead and called back to me, 'Come on, let's go.'

She smiled and beckoned so I walked towards her. She took my mind right awy from things and was so kind and caring I forgot all about the police and they didn't turn up. I was very lucky to have such a friend at that moment. It seems a great loss that the police aren't there to offer help to people but instead are being used as a tool of Terror.

Bessie Blueintheface is a GetUp! Member]]> Same-sex Law Reform http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1541 Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1541
Until now, Australian federal law has failed to grant these entitlements in areas like superannuation, taxation, pensions and health care, despite the fact key entitlements are available for same-sex partners in every state and territory and in almost every other western nation.

The problem hasn’t been community opinion.

According to a Galaxy poll commissioned by Get Up last year, almost three in four Australians support this reform.

The hitch was the failure of our national politicians to grasp the importance of legal equity.

They simply didn't see those older and retired gays and lesbians who fell into poverty because they can't claim their partner's superannuation or pension.

They didn't see those gay and lesbian parents who struggled to make ends meet because they couldn't access the same benefits as their heterosexual counterparts.

They didn't see those isolated and fearful young gays and lesbians for whom lack of legal equity was another marker of their second-class status in society.

After many years of advocacy by the minor parties reform was given a boost in 2007 with the release of a Human Rights Commission report giving voice to this kind of discrimination, disadvantage and stigma.

It's solution was to extend the definition of de facto partners to include same-sex couples.

To its credit the then Rudd Labor Opposition committed itself to this reform and since its election to government has acted on this commitment with legislation currently before Parliament.

In a break with the past, the Liberal Opposition did the same, at least in principle.

But unfortunately, neither community support for reform, nor old-fashion human compassion, softened the opposition of a rump of die-hard anti-gay Coalition MPs.

They have succeeded in slowing down reform by raising a slew of irrelevant concerns about the definition of marriage and parenting, the recognition of companionate couples, and even whether polygamy might now magically be permitted.

Again, to its credit, the Rudd Government has steered reform past most of these snags, helped, in no small measure, by the election of socially-progressive Malcolm Turnbull to the Liberal leadership.

The Government’s reform bills are still to pass the Senate.

Here, the die-hards will continue to preach to their anti-gay constituents about traditional marriage, and mum and dad families.

But I’m confident that in the end reform will pass, thanks to the heart-felt advocacy of Australia’s same-sex couples, to activist groups like Get Up, and to the common sense of average Australians.

If you care about this issue, sign GetUp!'s petition on same-sex entitlements.

Rodney Croome is a spokesperson for the Australian Coalition for Equality. in 2003 he was made a Member of the Order of Australia for his gay rights advocacy.]]> The Crisis and Climate Change http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1538 Thu, 16 Oct 2008 10:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1538 John Quiggin is a Federation Fellow in economics at the University of Queensland. He blogs on economic and environmental issues at johnquiggin.com

As I’ve mentioned before, the drama of the financial crisis has tended to distract attention from the bigger long-term problem of climate change. But is there more than that? How will the crisis affect the economics of a response to climate change? I’ve been asked by GetUp to do a guest post on this.

Most obviously, given the likelihood of a global recession, there will be a modest slowdown in economic growth which will have an impact on emissions of carbon dioxide (other greenhouse gases like methane won’t be much affected). But this effect is too small to count as even modest consolation. As a first approximation, a general decline in economic output will have a proportional effect on emissions. That is, a severe recession, with a 5 per cent reduction in global output, would reduce emissions by around 5 per cent. In fact, the impact is likely to be smaller, because the supply of oil in particular is now constrained by declining reserves. An economic slowdown will reduce the price of oil but won’t do much to change consumption.

Comparing this marginal impact to the size of the reductions that we need (at least 30 per cent over the next decade relative to business as usual), it is obvious that the way to get there is not to reduce total output and income but to shift to a less emissions-intensive pattern of economic activity. As a string of economic studies have shown, we could reduce emissions greatly (60-90 per cent by 2050) at a cost of reducing total consumption by a few per cent. Unsurprisingly, as with most claims about spin-off effects, the way to reduce CO2 emissions is not to reduce economic activity or to target any other indirectly related variable. The best way to reduce CO2 emissions is with policies designed for that purpose.

The big question is whether, in the light of the financial crisis, we need to reconsider policies designed to stabilise climate, such as emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes and direct interventions to promote energy efficiency and renewable energy. In general, the answer is “No”. Most of these policies are either neutral or stimulatory in their impact on economic activity. In the case of emissions trading, for example, all existing proposals call for revenue to be returned either to households or to affected industries. So, there should be little net effect on aggregate demand.

Policies encouraging investment in more sustainable infrastructure will be more desirable in a situation where private investment in general is likely to be depressed for some time. The Rudd government has already announced that its infrastructure program will be brought forward, and that is obviously sensible.

The main implication of the crisis is that more attention needs to be paid to the employment effects of policy changes. While these will be positive on balance, since renewable energy tends to be more labour-intensive than fossil fuel industries, and energy efficiency and offset programs more labour-intensive again, the need for adjustment assistance for those who lose out (workers in coal-fired power stations and communities based on those industries) will be greater than before. This should include not only cash payments but support for the development of new sources of employment.

