Archive

Archive for the ‘‘None of the Above’ Campaign’ Category

EYE-BALL Opinion’s “None of the Above” campaign – We don’t trust our Leaders -

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2

Latest EYE-BALL ‘None of the Above’ Posts:


- 28th May – New cash grab to cover Political Party Administration Costs -


- 5th Nov – Referendum Discussion No 1 – Compulsory Voting – “None of the Above” Campaign -


- 3rd Nov 2012 – ALP voters beware – The Labour Party is not what it seems -


- 2nd Aug 2012 – New Q’LD LNP amends Party Funding arrangements ….


- 13th July 2012 – The Consequence of Poor Political Leadership


- 12th July 2012 – This Labour Party is Diseased


- 10th Jan 2011 – Australia Votes – “None of the Above” Campaign


- Link to 2011 JSCEM Submission

(PDF file format)


Title:
- we don’t trust our Leaders -
- part of Eye-Ball’s – “None of the Above Campaign” -
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 4th Aug 2013 |
The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2Link to the Eye-Ball – ‘None of the Above’ campaign Front Page …


Most of this post was written during the past week – but the news yesterday – [Sunday 4th Aug 2013] – that PM Rudd has called a 7th Sept election is news that a Nation has been waiting for, and renders some of the commentary outdated.

On the Election:

Why Rudd believes calling an election now serves the ALP’s as the best timing for an ALP good showing, can only mean that he and his advisors do not expect to win.

Last week’s release of the NSW ICAC reports into NSW ALP corruption, and with the ‘Acacia’ report still to be released, can only mean the news cycle in coming weeks will harm the ALP vote bigtime.

There is also the revelations of new investigations into additional ALP figureheads that will only do additional harm to the Labor vote.

Why would Rudd choose to go now?

If Rudd does lose and he will, his political career is over.  It it more than likely that his ‘arrangement’ included a contingency that in the case of a loss, he will resign and look to take up a UN or Security Council position.   In that scenario  Rudd’s future career becomes something he wants.

Who would want to lead the ALP given the issues they will have to deal with after the election and in Opposition.

Look to NSW and QLD post their State elections.  In fact given those results everybody had to have known that the Federal ALP brand could not survive the swell against the ALP vote.

The ALP cannot win this election and to think otherwise is fanciful.  They would have to win 6 seats plus hold all the seats they currently have.

In NSW they are expected to lose 10-15 seats … Victoria about 4-5 … SA maybe 2-3 … Tasmania maybe 1-2 … WA perhaps 3-4 … and in QLD, before Rudd took over from Gillard they only had a chance of holding Rudd’s own seat – now they talk of winning seats there, the reality is they will probably lose 3-4 seats.

In a worst case scenario that means losses of 33 seats, and in a best case scenario the losses would be restricted to 23 seats.

Before Rudd’s appointments the talk was of a 30-40 seat loss, so any number less than these Gillard leadership predictions can only be seen as justifying the Gillard dumping.

The NSW ICAC Reports:

Where is the effort to fight injustice and tyranny within our Political ranks?

Any investigative body who investigates itself can never be trusted.  That is a statement that rings true in any industry or Government office.

Management the globe over and in positions to write their own expense account limits carry that air of entitlement that most can only dream about.

That Management gravy ride has extended deeper and deeper into our Public Service ranks, and these days Government have some of the best perks and paying jobs around.

Politicians head the list where entitlement is demanded as expense claims are tendered where no entitlement exists.  It becomes the Dept of Finance’s job to establish legitimacy of any parliamentary claims, and many MP’s and Senators err and are forced to refund overstated claims.

Why are these errors not treated in the same way as Peter Slipper’s overcharge use of cabcharge vouchers?

We are asleep to these issues – the real life struggle for survival the world over is in refugee camps, on the high seas where refugees dream of a better life,  among the ever increasing homeless living on the streets, and the children being used in divorce court settlements where money becomes more important than the children.

In all this gloomy existence a new political voice speaks,  that message is reproduced below:

Lack of transparency undermines our democracy


| Author: Julian Assange | Date: 25th July 2013 | Link to On-Line Story. |

THE federal parliament has received enormous attention in the past year not because of the eloquence of its debates but because the behaviour in its chambers and in its backrooms has been so Machiavellian that the world has looked on in amazement.

What has been even more disappointing has been the stealth with which our elected representatives have worked together (often across party lines) to pass laws without proper public consultation. In the past month alone Labor and the Coalition have come under fire for agreeing to remove several federal departments from the reach of the Freedom of Information Act.

Commentators argue that Australians are sick of the childish and bullying behaviour in Canberra but I think what Australians are really tired of is the way in which government in all its forms operates behind closed doors.

Whether it is superannuation entitlements for politicians or decisions about who should be prime minister, the doors in Canberra remain closed to the scrutiny of the average Australian.

The results are distrust and scepticism that anything enacted by the federal parliament is genuinely motivated by the wellbeing of all Australians.

According to classic notions of parliamentary government, the legislature imposes accountability on the executive government through legislation and inquiry. The original purpose of a parliamentary system is not only to represent voters but to ensure that the government is held to account for its actions between elections. This sort of accountability has been embarrassingly absent in Australian politics for years.

There is an implied assumption that all MPs should act in the interests of their electorate, but that doesn’t mean they do. The WikiLeaks Party will demand that the policies and legislation debated in the two houses will be the same debate that goes on elsewhere in the building.

One of the first actions of the WikiLeaks Party in the Senate would be to insist that there be full disclosure of the asylum-seeker arrangements with the Papua New Guinea government that Kevin Rudd announced last Friday, including host arrangements; the provision of resources and details of adequate medical and psycho-social health resources and personnel; the construct of the refugee claims review process and of subsequent judicial review; and of the conditions of resettlement for those whose applications are successful. Under the Migration Act 1958, Australia retains an obligation to Australia-bound asylum-seekers it may “transfer” to PNG. Considering PNG’s developing country status, the Australian government must disclose how it will assist PNG to financially support resettled refugees.

WikiLeaks Party’s core values of transparency, accountability and justice are the template against which we will examine any important issues for Australians: tax reform, asylum-seekers, climate-change policy and more. We will not accept legislation or government policy that is based on inaccurate, poorly disclosed or inadequate information. In this way our positions will always reflect fairness, good government policy and practice, and protecting the interests of all Australians.

True parliamentary democracy is a system that facilitates the obligation to dissent. The WikiLeaks Party recognises the need to scrutinise government activity and to defend the legislature against the executive government. We will stand as a constant reminder to MPs and senators that the proper function of the Senate is to be independent of the government of the day, something that has been forgotten in Canberra. The vigour of this scrutiny can be maintained only if the government does not hold a majority in the Senate.

The WikiLeaks Party is a party of investigation and oversight, at one with the Senate’s constitutional ideals. WLP senators will act as agents of independent oversight precisely because we are not a party of government, of factional deals, of big business or of the environmental lobby.

Our senators will seek to ensure that all legislation reflects the WLP values: transparency, accountability and justice.

Putting the WLP in the Senate is the same as putting Australia’s best investigative journalists in the Senate. That is what the dishonest Canberra establishment fears most.

Julian Assange, founder of the WikiLeaks Party, is a federal Senate candidate for Victoria.

In this void of political time where promised deals mean nothing by weight or legislative process – Prime Minister Rudd and Opposition would be PM Abbott joust for political gain and play the game of winning voters.

Truth be known they have a ‘macro’ view of the Nation and the people only matter when it comes around to elections.

Trustworthiness:

How do we as a Nation get back to a place where we will trust our political leaders – what will it take?

We can only choose from the candidates before us and with the track record of all the major parties, where does one turn to seek honest and uncorrupted Governance?

Julian Assange and his Wikileaks party speaks above of a ‘transparency’ within Government process – is that enough>

Or, do we as citizens have a role to play through our own scrutiny of the information provided?

In that context presented hereto are some well researched facts about the Tony Abbott parliamentary expense reconciliations – see excel file for full disclosure hereclick on image below to enlarge in a new window:

About 3-4 weeks ago Mr Abbott was asked about the parliamentary expense travel rort he was engaged in during his book tour.   The question came after FOI release of parliamentary expense refunds were released showing that Mr Abbott was forced to repay some $9,400 in travel expenses he claimed during his Australia wide book launch.

The travel expenses associated with Mr Abbott’s book launch were claimed as parliamentary business expenses but investigations showed they were nothing to do with parliamentary business but of a personal nature.

This on face value is no different to the ‘rort’ Peter Slipper is in court over when he used ‘cabcharge’ vouchers to transport himself to ‘wine-tasting’ events. Mr Slipper is charged with ‘rorting’ the parliamentary system for around $1,000 of misused taxpayers funds.

Now let me put a scenario to you:

An experienced politician like Tony Abbott would know what his travel expenses rules are. Yet he felt he had entitlement to claim ComCar services and airfares during his book tour event. Surely Mr Abbott’s intent to claim those expenses cannot be explained away as a clerical error, or that his staff got the purpose wrong.

The rule of thumb with parliamentary expenses seems to be – claim everything and let the burden of proof fall to the MAPPs Department to find the fraudulent claim.

Mr Abbott would have known that his book tour expenses were off limits in terms of his parliamentary expenses.  Then why the use of ComCar services to get him to and from airports and venues whilst promoting his book launch?

This is not how the system works – any burden of entitlement must fall to the Member and the Member alone must be accountable for erroneous claims – i.e. 500% penalties imposed if a claim cannot be verified or justified, and a revoking of all parliamentary expenses over and above the bare minimum to manage his staff and parliamentary office.   The parliamentary expense system is being abused and nobody seems to really care – least of all the Parliamentarians.

Peter Slipper is defending his abuse of expense claims in court with taxpayer funds – surely he must know that what he did was wrong and why hurt the taxpayer again by claiming Legal Aid to defend his position?  This is hubris and entitlement gone amuck and the fact that no MP or Senator speaks out about the abuse highlights just how deep they are all in it.

Further investigation of Mr Abbott’s parliamentary expenses see that he has used almost $500,000 in ComCar expenses since July 2009 and up until Dec 2012. His spouse/family has also used another $13,000 in ComCar expenses during the same period.

Now if Mr Abbott is an example of a expense entitlement deluge by all our MP’s and Senators – no wonder the $400 million parliamentary expense price tag is an expense that rises each and every term.

Summary:

Morality, Integrity, Honesty – just three issues where our Leaders should excel … yet who can be trusted to provide Governance where these ingredients are in surplus?

