While I don't agree with the Greens on much (for the record I think they're a petit bourgeois party, who are more interested in feel good policies than genuine social change) this recent piece on the ABC is absolutely shocking.
Private school funding from the public purse is one of the most disgraceful populist policies floating around. When public schools are chronically underfunded it is disgusting to see elite private schools receiving government subsidies. The secondary private sector receives more public funding than the entire public tertiary sector.
I'm not saying that there is no room for diversity in schools, or that parents shouldn't be able to choose a private or religious education for their children. However, to see wealthy private schools receiving billions of dollars, while public schools are falling apart at the seams is shameful, expecially given the majority of children in Australia still attend a public school.
Why isn't Labor following the Greens' example in exposing this hypocrisy?
Sunday, November 19, 2006
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Shed a tier
With the recent decision by the High Court to allow the Federal government to use its Corporations power to regulate the employment framework in the vast majority of workplaces around the country, the debate has turned to what this means for the future of the states.
While the Coalition has traditionally been more in favour of states' rights than Labor, the unassailable position of the incumbent federal coalition government, combined with the equally secure position of most state Labor governments has led them to become one of the most centralising federal governments in Australia's history, with Greg Craven describing it as, "the greatest constitutional disaster to befall the states in 80 years."
I'm not sure that it's all that bad. Perhaps it is time that Australia shed a tier. For a country with a population of 20 million it's ridiculous that we have three tiers of government. A far more reasonable approach would be to abolish the states and expand the role of local/ regional governments. As someone who has lived in three states and one territory across my life, the political and cultural distinctions are minimal.
When federation first occurred, communication and transportation between the states was long, difficult and ineffective. This no longer the case. Communications technologies and aviation have long since put an end to the kind of isolation that used to exist.
Despite this, I accept that a national government in Canberra would not necessarily be able to govern effectively in all the far flung reaches of the country. This where regional governments come in. If there's an issue that is better dealt with by local communities, it should be dealt with by local communities. The fact is that most state governments only govern for the major cities anyway, with little regard for rural and regional areas. An expanded role for regional governments could breathe life back into our country towns and regions.
While the Coalition has traditionally been more in favour of states' rights than Labor, the unassailable position of the incumbent federal coalition government, combined with the equally secure position of most state Labor governments has led them to become one of the most centralising federal governments in Australia's history, with Greg Craven describing it as, "the greatest constitutional disaster to befall the states in 80 years."
I'm not sure that it's all that bad. Perhaps it is time that Australia shed a tier. For a country with a population of 20 million it's ridiculous that we have three tiers of government. A far more reasonable approach would be to abolish the states and expand the role of local/ regional governments. As someone who has lived in three states and one territory across my life, the political and cultural distinctions are minimal.
When federation first occurred, communication and transportation between the states was long, difficult and ineffective. This no longer the case. Communications technologies and aviation have long since put an end to the kind of isolation that used to exist.
Despite this, I accept that a national government in Canberra would not necessarily be able to govern effectively in all the far flung reaches of the country. This where regional governments come in. If there's an issue that is better dealt with by local communities, it should be dealt with by local communities. The fact is that most state governments only govern for the major cities anyway, with little regard for rural and regional areas. An expanded role for regional governments could breathe life back into our country towns and regions.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Will a double dissolution be necessary?
Given the conservative control of the Senate, there has begun to be discussions around the traps about the possibility that a double dissolution will be required after the next federal election, should Labor win government.
Can Labor wrest control of the Senate back at the next election?
Probably not.
The major gains for the Coalition in the Senate occurred at the 2004 election, and these Senators will not be up for re-election until sometime in 2010.
Of the 40 Senators who will face re-election, 20 are from the Coalition, and 20 are from the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats.
In order for the Coalition to lose the majority in the Senate, the ALP, (plus any other progressive forces, such as the Greens) will need to win at least at least 3 Senate seats in each state, at least one in each of the territories, and at least 4 in at least one state. This would require a phenomenal swing to the non-Coalition parties.
Would a Labor government be able to govern with a Coalition controlled Senate?
Probably not.
With a Labor government seeking to roll back many of the Howard government's most cherished achievements, it is very unlikely that Coalition Senators will be amenable to Labor's extensive agenda. This includes WorkChoices, the sedition laws and full fee places in universities.
But, how are we going to change the face of Australian politics?
Through a double dissolution, my friend.
If piece of legislation is rejected by the Senate twice, then the government of the day can choose to dissolve both houses of government in their entirety, and put the issue to the electorate. It is likely that Labor will have many popular double dissolution triggers, including the repeal of Work Choices.
After that election, there is a joint sitting of the houses of parliament, where the contentious piece of legislation is voted upon. Given that the House of Representatives is about twice the size of the Senate, the view of the newly elected government tends to prevail.
But will Beazley have the ticker?
Your guess is as good as mine.
Can Labor wrest control of the Senate back at the next election?
Probably not.
The major gains for the Coalition in the Senate occurred at the 2004 election, and these Senators will not be up for re-election until sometime in 2010.
Of the 40 Senators who will face re-election, 20 are from the Coalition, and 20 are from the ALP, the Greens and the Democrats.
In order for the Coalition to lose the majority in the Senate, the ALP, (plus any other progressive forces, such as the Greens) will need to win at least at least 3 Senate seats in each state, at least one in each of the territories, and at least 4 in at least one state. This would require a phenomenal swing to the non-Coalition parties.
Would a Labor government be able to govern with a Coalition controlled Senate?
Probably not.
With a Labor government seeking to roll back many of the Howard government's most cherished achievements, it is very unlikely that Coalition Senators will be amenable to Labor's extensive agenda. This includes WorkChoices, the sedition laws and full fee places in universities.
But, how are we going to change the face of Australian politics?
Through a double dissolution, my friend.
If piece of legislation is rejected by the Senate twice, then the government of the day can choose to dissolve both houses of government in their entirety, and put the issue to the electorate. It is likely that Labor will have many popular double dissolution triggers, including the repeal of Work Choices.
After that election, there is a joint sitting of the houses of parliament, where the contentious piece of legislation is voted upon. Given that the House of Representatives is about twice the size of the Senate, the view of the newly elected government tends to prevail.
But will Beazley have the ticker?
Your guess is as good as mine.
High Court dismisses WorkChoices challenge
While I've been holding out some vain hope that the Federal government's IR laws would be struck down buy the High Court, they have sided with the government in a fairly uncontroversial decision.
I guess this means that this issue will simply have to be fought out at the ballot box, as Labor leaders have been saying all day.
In any case, a decision by the High Court to declare the legislation in part or in whole unconstitutional would merely have taken some of the political sting out of the tail for the government, which is the last thing the union movement and federal Labor need.
I guess this means that this issue will simply have to be fought out at the ballot box, as Labor leaders have been saying all day.
In any case, a decision by the High Court to declare the legislation in part or in whole unconstitutional would merely have taken some of the political sting out of the tail for the government, which is the last thing the union movement and federal Labor need.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)