Finally, as regards the politics, the short-run effect has undoubtedly been a shift of public attention away from the environment. But many of the long-term effects of the crisis will be favorable for the environment. These include the collapse of ideological objections to government intervention (ludicrous now that the Masters of the Universe are begging for partial nationalisation), and a rejection of the culture of excessive and ostentatious consumption that has characterized the boom. More conservative virtues of thrift and caution are likely to come to the fore, and these are virtues exemplified more by the conservation movement (which derives its name from the same source) than by those commonly described as political ‘conservatives’.]]> Opportunist U-Turn for Fielding http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1535 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 16:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1535
In his own word, Fielding is going to deliver "stability" to help fight the financial crisis. One part of this is right. His obstructionism has been destabilising, crises aside. His search for votes and publicity has been at the expense of good government. His arguments against these measures were hardly compelling reasons for blocking major budgetary items. Plus he has received considerable criticism.

There is no doubt that his compromise with the government over the luxury car tax is little understood. Any real analysis passed me by, as more pressing economic events overwhelmed it. The murky backroom dealing is easy to imagine and may even extend to this latest reversal by Fielding. Who knows what his going rate is at the moment.

I am reminded of another time but a similar issue. I was driving taxis in May 1974. This was an honourable profession for Arts graduates. Recently retired ALP Senator Robert Ray and one time Defence Minister also started this way, as well as spending a short stint as a teacher.

One afternoon I picked up a fare at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons in Spring Street, Melbourne and took them to Liberal Party headquarters in South Melbourne. There were three politicians including Tony Staley, the Member for Chisholm. They had just had a meeting with representatives of the private health insurance industry about how to oppose the Medibank double dissolution bill that was one of the triggers for the 1974 election. Receiving their riding instructions so to speak.

Now every cabbie knows that people in suits think that you can’t speak the lingo. Even if you could you’d never understand a conversation about the politics of health insurance. How wrong can they be! Staley and Co. spoke openly for twenty minutes about their likely strategy in the coming weeks.

After my shift finished, I went to my unpaid work at the time, as a campaign volunteer in the ALP office. No doubt there were ethical issues about a cabbie’s confidentiality. It still brings a smile.

Medibank was established after a joint sitting following Gough Whitlam’s re-election. Malcolm Fraser’s government effectively destroyed it as a public, universal health insurance system until it was reinstated as Medicare by the Hawke government.

There are a few morals to this tale. Senator Fielding chose to align himself with not only Coalition obstructionism but also with th big end of town: big booze and the private health insurance industry. They are dangerous bed-fellows. No wonder he has decided to take this opportunity for a somewhat graceful backdown. Need to look up a thesaurus: backdown, flip-flop, reversal, cave-in, retreat, u-turn, back-flip.

For those who know little about double dissolutions and joint sitting of parliament, now may be the right time to fill that gap. The irony for Fielding is that he would only need half the normal proportion to be re-elected in a double dissolution.

Kevin Rennie is a GetUp member. He blogs at Labor View from Bayside.]]> A reply to Senator Humphries http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1534 Tue, 14 Oct 2008 10:00:00 +1100 http://www.projectdemocracy.com/blog/post.php?id=1534
In the spirit of a vibrant democracy, I'd like to address some of Senator Humphries' concerns about GetUp. The Senator claims that GetUp's political agenda is hidden and "undisclosed." The campaigns we fight on are plastered all over our homepage for all to see. They aren't drawn from a Greens or ALP agenda, in fact they cut across the political spectrum - being independent is what allows us to criticise without fear or favour, and our campaigns have targeted decision makers regardless of which party is in power. And they are disclosed in a very public manner.

As you'll also read on our website, GetUp does not back any particular party, but aims to build an accountable and progressive Parliament - a Parliament with economic fairness, social justice and environmental sustainability at its core. That is our 'agenda'.

Economic fairness, social justice and environmental sustainability - that's what we believe in.

GetUp is a not-for-profit and receives no money from any political party or the government. We rely solely on funds and in-kind donations from the Australian public. Donations that we receive not to pursue an undisclosed agenda, but to build our nation's progressive future.

In pursuing our vision for Australia, as GetUp members we know that we have to work closely with the Liberal and National parties. In fact, this is perhaps the most crucial thing we can do at this point in time. It is therefore disappointing that Senator Humphries has misunderstood GetUp's purpose so dramatically. We would love to work with him to help produce better outcomes on issues we can hold the Government to account on.

Project Democracy, part of our democracy building arm, offers a service that all Australians can use. One which does not promote any political agenda. It offers parliamentary information, tailored news feeds, and the opportunity to have your say on what your senators are up to. None of this has any intrinsic political agenda attached.

Once again, I want to thank the Senator for his contribution, and I'd love to see him back here interacting with his constituents on Project Democracy.

Senator Humphries - for Project Democracy to fulfill its purpose we need more posts from people like you. Thank you for contributing your thoughts.

Simon Sheikh is National Director of GetUp!]]>