Please make your vote count – please don’t vote top of the ticket i.e. PArty of choice, vote for you local candidate because you believe they are the best person and someone you can trust.   If you don’t know your candidate don’t blindly trust they will represent you.    If you have doubts make the effort to contact them and ask them questions that are of concern to you.

If unconvinced – vote “NONE OF THE ABOVE” in a box you will make on the ballot paper … don’t hand up your vote freely – whoever you vote for will get $2.51 in electoral refunds … make them earn that refund.

A ‘None of the Above’ vote saves taxpayers funds.

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.  Thankyou.


Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s


The EYE-BALL Opinion …

EYE-BALL Opinion’s “None of the Above” campaign – New Cash Grab to cover Political Party Administration Costs -

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2

Latest EYE-BALL ‘None of the Above’ Posts:


- 5th Nov – Referendum Discussion No 1 – Compulsory Voting – “None of the Above” Campaign -


- 3rd Nov 2012 – ALP voters beware – The Labour Party is not what it seems -


- 2nd Aug 2012 – New Q’LD LNP amends Party Funding arrangements ….


- 13th July 2012 – The Consequence of Poor Political Leadership


- 12th July 2012 – This Labour Party is Diseased


- 10th Jan 2011 – Australia Votes – “None of the Above” Campaign


- Link to 2011 JSCEM Submission

(PDF file format)


Title:
- new cash grab to cover Political Party Administration Costs -
- part of Eye-Ball’s – “None of the Above Campaign” -
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 28th May 2013 |
The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2Link to the Eye-Ball – ‘None of the Above’ campaign Front Page …


New Cash Grab:

Abreaking news story that will threaten all MP’s creditability has shocked all and sundry. The ALP, the Liberals, and the Nationals are all in bed together to secretly pass new legislation that will give then an annual “Administration” vote levy of $1 per vote won at the previous election for the period until the next election.

This story broke late last night and the media are all over the story this morning. The consensus is that the legislation will pass because all major Political Party’s will benefit.

In cash terms the cost to taxpayers will be almost $60 million over the next three years between elections – i.e. $20 million per year spread across the major parties. The Greens have indicated that will not support the legislation.

The ‘Australian’ story is pasted below:

Parties join forces to secure $20m campaigning bonus


| Author: Tom Dusevic, National chief reporter | Date: May 28th, 2013 | Link to On-Line Story. |

SWEEPING changes to electoral law being pursued by the Gillard government could deliver a windfall $20 million to the two major political parties to cover their campaigning costs for the upcoming election.

Despite budget deficits of almost $50 billion forecast for this and the next two years, Labor will introduce legislation in this sitting period to facilitate so-called “administrative funding” of $1 per primary vote gained in the House of Representatives and Senate at the September 14 election, and other measures, at a cost over the forward estimates of $58.1m.

As well, the federal government plans to tighten disclosure rules, targeting political donations of $5000 or more, down from the current threshold of $12,100, yet well short of its long-held aspiration of $1000.

To gain the support of the Coalition parties for the suite of proposed measures, which have been negotiated in secret over several months between the major parties, the cash-strapped ALP has broken a core promise contained in its September 2010 agreement with the Australian Greens.

With 14.4 million Australians on the electoral roll, the total cost to taxpayers of public funding of parties for this year’s poll could be as high as $100m, based on the proposed change plus the current election funding rate of $2.473 per vote (which will be adjusted for inflation from July 1).

But if recent poor rates of voter turnout and the high incidence of informal voting continue, the cost would be about 10 per cent less.

The bold move by Special Minister of State Mark Dreyfus has attracted the private ire of Labor elder John Faulkner, whose long-standing campaign to lower the disclosure threshold for political donations to $1000 has failed.

The Coalition parties have been firmly opposed to tightening of the disclosure rules, claiming that a clampdown would discourage donations from supporters, particularly small business operators. The $5000 threshold is seen as a compromise to lock in the support of conservatives.

Greens leader Christine Milne declared last night that her party would strongly oppose the changes.

“The Greens will oppose any legislation that doesn’t clamp down on corporate donations and runaway electoral spending to stop what is now an arms race,” Senator Milne said.

“We have long campaigned for donation reform. The whole point of a public funding model is to stamp out the growing influence of corporate donations on public policy.

“Any increase in public funding without caps or curbs on corporate donations will only accelerate the arms race.”

According to a proposal to be presented by Mr Dreyfus to Labor’s federal parliamentary caucus today, parties with five or more MPs will receive $300,000 a year to facilitate compliance audits. As well, the Australian Electoral Commission’s budget will be raised to reflect the increased administrative burden.

At the 2010 election, public funding provided more than $53m, with $24m to the Coalition, $21m to the ALP and $7m to the Greens.

In the agreement struck by the Greens with Labor in the wake of the stalemate August 2010 election, the second stated goal was: “Seek immediate reform of funding of political parties and election campaigns by legislating to lower the donation disclosure threshold from an indexed $11,500 to $1000; to prevent donation splitting between different branches of political parties; to ban foreign donations; to ban anonymous donations over $50; to increase timeliness and frequency of donation disclosure; to tie public funding to genuine campaign expenditure and to create a ‘truth in advertising’ offence in the Commonwealth Electoral Act.”

In December 2011, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters recommended a $1000 donations threshold and called for extra administrative funding of parties in light of the expected increased burden for a tougher disclosure regime.

In a hard-edged speech last December, Senator Faulkner, a former special minister of state, said Labor’s attempts to change the electoral laws in light of the agreement with the Greens and the findings of the committee were “strong and appropriate”.

This story was reported on by Laurie Oakes on the ‘Today’ show this morning as having been fully funded in the 2012-13 budget – hidden away under the ‘contingency reserve fund’.

This ‘cash grab’ is taxpayer’s money being used to fund Political Party administration costs.

Queensland did something similar after Newman came to power in early 2012.

This is ‘referendum’ stuff – the Government should not be allowed to vote themselves additional electoral funding out of taxpayer funds for purposes like – Administration Costs. Political Parties are a business with significant cash turnover.

The existing funding the AEC already pays them runs to almost $50 million every time there is a Federal election – less for States.

WIth the increased ‘informal’ vote – the AEC refunds impact on the payments made. This new ‘cash grab’ is the Governments response to keep up its funding and is criminal in its intent.

Nothing good will come from this and for Gillard to even be fostering the legislation with her under ‘police investigation’ for ‘fraud’ like charges, this reeks worse than the Obeid scandal.

Worse because all the major parties are supporting the legislation. This points to the moral bankruptcy in our leadership. If politicians want election war chests – do what everybody else has to do – bake laminations, or walk the streets selling raffle tickets. Being an MP does not mean being unhuman – it means you care about your community more and want to represent them.

How is this ‘cash grab’ about representing the people when it is about Political Parties wanting their Administration costs funded. Have the MP’s who belong to the party pay for the Administration costs via higher membership – they only just received a 40% pay increase …

There is only one way to combat this rabid money grab – vote ‘informal’ and in that way no political party receives the existing electoral funding of $2.5 per vote – nor this new $1 per vote.

This can be your way of protesting against the legislation and the compulsory voting and/or ‘None of the Above’ option on the ballot paper this campaign is targeting.

What a gig – join a political party and get paid by taxpayers – no rules – no limits – just spend the money to get re-elected.

This is worse than ‘the mafia’ who strip monies basis protection rackets.

This new ‘cash grab’ by the Government with support from the Liberals and the Nationals indicates Australians are deserting their Political Party membership, refusing to donate, and are generally pissed at the corruption and sycophant nepotism exposed by the Obeid, MacDonald, Torbay, Slipper, Thompson, and other political frauds against the public purse.

There is no surprises is that given these ongoing corruption scandals – to even consider raiding the public purse for a morally challenging ‘cash grab’ to fund the election scheduled for later this year, truly proves how integrity has deserted our Leaders.

If you disagree with this legislation you can do something about it – use the links below to find you Federal Member and send then a message voicing you opinion about the proposed legislation. Remember that they are sensitive to abuse and if you write – make sure you lodge your objections politely … else they will ‘spam’ you and any future messages will never get read … trust me I know … I have 20 odd e-mail addresses to get around their spam lists.

I rang my MP’s office this morning – seat of HINKLER – and was asked to lodge my protest at the legislation in writing.

I will do as I always do – send them a link to the post where my opinion is offered, and to as many other MP’s as I have in my database – that’s everybody … a single voice cannot achieve much – but a collective voice can.

Don’t be shy – scream your angst at someone who needs your vote …

Each MP has vetting staff who screen everything – most likely the MP will never read what you write – just be given an overview of the message the correspondence is delivering … and they call this modern politics.


Don’t forget to -

- Register your Protest -


Some history from a previous post on this subject:

In Australia compulsory voting has been the Law since 1924. A Wikipedia page titled – Electoral system of Australialinked here – provides interesting history in how and why compulsory voting was introduced during 1924. Part of the page is copied below:

… The Australian electoral system has evolved over the last 150 years of democratic government, with the Australian Parliament established by 1901. The present day federal parliament has a number of distinctive features including compulsory voting, with full-preference instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the Australian House of Representatives, and the use of group ticket single transferable proportional voting to elect the upper house, the Australian Senate.

Compulsory voting

Australia enforces compulsory voting. Compulsory voting at referendums was considered when a referendum was proposed in 1915, but, as the referendum was never held, the idea was put on hold. The immediate impetus for compulsory voting at federal level was the low voter turnout (59.38 percent) at the 1922 federal election. However, it was not on the platform of either the Stanley Bruce-led Nationalist/Country party coalition government or the Matthew Charlton-led Labor opposition to introduce this requirement; rather, the initiative was taken by a backbench Tasmanian senator from the Nationalists, Herbert Payne, who introduced a Private Senator’s Bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1924, on 16 July 1924. Senator Payne’s bill was passed with little debate (the House of Representatives agreed to it in less than an hour), and in neither house was a division required, hence no votes were recorded against the bill. It received Royal Assent on 31 July 1924. The 1925 federal election was the first to be held under compulsory voting; the turnout figure climbed to 91.4 per cent, an increase of 32 percentage points on the previous election.

Voting is compulsory both at federal elections and at elections for the state and territory legislatures. In the states of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia voting at local elections is not compulsory. About 5% of enrolled voters fail to vote at most elections. People in this situation are asked to explain their failure to vote. If no satisfactory reason is provided (for example, illness or religious prohibition), a relatively small fine is imposed ($20), and failure to pay the fine may result in a court hearing.

… read more – link to Wikipedia source …

- Electoral Vote Refunds

What is not mentioned above is the Electoral Vote Refund system Australia has and how it has been a part of Australian history since the early 1920′s. read more here – Australian Electoral Commission [AEC] -

Entitlement to election funding

A candidate or Senate group is eligible for election funding if they obtain at least 4% of the first preference vote in the division or the state or territory they contested. The amount to be paid is calculated by multiplying the number of votes obtained by the current election funding rate. The funding rate for the 2010 federal election was 231.191 cents per House of Representatives and Senate vote. This rate is indexed every six months to increases in the Consumer Price Index.

Amount paid

The amount of election funding payable is calculated by multiplying the number of first preference votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time. The rate is indexed every six months in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index.

In Mar 2012 there was a report tabled titled – Current Commonwealth political financing arrangementslinked here – and very good reading.

The report gives examples of situations where candidates/Political Parties could profit from the public purse vote refund system, when the refund due is greater then the amount spent on election campaigns.

The last two federal elections, 2007 and 2010, cost taxpayers $54.2 and $49 million a piece in electoral vote refunds. The two major parties each received -

  • ALP 2007 – $20.0 million
  • ALP 2010 – $22.0 million
  • Coalition 2007 – $23.2 million
  • Coalition 2010 – $21.3 million.

Most important is the rise in the informal vote in the 2010 election – up to near 12% when the ‘no-shows’ are added to the registered informal vote. This number registered third on the first preference list – beating the Greens.

In a submission to the – Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters [JSCEM] by this author after the 2010 Federal election – JSCEM submission linked here – a number of issues were raised with the committee including the electoral vote refund system, and why ‘compulsory voting’ feeds to the higher refunds paid for by taxpayers. If compulsory voting was not the law – the value of refunds to political candidates and political parties would diminish. The electoral vote refund would only apply to those who wanted to vote formally.

In a direct sense as it stands now – those who vote without real interest in who they vote for – ‘gift’s to the candidate/political party monies they would never receive if compulsory voting was abolished. They are linked in an adverse way that impacts on taxpayers.

- Political Parties forcing electioneering costs onto taxpayers:

Political Parties are responsible for all electioneering costs after the Parties have their official launch of their election campaigns.

In recent elections, this Campaign Launch has been delayed and this has pushed the ‘gray’ area of electioneering costs onto the taxpayer via Ministerial expenditures before the Campaign Launch.

A full listing of Federal Election costs since 1901 is provided by the AEC and can be accessed using – this link.

An example of a by-election cost contained in the table provided via the link provided shows that when Peter Costello resigned from the Opposition in 2008 – the cost for the by-election was a $710k expense dumped on the taxpayer.

History now reminds us that if Mr Costello had sat on the Opposition benches, became Opposition Leader, and given the turmoil leading into the 2010 election, the Coalition would most likely have won in a landslide and he would have been PM.

The cost of that by-election should be for the sitting member to cover unless mitigating circumstances prevails – i.e. medical, personal crisis etc. Just not wanting to be there anymore because you lost Government is not a reason. The same applies to state elections and the recent Anna Bligh dummy-spit.

The biggest embarrassment is that every other democracy in the G-20 who once had compulsory voting have now rescinded the Law and now have a voluntary voting system.

Failing a referendum on the ‘compulsory voting’ issue – vote ‘None of the Above’ at the next election – [i.e. draw a new box on the ballot, call it 'None of the Above' and place your mark in that box.] – unless of course you know your candidate and want to pledge your vote … do not vote the top of the ticket or the leader because you think their cute, or have your interest’s at heart … all recent evidence to the contrary.

Make a statement at the next election – it will only take a single election protest to make politicians and political parties change and alter the contempt they have for the electorate.

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.Thankyou.


Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s


The EYE-BALL Opinion …

EYE-BALL’s Harry’ Growl on – The GREENS – Leader Milne has her head in the sand -

December 3, 2012 8 comments
The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2
Latest ‘Harry’s Growl’ Posts:


- 28th Nov – The Dogs have their BONE Part II – The Wilson Interview and how it reflects on Gillard -


- 27th Nov – The Dogs have their BONE Part I – Gillard’s kicked them out the house -


- 23rd Nov – The ALP and Obeid Train Wreck  – is it meant to distract from Gillard & the AWU Scandal -


- 22nd Nov – Gunfights at the OK Corral: Misandry v Misogyny – GILLARD v Ralph BLEWITT – GILLARD v Hedley THOMAS – GILLARD v Mike SMITH – GILLARD v Larry PICKERING – GILLARD v ALP Caucus – GILLARD v All Australians …


- 13th Nov – The Day the heavens began to cave in – - Obeid and his entourage to bring it all down … -


- 10th Nov – The 2012 US Presidential Election Part II – The Fallout – the GOP beating up on itself -


- 8th Nov – The 2012 US Presidential Election Part I – what does it really mean –


- 7th Nov – Bob Carr … Foreign Minister – as profiled by “The Australian’s” Ross Fitzgerald -


- 29th Oct – The Most Irrelevant of all Irrelevancy – Independents – Slipper, Thompson, Windsor, Oakeshott, Katter & Wilkie – hanging on to office rather than face the electorate –


- 27th Oct – Julia Gillard does not understand Hypocrisy – ALP Powerbrokers dump Penny Wong – makes Gillard look foolish over her ‘sexism’ claims –


- 27th Oct – Julia Gillard an assassin best dressed in Black – Maxine McKew’s – “Tales from the Political Trenches”-


- 26th Oct – The Turkey Basted Gillard – and “The Australian’s” Hedley Thomas’s – recipe for Slow Roasting a Prime Minister -


- 26th Oct – Maxine McKew’s story – Tales from the Political Trenches -


- 22nd Oct – Gillard stands atop her own Abyss – Will she jump or wait to be pushed -


- 19th Oct – Oddball News Wrap – ‘Reel 6′: News Updates from Around the World -


- 17th Oct – Craig Thompson – there are no words to describe this GRUB … -


- 16th Oct – Hedley Thomas is back – and Gillard knee’s begin to tremble ..


- 9th Oct – Gillard has lost it – Turns Parliament into a sledge-fest over sexism -


To see more EYE-BALL Harry’s Growl posts:
click here …


Title:
- The GREENS -
- Leader Milne has her head in the sand -
| Author: EYE-BALL’s Harry’s Growl | 3rd Dec 2012 |

Has there ever been a time when an alternative Political option is warranted, wanted, and an absolute necessity?

Where do Australian voters go if they want to vote away from the ALP or the Coalition?  ‘The GREEN’s‘ see themselves as that Party option – 90% of the electorate do not.

At the 2010 election the GREEN’s polled less than the ‘informal’ and ‘no-show’ combined vote count – despite an increase of 3.97% in their primary vote to all time highs.

This result is defining in a number of ways. Given the heightened scepticism Australian’s have for all MP’s in general – and with good cause given the Craig Thompson and Peter Slipper unresolved corruptions, and now with the escalating AWU scandal involving the Prime Minister – the electorates disgust at the integrity and moral ineptitude shown by MP’s, and the general lack of awareness of what is expected as responsible Leadership by our MP’s – one could think the GREEN’s might have gained more ground.

There is something fundamentally askew in the balance of voter trust – the Greens are not connecting with the dis-connect voters have with Gillard and Abbott as Leaders of the ALP and Coalition party’s.

The continuing AWU Scandal:

Accountability to the electorate seems to have been lost in all the recent focus on the AWU scandal.  The PM feels there is no need to answer questions about her involvement in the AWU scandal from people who have done the investigative background work – she props up her defense by holding stage managed press conferences and answers questions from ALP friendly journo’s who do not follow up when she does not answer the question.

Gillard postures and demands that she has no need to answer questions because no one can alledge she did ‘anything wrong’.   She dares all and sundry to prove with hard evidence any wrong doing.  Can there be no clearer evidence that she is hiding and holding on to the true version of events?  The electorates question is WHY?

Surely if there was no wrong – full disclosure would make this all go away.  Why is it that the PM feels the need to adopt the position most guilty people do by demanding that accusers ‘prove’ their allegations.

The past week proved to most that Gillard has something to hide – a ‘smoking gun’ is out there.   It has also proved that having a undiscovered or undisclosed ‘criminal past’ is no obstacle to becoming the Australian Prime Minister.

Milne’s Gaffe:

The Green’s leader Christine Milne is proving that she has Gillard like qualities with her own ‘sexist, misandryist, nutjob’ comment directed at ‘old white Australian men’.

The AWU scandal sucked a lot of air during the week – the Opposition and Government Front Benchers had little involvement and were interested bystanders at best.

The GREEN’s - and Milne in particular – felt the need to front cameras every day of the sitting week to try and get their share of the air that was left.  Their play was obvious and on the Wednesday – Milne made a monumental ‘cock-up’.

Milne blamed the AWU scandal on – ‘old white men’.  Australian men was her reference .   This given the gutter dwelling level of gender politics being played out by the PM in accusing her detractors as ‘sexist, misogynist nutjobs’ in her 23rd Aug Press Conference.    Why does Milne now feel the need to play her own ‘sexist’ feminist card?

Now if this represents the quality and oratory skill set within the Leadership running the GREENS,  Milne is no more than a ‘sexist misandryist nutjob’  herself – just like Gillard.

What is happening to Politics – this gender issue is out in front of everything and it is the women who are the aggressor’s and the name caller’s.

Why is Milne not interested in the ‘criminal past’ of the PM and her role in the AWU cover-up and its initial structure that facilitated the fraud.

A SMH story on the interview she gave can be read in part below:

Sexism behind Gillard accusations: Milne


| Author: AAP | Date: Nov 27th, 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

AAP

Australian Greens leader Christine Milne says sexism is behind accusations about Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s past work as a lawyer.

Senator Milne said there was a “group of older, white men in Australia” who did not like the idea that at last women were coming into their own.

“They’ve never accepted the legitimacy of a woman as a prime minister and they are kicking back in every which way they can,” she told reporters in Canberra on Tuesday.

She was commenting on the controversy surrounding the legal advice given by Ms Gillard to AWU officials, while she was a lawyer in the 1990s.
Advertisement

Ms Gillard on Monday held an extended press conference to tackle the allegations, stating the coalition was running a “sleaze and smear” campaign.

Senator Milne said parliament was “obsessing” over the issue because sections of the media “can’t accept the legitimacy of a woman as a prime minister and a minority government”.

“Well, get over it,” she said.

“We’ve got a minority government, we’ve got a woman as a prime minister.”

… read more – George Brandis responds  …

On Milne’s – ‘old white men’ statement – is not Bob Brown an ‘old white man’, what about the other million or so men over 50 living in this Nation,  married,  or with children or not … are they all to accept they are a part of this massive sexist conspiracy men have towards women?

The comment is in itself a sexist/feminist attack, and an insult to all ‘old white Australian men’.

Your party has become a ‘Womens league’ forum with associated gender issues that initiated the late 19th century ‘Womens Temperance League’ movement structure to put a halt to men drinking.   Prohibition came and it went … and sadly – the Green’s will do what the ‘Democrat’s’ did, they came and then they went as well.

Milne’s Deputy Sarah Hanson-Young is the eye-candy to make Milne more palatable – not my cup of tea and that is more connected with her performances in the Senate that anything she does outside the Senate.

Hanson-Young stood next to Milne all week, almost on top of her to make sure she was in the camera shot,  if anything it was a distraction as Milne held stage – Hanson-Young flutters her eyes in the breeze and flicked her head  to reposition her hair all the while Milne was speaking … Hanson-Young knows how to work the camera.

I’m not sure how readers feel about this – but the way these staged managed prop press conferences are conducted – where they always become a delivery system for Leaders to talk about anything they want – is nothing more than a sham interface with the viewers and a blight on News programs who allow themselves to be used and abused.

10% of Australian’s might give a damn about what Milne and her bag-holder want to say on any subject – to me a climate change skeptic – please see the many article published hereto as to why I change my mind and now have that opinion, [search 'climate change' in the search option available above] – their policies are based on Tasmanian conservationism – not representative of the collective and National interests.

Bob Brown did a deal with Gillard that allowed her to roll back on her ‘carbon-tax’ promise.  Gillard has no conscience about what she did with Bob Brown.  It would seem Milne is now following in Gillard’s footsteps to help manage her public profile.   Please don’t reward  this poor excuse of a Leader.

Past Election History:

The history over the last three Federal elections, 2004, ’07, and ’10 shows the GREEN vote under Bob Brown peaked in the 2010 election @ 11.76%, compared with the Informal and No-Show @ 11.96%.

The latest polls have the current GREEN vote hovering around 10% and this reflects the change of Leadership from Bob Brown to Ms Milne – Milne is in a fight for creditability and having seen what the ‘misogynist speech did for Gillard – Milne has made a political choice to follow suit.

Some research on the past election results reveal Australia’s increased ‘turn-off’ factor with our political process. The table below provides extracted date – link to source: [Click on image to enlarge in a new window.]

The 2010 result for the GREEN’s reflected the protest vote against Gillard and her ‘no carbon tax’ statement weeks before the election. There were other factors in Gillard’s fall from grace.

The resultant ‘hung Parliament’ has greatly contributed to the electorates current hostility and division.

In contrast – the Independent’s Windsor and Oakeshott call this Parliament a very successful Parliament – they use the number of pieces of Legislation passed as their benchmark – others highlight it gave us the ‘carbon-tax’ and the ‘MRRT’.

One a mandate reversal that should never be allowed to happen without going back to the people, the other based on revenue shortfalls and erroneously targeted at an Industry on the backside of a global shift in labour costs, and resource availability. It raised zero tax revenue in the first three months of operation.

Referendums:a part of the EYE-BALL – ‘None of the Above’ campaign.

It one thing is true – rules for how Governments perform and the rules they operate under need to be reviewed.  The EYE-BALL – ‘None of the Above’ campaign has as its goal a number of referendum proposals to be put to the Australian electorate to help assist with determining the guidelines our Government can operate under and function within – for example:

  1. No Government should be allowed to reverse its stated policy without going back to the electorate to get a mandate to do so – i.e. the ‘Carbon-Tax’ policy position of the ALP before the 2010 election. This was a defined policy platform – yet the Government reversed its position within days of taking office in a deal with the Greens to ensure it gained power.  Never was there a better example on the adage – power corrupts’.
  2. The Federal Governments ‘Debt to GDP’ ratio has to be kept within a confined growth range that does not increase by more that ’5%’ from the previous election date. (The 5% is just a number at this stage. More research into what this number should be would be based on forward estimates of current Government Legislation yet to be invoked across the coming years. The task is to give incoming Governments a platform from which any new Government has to have their proposed campaign policies fully costed, and they must render any new debt within the range of the growth restriction. The condition of office being that DEBT/GDP ratios be maintained within the set parameters by all incumbant Governments – failure triggers an election.

Debt to GDP Chart:

Budget result as a % of GDP Chart:



[Click on charts to enlarge in a new window.]

  1. As can be seen from the charts above – the Hawke/Keating Governments went on spending sprees during the mid ’80′s and again in the early 90′s. Howard over the course of his term reduced the ratio in every year of his tenure. The GFC began to bite in early 2009 – since then this Government has seen the Debt/GDP ratio blow out from 11.8% to 22.9% – a doubling almost. Given the debt history of all Europe, the Nth America’s – it is time to impose some restraint on the ability of Governments to run up debt based on policies to get them re-elected. This is what caused the GFC in the first place.  The charts are a simplistic view of history – Governments have to respond to economic conditions – but to go the ‘debt’ route has been the reason why the World is now in this GFC crisis.  Just see this as the electorate being the Bankers to teh Governemnt – you can function and operate as long as you cost your policies to fit the mandate of the Debt to GDP ratios.  You grow GDP then debt can also respond.
  2. In a world where debt has place many Nations at peril and continues to do so in the ongoing GFC aftermath – our Government’s ability to increase Debt/GDP ratio must become something the people have a say in. At the moment this Government can continue to run up debt for as long as they hold Government.
  3. As it stands our Governments can introduce new policies – i.e. the National Disability scheme, the Gonski Education report recommendations, and just add the cost outcome arising from these policies to the debt accumulation future Australian’s will have to pay back. Where is the accountability if the policies fall short or fail?   If this Government loses the next election after legislating for the new policies – how will there accountability to the Debt/GDP legacy become their problem in Opposition?
  4. On a matter raised by Ms Gillard during her press conference on the AWU scandal – she explained she could not remember the $5,000 deposit to her account – she also said that her experience with bank accounts was a visit to the ATM where she would become surprised when she saw unexpected credit amounts.  What does that do for the PM’s creditability and abilities to manage the Nations $554 billion debt – source link.
  5. The MP behaviour in the House has to be improved. Allowing both sides of the House to set the ‘Standing Order’s’ rules they operate under is akin to kids in a playhouse making up their own rules. The Speaker(s) should be independent – not from the House but an outside appointment – i.e. someone aligned with a High Court Judge ranking with impartial leanings.
  6. There should be severe monetary Fines for Member indiscretions – i.e. expense rorting, misconduct, and for Question Time evictions and warnings.
  7. The ‘contempt’ issue when Minister’s answer Questions put by the Opposition – no more philibusting along Party platform and policy lines – no in house questions on policy propaganda, no referral to past Government’s, direct answers to questions asked, and fines if the Minister concerned does not comply. [All monetary fines to not have tax relief status.]

There are many areas where things could be improved – but it is up to the Government to vote for change and if the changes proposed are too radical, then the exercise will fail at the first hurdle.   I;m sure readers have many ideas and please, if you want to share them please write them down in the comments section below – or send an e-mail to blogcomment@bigpond.com.

‘Meet the Press’ interview with Gillard – 2nd Dec 2012:

On a further wrap-up of the past week, ‘Meet the Press’ interview the PM on Sunday.   The YouTube video of that interview are available below.

Watch Gillard ride rimshot over Paul Bongiorno on his ‘Meet the Press’ program yesterday:

If you’re looking for it, you can see the PM deliberately drift from the question and pontificate her own answer to a question that was never asked … it is surely time for Australian Journalists to grow some balls and call this ‘harried hollow hussy’ of a PM to account.   She shows disrespect to everything and anything,   she does not deserve to be given respect by the Journalist she treats like prisoners being lined up for a work gang.

Gillard answers questions from the ‘Meet the Press’ panel Part 1:

Gillard answers questions from the ‘Meet the Press’ panel Part 2: – on the Asylum/boat people problem.

It is well known Borgiorno has an ALP slant on his show – not as obvious as Barry Cassidy and his ‘Insiders’ program.  This interview was a coup for Borgiorno – Gillard does not give these types of interviews and it would be interesting to know what the conditions were requested and granted as a condition of the interview.

As much as Gillard and the ALP would like the AWU scandal to go away – it will stay in the limelight over this Xmas break because of the efforts of concerned journalists, and bloggers who believe Gillard is not fit to serve as our PM because of past, regardless of whether she did ‘nothing wrong’ in her eyes – she has enough connection to confirm she has poor judgement arising from the AWU evidence.

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.  Thankyou.


Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s:


Subscribe to EYE-BALL’s – Harry’s Growl

EYE-BALL Opinion – Referendum Discussion No 1 – Compulsory Voting – “None of the Above” Campaign -

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2

Latest ‘EYE-BALL Opinion’ Posts:


- 4th Nov – Gillard Sunburnt – the flames of discontent begin to impact -


- 3rd Nov – ALP voters beware – The Labour Party is not what it seems -


- 2nd Nov – A Montage of AWU Scandal Reports – Gillard to become “Open-Season” -


- 1st Nov – Education … A white Elephant – Politicising the future of young Australians -


- 30th Oct – How do you awake a slumbering nation – Politicians – the most empty of vessels -


- 30th Oct – Whistleblowers – love ‘em’ or hate ‘em’ -


- 29th Oct – Polls pressure Abbott’s Leadership – Worst PM ever holds lead and flaunts her position -


- 28th Oct – Eye-Ball’s “YUCK FILES -1” – ABC’s “Insiders” – Barry Cassidy -


- 21st Oct – Political and Media ‘Noise’ – Altering The meaning of the word ‘Misogynist’ -


20th Oct – The White-ants have taken over – Parliamentary Foundations are under threat -


- 16th Oct – Cheap Wine No More – A blog respondent’s comments -


- 15th Oct – The Future – Welfare Raised Children – Government making it harder for Society to survive -


- 14th Oct – I am OFFENDED – All Australia is OFFENDED – why would it matter if PM Gillard is OFFENDED -


- 10th Oct – The Misogynist v Misandrist debate – there can be no winner and Society loses -


- 10th Oct – The Circus that never ends – Problem is nobody is buying tickets -


- 8th Oct – Carr’s Lunacy – Suggests Assassination to end Syria’s Civil War -


- 6th Oct – Gillards Culpability – On the ropes but nobody is game to deliver the knockout blow… –


- 5th Oct – Abbott’s Desperation – he thinks it’s a popularity contest -


- 3rd Oct – Gillards Legacy – Examples of Lunacy, Desperation and Stupidity -


- 25 Sept – The vacuum of Politics – do they ever listen to or watch replays of themselves?


- 25th Sept – Alas, Hedley Thomas has returned – Not to Sink Gillard, but to sink Campbell Newman’s Wivenhoe Dam coverup -


To see more EYE-BALL ‘Opinion’ posts:

click here …


Title:
- Referendum Discussion Part 1 -
- Compulsory Voting -
-  Eye-Ball’s – “None of the Above Campaign” -
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 4th Nov 2012 |
The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2


Link to the Eye-Ball – ‘None of the Above’ campaign Front Page …


Referendum’s in Australia:

When it comes to referendums in Australia there have only been 44, of which only 8 have been carried or the ‘yes’ vote was the victor.   A list of those Referendums is provided below – link to source data -

Referendums and plebiscites by year – linked …

(Bold entries denote proposals that were carried)

Another full listing of these Referendum’s is provided on the Australian Electoral Commission website – linked here.   The information on this site is well worth the read including expanded explanations for all the referendums and plebiscites.

As can be seen from the list above the last 20 odd years has only seen one referendum – in 1999 and a vote for the establishment of a Republic – defeated as we recall.

From 1988 and before the subject of the referendums has been to do with Government Administrative issues in how the Government functions going back to 1974. The only National Interest referendum was the ‘National Song’ in 1977 – and to find the next National Interest matter you’d have to go back to 1967 on Aboriginals.

Prior to 1974 referendums on specifics issues like, control over rents, prices, and the like were defeated on fears of handing too much control to Government.

A question arising from this history, encompassing the massive changes in how politics has now infused itself into our society, i.e. the influence of vision media, televised press conferences and Question Time, and the polarisation of political choices becoming focused on – ‘top of the ticket’ voting – all of what was most feared in earlier Referendums has now become the ‘grey area’ of political policy.   Policy no longer has an electorate mandate when Government can change its policy during a term that is against the mandate it went to the electorate with to win the election.

This surely brings into question the legitimacy of the Government when the people are marginalised and have no say to these policy changes.   Does an elected Government have the right to change its policies on serious issues after they’ve been elected?

  • It is time to review the political landscape in this Nation and its democratic process.   This Nation should take stock of where current political agenda’s and intent have us headed into the future and decide whether there needs to be limits of the scope of Government and what they can do that is not within there mandate to do.
  • Is it time to rein in the powers our Leaders believe they have that have not been sanctioned, and to place restrictions on what a Government can do without a mandate from the electorate -
  • It is time to challenge the authority of Government and what they are allowed to do whilst serving the Australian electorate whilst caretakers of our Nation.

I believe this is of great importance to many Australians – I challenge and ask all Australians to question their political beliefs and express their opinions on how they feel about the Government of the day – and whether they believe they have ‘carte blanche’ to do any and everything they want to do with respect to their stated policies, and alterations to those policies whilst in Government that inflame the emotive debate within the electorate – e.g. -

  • Firstly – in this current term of Government the issue of a new Carbon Tax was introduced after an election promise by the Prime Minister that she would never introduce a Carbon Tax – should the Government be allowed to break its election promises without going back to the electorate to get a mandate to do so?
  • Secondly – the solution to the asylum seeker problem are two issues where the Government’s ever changing policies are at odds with the majority of the electorate – they again went to the electorate with a policy that has no relevance to the current policy -

The issue is that these policy changes by this Government during its current term have resulted in a ‘shifting-sands’ of the policy process and the opinion is that the Government has no mandate to do what it has done, and that it is making it up as it goes along.

Should Governments be allowed to mislead the electorate in order to win Government – then be allowed to reverse their position because their policies have failed and the elected few are then allowed to ‘run with the bulls’ to make new policy without the electorates approval.

It’s a major issue – do Government’s run back to the electorate every time they have a policy shift – of should the policies be scrutinised and be subjected to extreme accountability before they can be announced … to me there is no right answer in these terms – but there has to be a better way to give Government a message that they cannot deceive the electorate nor exceed their mandate.

Both these issues listed above will become a part of the ‘discussion’ and ‘debate’ opportunity this page seeks to provide over the months ahead and leading up to the 2013 federal election.  This post is about Compulsory Voting …


- Compulsory Voting -

- The G-20 – List of member Nations: [map of Member Nations]

[Click on map to open in a new window - click Ctr+ to enlarge.]

The above map showing the G-20 list of Nations represent the most advanced economies in the world.  Not all have a democratic form of Government – i.e. China, Saudi Arabia.  Of the remaining Western Democracy Nations within this G-20 group – Australia stands alone as the only Nation where Compulsory Voting is enforced by the law of the land.

The base arguments ‘for’ and ‘against’ the legislation for Compulsory Voting can be read in detail at the Wikipedia source – linked here.

In Australia compulsory voting has been in vogue since 1924.   A Wikipedia page titled – Electoral system of Australialinked here – provides interesting history in how and why compulsory voting was introduced during 1924.   Part of the page is copied below:

… The Australian electoral system has evolved over the last 150 years of democratic government, with the Australian Parliament established by 1901. The present day federal parliament has a number of distinctive features including compulsory voting, with full-preference instant-runoff voting in single-member seats to elect the lower house, the Australian House of Representatives, and the use of group ticket single transferable proportional voting to elect the upper house, the Australian Senate.

Compulsory voting

Australia enforces compulsory voting. Compulsory voting at referendums was considered when a referendum was proposed in 1915, but, as the referendum was never held, the idea was put on hold. The immediate impetus for compulsory voting at federal level was the low voter turnout (59.38 percent) at the 1922 federal election. However, it was not on the platform of either the Stanley Bruce-led Nationalist/Country party coalition government or the Matthew Charlton-led Labor opposition to introduce this requirement; rather, the initiative was taken by a backbench Tasmanian senator from the Nationalists, Herbert Payne, who introduced a Private Senator’s Bill, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1924, on 16 July 1924. Senator Payne’s bill was passed with little debate (the House of Representatives agreed to it in less than an hour), and in neither house was a division required, hence no votes were recorded against the bill. It received Royal Assent on 31 July 1924. The 1925 federal election was the first to be held under compulsory voting; the turnout figure climbed to 91.4 per cent, an increase of 32 percentage points on the previous election.

Voting is compulsory both at federal elections and at elections for the state and territory legislatures. In the states of South Australia, Tasmania and Western Australia voting at local elections is not compulsory. About 5% of enrolled voters fail to vote at most elections. People in this situation are asked to explain their failure to vote. If no satisfactory reason is provided (for example, illness or religious prohibition), a relatively small fine is imposed ($20), and failure to pay the fine may result in a court hearing.

A citizen can only vote once enrolled. Enrolling to vote is mandatory. Failure to enrol can incur a fine. However, citizens who later enrol themselves are protected from prosecution for not enrolling in the previous years by section 101 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918. In NSW, this situation has been somewhat modified by the NSW Electoral Commissions “Smart Roll” system. Introduced in 2009 the system draws information from various government department sources and enrolls eligible electors automatically onto the state roll, but not the federal role.

It is an offence to “mislead an elector in relation to the casting of his vote”. The number of informal votes is recorded, but they are not counted as part of the total number of votes cast. Around 95% of registered voters attend polling, and around 5% of Representatives votes are informal,

Arguments for and against compulsory voting

Occasionally conservative politicians or libertarians argue for the abolition of compulsory voting on philosophical grounds, but no government has ever attempted to abolish it.

Following the 2004 federal election, at which the Liberal-National coalition government won a majority in both Houses, a senior minister, Senator Nick Minchin, said that he favoured the abolition of compulsory voting. Some prominent Liberals, such as Petro Georgiou, former chair of the Parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, have spoken in favour of compulsory voting.

The weakness of non-compulsory voting regimes is that governments can be seen to lack legitimacy by those sections of the populace who chose not to cast a vote. A characteristic of non-compulsory voting is that it makes it easier for special interest groups to vote themselves into power if large sections of the population do not participate in the political process.

Peter Singer in Democracy and Disobedience argues that compulsory voting could negate the obligation of a voter to support the outcome of the election, since voluntary participation in elections is deemed to be one of the sources of the obligation to obey the law in a democracy. In 1996 Albert Langer was jailed for three weeks on contempt charges in relation to a constitutional challenge on a legal way not to vote for either of the major parties. Chong, Davidson and Fry argue that Australian compulsory voting is disreputable, paternalistic, disadvantages smaller political parties, and allows major parties to target marginal seats and make some savings in pork barreling because of this targeting. Chong et al. also argue that denial is a significant aspect of the debate about compulsory voting.

A counter argument to opponents of compulsory voting is that in these systems the individual still has the practical ability to abstain at the polls by voting informally if they so choose, due to the secrecy of the ballot. A spoilt vote does not count towards any political party and effectively is the same as choosing not to vote under a non-compulsory voting system. However, Singer argues that even the appearance of voluntary participation is sufficient to create an obligation to obey the law. His critique of compulsory voting laws, such as Australia’s, would therefore still be applicable, as the law does in fact require all citizens to appear at the polls and go through the motions of voting. Participation could thus never be considered truly voluntary under such a system, and the obligation to obey the law might still fail to accrue.

In the 2010 Australian election, Mark Latham urged Australians to vote informally by handing in blank ballot papers for the 2010 election. He also stated that he doesn’t feel it is fair for the government to force citizens to vote if they don’t have an opinion or threaten them into voting with a fine.

Contrary to popular speculation at the time[citation needed], the Australian Electoral Commission confirmed that voting informally does not break any Australian laws and is completely legal.[14] How the Australian Electoral Commission arrived at this opinion is unknown and runs contrary to the opinions of Chief Justice Barwick, who wrote that voters must actually mark the ballot paper and deposit that ballot into a ballot box and Justice Blackburn who was of the opinion that casting an invalid vote was a violation of the Act.

… link to Wikipedia source …

- Electoral Vote Refunds

What is not mentioned above is the Electoral Vote Refund system Australia has and how it has been a part of Australian history since the early 1920′s.

Pasted from the Australian Electoral Commission [AEC] -

Entitlement to election funding

A candidate or Senate group is eligible for election funding if they obtain at least 4% of the first preference vote in the division or the state or territory they contested. The amount to be paid is calculated by multiplying the number of votes obtained by the current election funding rate. The funding rate for the 2010 federal election was 231.191 cents per House of Representatives and Senate vote. This rate is indexed every six months to increases in the Consumer Price Index.

Amount paid

The amount of election funding payable is calculated by multiplying the number of first preference votes received by the rate of payment applicable at the time. The rate is indexed every six months in line with increases in the Consumer Price Index.

The AEC provides a 30 odd year history of the electoral refund value -

Recent historical rates

  • 2010 federal election 231.191 cents
  • 2009 Bradfield and Higgins by-elections 224.851 cents
  • 2008 Lyne and Mayo by-elections 218.940 cents
  • 2008 Gippsland by-election 214.018 cents
  • 2007 federal election 210.027 cents
  • 2004 federal election 194.397 cents
  • 2001 federal election 179.026 cents
  • 1998 federal election 162.210 cents
  • 1996 federal election 157.594 cents
  • 1993 federal election 100.787 cents per House of
  • Representatives vote, 50.393 cents per Senate vote
  • 1990 federal election 91.223 cents per House of Representatives vote, 45.611 cents per Senate vote
  • 1987 federal election 76.296 cents per House of Representatives vote, 38.148 cents per Senate vote
  • 1984 federal election 61.2 cents per House of Representatives vote, 30.6 cents per Senate vote

The current election funding rate from 1 July 2012 to 31 December 2012 is 242.705 cents per eligible vote.

In Mar 2012 there was a report tabled titled – Current Commonwealth political financing arrangementslinked here – and very good reading. The report gives examples of situations where candidates/Political Parties could profit from the public purse vote refund system, when the refund due is greater then the amount spent on election campaigns.

The last two federal elections, 2007 and 2010, cost taxpayers $54.2 and $49 million a piece in electoral vote refunds.   The two major parties each received -

  • ALP 2007 – $20.0 million
  • ALP 2010 – $22.0 million
  • Coalition 2007 – $23.2 million
  • Coalition 2010 – $21.3 million.

Most important is the rise in the informal vote in the 2010 election – up to near 12% when the ‘no-shows’ are added to the registered informal vote.  This number registered third on the first preference list – beating the Greens.

In a submission to the – Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters [JSCEM] by this author after the 2010 Federal election -  JSCEM submission linked here – a number of issues were raised with the committee including the electoral vote refund system, and why ‘compulsory voting’ feeds to the higher refunds paid for by taxpayers.   If compulsory voting was not the law – the value of refunds to political candidates and political parties would diminish.   The electoral vote refund would only apply to those who wanted to vote formally.

In a direct sense as it stands now – those who vote without real interest in who they vote for – ‘gift’s to the candidate/political party monies they would never receive if compulsory voting was abolished.   They are linked in an adverse way that impacts on taxpayers.

- Political Parties forcing electioneering costs onto taxpayers:

Political Parties are responsible for all electioneering costs after the Parties have their official launch of their election campaigns.

In recent elections, this Campaign Launch has been delayed and this has pushed the ‘gray’ area of electioneering costs onto the taxpayer via Ministerial expenditures before the Campaign Launch.

A full listing of Federal Election costs since 1901 is provided by the AEC and can be accessed using  – this link.

An example of a by-election cost contained in the table provided via the link provided shows that when Peter Costello resigned from the Opposition in 2008 – the cost for the by-election was a $710k expense dumped on the taxpayer.

History now reminds us that if Mr Costello had sat on the Opposition benches, became Opposition Leader, and given the turmoil leading into the 2010 election, the Coalition would most likely have won in a landslide and he would have been PM.

The cost of that by-election should be for the sitting member to cover unless mitigating circumstances prevails – i.e. medical, personal crisis etc.   Just not wanting to be there anymore because you lost Government is not a reason.   The same applies to state elections and the recent Anna Bligh dummy-spit.

The biggest embarrassment is that every other democracy in the G-20 who once had compulsory voting have now rescinded the Law and now have a voluntary voting system.

Failing a referendum on the ‘compulsory voting’ issue – vote ‘None of the Above’ at the next election – [i.e. draw a new box on the ballot, call it 'None of the Above' and place your mark in that box.] – unless of course you know your candidate and want to pledge your vote … do not vote the top of the ticket or the leader because you think their cute, or have your interest’s at heart … all recent evidence to the contrary.

Make a statement at the next election – it will only take a single election protest to make politicians and political parties change and alter the contempt they have for the electorate.

Please – if you found this story to your liking and would like to promote it to your social media contacts – i.e. Twitter, Facebook, or other icon linked account below – please click your favoured Icon(s) to promote the story.Thankyou.


Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s


The EYE-BALL Opinion …

EYE-BALL’s – ‘NONE of the ABOVE’ Campaign – New Q’LD LNP amends Party Funding arrangements ….

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2
EYE-BALL None of the AboveEYE-BALL’s ‘None of the Above’ Campaign -

Front Page -


Latest ‘None of the Above’ Posts:


- 13th July 2012 – The Consequence of Poor Political Leadership


- 12th July 2012 – This Labour Party is Diseased


- 10th Jan 2011 – Australia Votes – “None of the Above” Campaign


- Link to 2011 JSCEM Submission

(PDF file format)


- Link to Australian Parliament House (APH) ‘None of the Above’ submission


Title:
- New Q’LD LNP Government …
- amends Party Fundings arrangements
| Author: EYE-BALL Opinion | 2nd Aug 2012 |
T he new Liberal National Party (LNP) QLD Government has made many bold moves since coming to office a few months ago.  Campbell Newman won the election in a landslide winning 78 of the 89 seats in the Parliament.

His latest change is to repeal Political Party funding Legislation passed in May 2011 under the Bligh Government.  This story was picked up by The Australian and the story appears below.

LNP scraps parties’ admin payments


| Author: Rosanne Barrett | Date: 2nd Aug 2012 | Link to On-Line Story. |

QUEENSLAND’s Liberal National Party is scrapping taxpayer-funded administration payments to political parties.

Treasurer Tim Nicholls said the government would change party funding arrangements at the September Budget, which would save about $17 million over four years.

Administration payments were introduced by the Bligh government last year as part of a raft of electoral disclosure and funding reforms. A per-vote payment will remain.

Mr Nicholls said the LNP, which dominates parliament with 78 of 89 seats, would be worse off under the proposal.

“The Newman government believes that Queenslanders should not pay for political parties’ administration costs at a time when the state is already feeling the burden,” he said.

Mr Nicholls said the LNP would have been entitled to more than $2 million; the Labor party would have received $581,000; the Katter Party $166,00 and each of the two Independents $43,000 this year.

According to the Electoral Commission parties are entitled to administrative funding of $42,100 per elected member or a statewide amount of $1.0495

… read on-line …

Premier Newman’s comments as quoted above …

“The Newman government believes that Queenslanders should not pay for political parties’ administration costs at a time when the state is already feeling the burden,” he said.

… raise eyebrows.

Why should Qld’s pay any of the administration cost of a Political Party?

The way the system works currently is that you can join a Political Party and pay a membership cost, attend Party meetings and rallies, and be a branch voting member in any ballot to pre-select candidates you want to run for your Party in either the State or Federal Parliament.

Non-Party Members get no opportunity in any Pre-Selection ballot for Party candidates.

Yet – when it comes down to the election – the Political Parties get a refund for each vote cast for individual party’s as long as they poll above 4%.

The author of this story has not painted the full picture. The full text of Treasurer Nichols statements is presented below:

Taxpayer subsidy for political parties to end


|Author: Treasurer and Minister for Trade – The Honourable – Tim Nicholls | Date: 2nd Aug 2012 |

QUEENSLAND’S taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for the administrative costs of political parties after the Newman Government moved to scrap the Labor-initiative.

Treasurer Tim Nicholls today told Parliament of the decision to remove the administration funding from the Budget, saving Queenslanders up to $17.7 million.

Mr Nicholls said that in the same week that Gordon Nuttall appeared at the bar to address the previous Parliament, the former Labor Government introduced new electoral laws that drastically altered the amount of taxpayer funds going directly to political parties.

“At that time in May last year Labor again voted to line its own pockets while the cost of living for everyday Queenslanders was rising,” he said.

“The LNP voted against Labor’s changes to the Electoral Act in opposition and we still oppose them today.”

The increase in funding had a twofold effect, for the first time political parties received administration funding and the formula per vote funding was altered.

Under the current parliamentary composition the LNP receives more than $2 million in administration funding per annum, Labor receives $581,000 or $83,000 per Member, The Australian Party receives $166,000 and parliament’s two independent MPs each receive $41,500.

Mr Nicholls said it was only fair that all departments and agencies participate in the huge fiscal repair task confronting Queensland.

“Cessation of this funding will have the biggest impact on the LNP, given our numbers in Parliament,” he said.

“But we need to ensure everyone contributes. We can’t be making the tough decisions to let public servants go and still use taxpayer funds to subsidise political parties.

“The Newman Government has committed to finding savings of $4 billion and more over the next three years in order to stabilise debt.”

Mr Nicholls said Attorney General Jarrod Bleijie would prepare a discussi on paper on broader electoral funding reform, with consultation to begin in the first half of 2013.

Now – this comment required some more research … the concept that Q’ld’s were pay the administration cost of Political parties just could not swim in my head.

Treasurer Nicholls Media staff were very helpful and directed me to May 2011 when then Premier Bligh introduced the Legislation being repealed by Premier Newman in the above statement.

The detail is in the Legislative bill Passed in May 2011 and titled – Electoral Reform and Accountability Amendment Bill 2011 – the extracts below are from this link …

The first page under Explanatory Notes uncovers what I was looking for -

Objectives of the Bill:

The Bill amends the Electoral Act 1992 (“the Act”) to make reforms to political donations and election campaign expenditure and funding for State elections. In particular, the Bill imposes caps on amounts donors can make to political parties, candidates and third parties for election spending.

It also places caps on certain expenditures by political parties, candidates and third parties in the period prior to an election. The Bill also improves enrolment and voting procedures so that they will enhance electoral participation in Queensland.

Reasons for the Bill

The Bill aims to improve the integrity and public accountability of state elections. The reforms aim to limit any potential for undue influence being exercised by any one donor or lobby group in relation to an election campaign – or any perception of such influence. To balance the effects of capping electoral donations and expenditure, the Bill provides for increased public funding to political parties and candidates for elections and administrative funding for political parties and independent members.

The Bill also aims to improve enrolment and voting procedures for Queenslanders. The reforms are aimed

The first part of the ‘Reasons for the Bill‘ is a setup – the real reason is revealed in the highlighted section that folows.

Achievement of the Objectives:

The objectives are achieved by:

  • Capping amounts donated by donors for use in state election campaigns;
  • Capping the amount political parties, candidates and third parties can spend on state election campaigns;
  • Ensuring the public continue to receive information on issues raised in election campaigns by increasing public funding to political parties and candidates;

… and again further research was needed …

Estimated Cost for Government Implementation:

The proposed reforms to electoral campaign financing will increase public funding for elections provided to political parties and candidates. Additionally, the Bill provides for administrative funding to political parties and independent members. The proposed reforms will increase the functions and costs of the commission, particularly in relation to monitoring and enforcement. These matters will be considered in the 2011-2012 State budget.

And there is the fruit in the pudding … There is a section in the Bill pre amble where they acknowledge Consultation was undertaken …

Consultation:

In December 2010 the Queensland Government released a “White Paper” entitled Reforming Queensland’s Electoral System which was published on the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s website. Submissions closed in February 2011. Nine submissions were received indicating general support for capping electoral donations and expenditure.

In addition, the Electoral Commission Queensland was consulted on the White Paper and operational administrative aspects of the amendments relating to enrolment and voting procedure.

None of these Consultative papers wrote about Party compensation as a back end tradeoff … that was all Premier Bligh and it is criminal in its intent.

From here I went to the Hansard record of the May 11 2011 debate on this proposed Bill. Initially Opposition Spokesperson Mr BLEIJIE (Kawana—LNP) (12:07pm) spoke on the Bill – his speech can be watched via Parliamentary video archive using this link… or read from Hansard records here … at page 1355.

This speech is important – it covers an area of electoral funding that all Australians should be aware of.  The Qld Government were introducing a Bill where public funds were going to be paid to compensate Political Parties, in return for capping electoral donations.

In effect – this was a scam to have the ALP Qld Government pay $2,000,000 towards covering the ALP’s Administration costs.   Other Party’s were to receive funding based on a formula attached to Number of MP’s serving the QLD Parliament.

Political Party Membership in Australia is less that 100,000 – and these members vote on all pre-selection of candidates.  The rest of Australia get to vote for those pre-selected Candidates at STate and Federal elections.  But the rest of Australia have been asked to now pay $10′s millions to these Political Parties to cover their operational costs.

That is a Political Party membership fee without Party membership entitlements.

Do you know your Candidate or Federal Member?  Less that 10% of voters have any personal contact or knowledge about their Member at either State or Federal level.  Why gift them your vote – they receive a $2.50 payment for every vote a Party receives – surely if voting is compulsory – then we should be able to vote our true belief.  If None of the candidates on the ballot has done nothing to earn your vote – then an option to vote ‘None of the ABove’ should be offered.

At the moment the only way you can register this type of vote is to vote informal.  Please – make your vote count to how you want to vote …


If this campaign topic and vision interests you – please subscribe for updates via the RSS feed links below and E-Mail links provided in the right hand margin Admin section:

If you want to become an active supporter of the campaign ahead of the next Election due in the second half of 2013 – please get in touch via this E-Mail address:

  • Send E-Mail to the EYE-BALL – “None of the Above” campaign.

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Links to Australian Parliamentary Website – MP’s


The EYE-BALL Opinion’s –

“None of the Above” campaign.

EYE-BALL’s – ‘NONE of the ABOVE’ Campaign – The Consequence of Poor Political Leadership…

The-EYE-BALL-MovieZone
… The Consequence of Poor Political Leadership…
| EYE-BALL’s Australia Votes: “None of the Above” Campaign | 13th July 2012 |
EYE-BALL None of the AboveEYE-BALL None of the AboveThe World limps, mortally wounded after the financial shocks of the 2008-9 GFC. The World’s economy is on life support that can only come from continued Government stimulus programs and bailouts meant to help out the Banks that caused the GFC in the first place.

Citizens, Corporations, and Government’s are bleeding from river’s of ‘debt’ and an ocean of ‘corruption’.  Past and on-going measures taken by Legislators and put in place to shore up the Financial Markets have one purpose in mind – ‘save the Banks‘.   It’s a policy entrenched in the ways of the past – our Leaders still think ‘capitalism’ is the way of the future.

It is just plain wrong … wrong … wrong … and the problem is how does one convince the World they need to change their ways?

True ‘Capitalism” died many decades ago when Government and our elected Leaders sold out on behalf of the people.  Politicians became the front-men and ‘Ken and Barbie’ style sales merchants selling a business based on what we now call ‘Party Politics‘ and the commercialisation of Party policy for sale to the highest bidder with the biggest donation.

100 years ago the ideals of the Political Parties had moral intent and purpose – or that is what we read in history journals.  Their aim was to improve the quality of life for everybody on the planet, not just their own citizens, or their own kind.

In the immediate aftermath of WWII when humanitarian efforts were at their height – the very fabric and intent of what galvanised a World order against tyranny and Imperialism, now lays tattered, torn and faded away.   In the time since successive Administrations have forgotten purpose and the why early Democracy was formed to humanise a Global population.

In recent times Global Wars may not have been fought, but trade-wars are ongoing and impacting on Nations unable to help themselves.   These Wars are economic in nature and are designed to cripple a Nations ability to fund its programs – i.e. the Cold War victory to America came from the price of Oil being pushed down to $10 a barrel and the Russians lost their ‘cash-cow’ export revenues.  That political game forced the end to communism and the world believed it was a better place because of it.

Since then China has reversed the trade-war scenario and used it against America – pegging the Chinese currency to the US$ was the biggest political play in history in the last 60 years.

Returning to post WWII – Africa has been pillaged and raped beyond its own existence -  all in full sight of a so called caring world.  The Arab world has been ‘conned’ into providing the ‘black-gold’ so needed by industrilised Nations.  When it is gone – how will they survive apart from the mega wealth created by Kings and Dictators in those lands?

The ‘Cold War’, and ‘Trade-Wars’ may have not had statistical ‘war-dead’ or civilian casualties of war, but the global civilian body count as a result of the ‘trade-wars’ is still larger that all the military deaths in both World Wars and all the conflict Wars since.

During this period Governments have lost their way – a little over 45 years ago man set a far horizon goal – to land a man on the moon and the Yanks did it and the rest of the World marveled at their accomplishment.   What new far horizon has been undertaken for humanity on this planet in that time since?

Government’s of past era’s displayed integrity and had a moral compass.

America as a World leader has lost its way and is not alone.  Recent Leaders were self-serving egotists – Bush Jnr with his daddy’s wish to finish the War on Iraq he started in the early 90′s and a second term lame-duck President over the WMD fraud – Clinton also with his second term comatose by the ‘Monica Lewinsky’ blowjob in the Oval office and denial,  showed they were both men not worthy of such high office.

In 2001 and after 9/11 – a dark cloud descended upon humanity.  In its aftermath where America and the rest of the Western world practised self-interest, revenge, and an intent to teach others a lesson about attacking America blinded Western Leaders.

Australia was caught up in that when Howard accepted the ‘WMD’ lie perpetrated upon a global population looking for Leadership in the 9/11 aftermath.  The World turned to their Leaders and all that came back was a lie and a descent into a Political abyss that the World has never recovered from.

George Bush Jnr was not the start of the descent into weak and corrupt political times.  He was just a symbol of how far the moral compass of Leaders had turned from what was a righteous crusade started so long ago.

In recent decades political choices and decisions have not been made by the individual or based on their own private and individual moral beliefs – Politics has become a conference of opinions and vested interests groups all pressuring for their own agendas.

Clinton’s attempt to overthrow the Somalia Warlord was the humane thing to do – then why did he abandoned that cause?  It was because of the public opinion about military loss of life and it was too much for the political pollsters – policy driven by poll numbers is a dangerous road to travel yet that is where Democracy now stands.

The foundation of Democracy once based upon the belief that it represents Government of the people, for the people, and by the people, is now about who has the largest cheque book – Political Leadership for sale – going price about US$3 billion if the latest spend on the US Presidential race adds up right.

The business model for Political Leadership is about Party Politics – the scam is to offer bigger and shinier handouts to have people believe in a better option. It is not relevant at the time if it is a lie – it only becomes relevant if it can be proved to be a lie at the same time it is sold to the electorate – i.e. the $11 billion black hole in Abbott’s election promise’s in the 2010 election – proved after the Election to be a lie – Gillard’s promise of ‘no carbon tax under a Government I lead’, and what do we have, a Carbon Tax under a Gillard led Government.

Politicians lie and they do it so well – win Government by any means necessary – because once you are in power, then the promised land becomes your playground and you can spin it anyway you like to a lassoed media so eager to please for their own agenda’s.   Party Politics now comes before the good of the Nation and in that dulled spotlight of media spin – we all find it hard to see the sharks in the waters we are all left to swim with.

With Democracy’s hijack, so went out the capitalist ideals and in came the methods used to corrupt the whole political system.   The way of the World today is to get as rich as you can, anyway you can, and to can those who dare get in your way – and it all starts with the ‘faceless’ men behind the scenes of our Political Leaders and the Parties they represent.

The World has been dying this slow and agonising death for a long time, its been like a cancer eating away at the insides of Society and everybody pretended they were none the wiser.   They’ve all known – just as the electorate have known – nobody was prepared to call it for what it was – just like a patient who knows something is wrong but does not want to go to the doctor to have it confirmed.

All through this comatosed existence – the same people living in far off lands have continued fighting and dying against Warlords over basic needs like food and shelter.   The World now only looks on in mild concern – that concern being that they don’t want it on their doorstep – not the poverty, the children dying, or the murderous genocide, just so long as it stays ‘over there’.

Can anyone count the cost in terms of human life, family and loved ones lost, and all because Leaders of the World have given over responsibility to an underfunded and undermanned United Nations.   Governments have focused on their own needs and in doing so appeased any conscience drag by donating small GDP percentages to the UN to help.   What happened to the humanitarian instinct to help those who cannot help themselves?

The Australian Government has budgeted $370 million to host a G20 summit in 2014.  That’s almost $20 million a delegate and their entourage.  What aid could that $370 million provide – how many lives coud it save … $20 million a delegate – what the hell could they spend $20 million on per person in all good conscience.

The ongoing GFC event is not a natural occurrence – it was nurtured from man-made GREED, and yet more GREED.  It evolved from leadership mediocrity that in-bred more mediocrity and before we realised – the worst of the worst sat upon the dungheap of a political kingdom and played god.

The World is now more dangerous that at any time since WWII – danger from a tsunami of emotive anger all directed at Political Leadership and the perception that they are Government for the elite of society, and not for the people who need Government help the most.   It’s all about maintaining the quality of life for those who were and are living the best quality of lives. The concentration of wealth has always been a condensed and shrinking proportion of the worlds population. Poverty is the rising abyss and Government’s are at a loss to prevent its spread.

The World is undoubtedly headed towards an uncertain future – what do angry people do when a perfect storm forms?  The release valve has always been revolution. When things get to that type of situation – the value of life becomes unimportant for those within the struggle.   Personal sacrifice is the call to arms.   We’ve seen it in Egypt, Libya and Syria all in the last 12 months or so.

The value of any life should matter.   For all of man’s time on this earth, never has life been so cheap in far off distant lands,  who would have thought that the lack of food and water has been the reason why life is lost in this modern world.  The UN talks of humanity, of human aid, of warlords and conflicts where donated aid is the reason people die.  This is the ugly side the World order Political Leaders refuse to act upon.

The rawness that is the African poverty, the desperate plight of millions of people caught in War torn lands where children are stolen to wage war, you would think the World would care!   Yet Western Nations, their populations, and like their Leaders, only concern themselves with their own quality of life.

Past events in Greece and overnight in Spain – [See ABC Spain story here.] – and about to happen in other Eurozone Nations having to take austerity measures,  prove that this poverty disease is now spreading into Nations who 10 years ago were thought to be immuned to the poverty problem.   More and more are slipping below the poverty line, and having to find other ways to support themselves and family, many are learning how to and living lives off the proceeds of crime.

This is the most dangerous of times … when people begin to believe their life has no value,  even to themselves, then anarchy is only a doorstep away.

The demise of political will and morality can be traced back to the advent of Television – TV gave us unlimited entertainment, news, and advertising.   Prior to TV it was not all that important how a politician dressed, how he/she looked, and what their facial features looked like.  It was a time when ugly and awkward people could get elected.  TV and media changed all that.

Politicians began to watch themselves on TV as the News and Current Affairs programs broadcast speeches and Parliamentary proceedings. The Western World was suddenly able to see their Politicians live or on replay and the world of Politics changed.

Some 60 years later society demands that our leaders be youthful looking, they have dress style, and apply makeup to suit the mood and lighting before the cameras.  They are selling themselves as much as the policy they are about to give or debate.

This ‘glass-bottle’ existence is the same for everybody – one poor performance in front of a camera, or a discovered indiscretion can ruin a political career.  So of course they’re never going to expose themselves unless they control the environment and make sure all ‘land-mines’ have been removed.  We will only get to see the public image they want us to see of any of our Political Leaders – that has never changed.

This flows to vote record – never wanting to be seen as the unpopular standout against bad policy. It also galvanises the like minded into block factions within Party’s who will only change their vote in exchange for backroom deals that always have a monetary value for someone.

This is all done out in open and is commented on daily as the normal way democracy is carried out. The reality is that it’s no better than a Gangster meeting of Don’s sitting down to hash over the spoils and areas where they all have vested interests.

________________________________________

If disenchanted Labour voters don’t want to vote for any other Party and I know how that feels at the moment – vote ‘None of the Above’ on the ballot and deny them your $2.50 vote reimbursement.   You should only vote for candidates you believe in – not the top of the ticket.   We have compulsory voting in this Nation – the ‘None of the Above’ campaign is about a fair choice to express your true want in who to vote for.

The Joint Standing Committee for Electoral Matters Submission for a “None of the Above” ballot box can be read by clicking the link below, (PDF file):

Submission_None of the above Campaign

It this campaign topic and vision interests you – please subscribe for updates via the RSS feed links below and E-Mail links provided in the right hand margin Admin section:

If you want to become an active supporter of the campaign ahead of the next Election due in the second half of 2013 – please get in touch via this E-Mail address:

  • Send E-Mail to the EYE-BALL – “None of the Above” campaign.

________________________________________

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL’s “None of the Above Campaign”

EYE-BALL’s – ‘NONE of the ABOVE’ Campaign – This Labour Party is Diseased …

The-EYE-BALL-MovieZone
- This Labour Party is Diseased -
| EYE-BALL’s Australia Votes: “None of the Above” Campaign | 12th July 2012 |
EYE-BALL None of the AboveEYE-BALL None of the AboveThe Australian Labour Party is dying by a thousand cuts – many think it already dead, or past revival.  Their Leadership and Ministry and caucus is a toxic sludge, immovable, arrogant, spiteful,  agenderised, factionalised, out of touch and  divorced form political reality, internally bankrupt of ethics and moral integrity, and the worst Government in living memory.  Once staunch supporters have already deserted in droves and they hang out there looking for somewhere and someone to lend their support.

It has taken almost two years for the Labour caucus to realise the electorate was speaking to them with the annihilation suffered during the NSW and QLD State elections.  The Federal branch of the Party should have been aware of the electorates discourse much sooner.  To call then ‘dunces’ is to be kind … to name them all of the above is about where the Labour base finds itself.  These Labour voters on the lam will never support Gillard even again, and it’s a guaranteed outcome that Gillard will go the way of RUDD before the next due election, or an early election will be called.

The ALP Union factions are the cause of all this dissent.  The recent challenge to the GREENS by Paul Howes and the New South Wales ALP secretary Sam Dastyar also added his comments.  [See ABC story here.] 

Labour stalwart Laurie Ferguson came out telling these ‘boys’ to grow up and think before they speak.   This is where the Labour Party is -  diseased from its inside – Paul Howes is not Bob Kelty, and this Dastyar wants recognition and sees himself as the rising star much the way Mark Arbib and Bill Shorten saw themselves  when they first came to Parliament.

There will be no comeback for Gillard or her Ministry – even DNA injected supporters have resigned themselves to a decade or so in Opposition.  The ‘Headless Chook’ has infected her deadly toxic brand all over Australia.

The poll numbers already have the Party machine trying to figure out where to get the funding to run the next election campaign.  A reduced vote of 15% at the polls will cost them $2.50 a vote … see below calculation:

  • 15% of (4,711,363 [HOR] +4,469,734 [Senate] ) of 1st preference votes @$2.50 = $3.44 million.
  • Link to – AEC Recent Federal historical rates for Vote reimbursement:

Does the ALP needs a saviour, or should they suffer the annihilation as retribution for the crap that have delivered since Gillard ousted RUDD?

Does RUDD want to return – and if he does will the Unions be booted once and for all from the power base they fight tooth and nail to retain?

Given the HSU and soon to be exposed AWU 1995 fraud involving Gillard – it’s a good bet that the Union factions will be forced to stay silent for a while.

The Gillard involvement in the AWU fraud with her then live in boyfriend who is alleged to have defrauded the AWU out of at least $500,000 and as much as $1,000,000 – claims she received proceeds from the fraud.  It has never been made public whether she paid it back.  She was then Partner in the Slater and Gordon Law firm at the time, and she set up the accounts for her boyfriend in which the defrauded monies passed through. [Read the full story here.]

Given the way that Labour Ministers turned on RUDD in the showdown earlier this year, the Opposition will have a field day come election time. With the ammunition the likes of Swan, Conroy, Bourke, Wong, Gillard, Bowen and so on provided about Rudd’s character and performance whilst PM … he would have to be a giant size squid to line up and take a beating from the electorate.

No – this is all on the ‘Headless Chook’, that ‘Red Head’ dumpling, that @$#%^&* and more … I thought George Bush Jnr was the worst ever Western Leader in the World during my generation – but that tag now goes to this friggin’ dumbass sheila.

How could this caucus have not seen her for who she was … the likes of Shorten, Howes, Arbib and the other faceless men need to be publicly humiliated. They threw the elected leader overboard and installed a puppet they had to have known was week – it proves their own weakness and poor character judgement.

Can anyone name one thing Gillard did that was a positive for Australia … RUDD at least has a half-dozen credits to his name and the ALP still don’t want him.

The electorate has turned viral against her and she still has not received the message … she has responded with spiteful inaction on asylum seekers, the Carbon Tax, the MRRT, where will it end.   If you were the Doctor treating the ALP – you would euthanise them.

________________________________________

If disenchanted Labour voters don’t want to vote for any other Party and I know how that feels at the moment – vote ‘None of the Above’ on the ballot and deny them your $2.50 vote reimbursement.   You should only vote for candidates you believe in – not the top of the ticket.   We have compulsory voting in this Nation – the ‘None of the Above’ campaign is about a fair choice to express your true want in who to vote for.

The Joint Standing Committee for Electoral Matters Submission for a “None of the Above” ballot box can be read by clicking the link below, (PDF file):

Submission_None of the above Campaign

Remember Voting informal is an option if compulsory voting is Law – If this campaign topic and vision interests you – please subscribe for updates via the RSS feed links below and E-Mail links provided in the right hand margin Admin section:

If you want to become an active supporter of the campaign ahead of the next Election due in the second half of 2013 – please get in touch via this E-Mail address:

  • Send E-Mail to the EYE-BALL – “None of the Above” campaign.

________________________________________

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL’s “None of the Above Campaign”

EYE-BALL’s – ‘NONE of the ABOVE’ campaign – Australia Votes…

July 6, 2012 Comments off
The-EYE-BALL-MovieZone
… The EYE-BALL Opinion’s …
- Australia Votes -
- “None of the Above” -
… Campaign …
First published Jan 10th, 2011 … republished and updated July 6th 2012.Extract …

EYE-BALL None of the AboveEYE-BALL None of the AboveSince before the 2010 election - The EYE-BALL has been pursuing avenues to bring about a change to the voting options on the ballot paper.  Those efforts concern including a ‘None of the Above’ vote choice on the Ballot paper for all free political elections in this Nation.

I accept the ‘compulsory’ requirement in our voting system … I just believe that when you are asked to cast your vote, and you do not know any of the candidates on the ballot paper, and you do not agree with the Party policies they represent, you should have the opportunity to truly vote your conscience – as opposed to having to vote informal, or make a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Our AEC Laws do not allow for this type of vote … and those who do not want to vote for any candidate, are forced to vote informal if they do not want their vote to count. There is no way the AEC can decipher from the intended informal ballots as to what percentage made a mistake in filling out their ballot paper.

The amendment sought in the after math of the 2010 election with an 11$ informal vote count – more than the GREEN vote – can be read via the linked submission below. This submission was sent to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM), and was intended to present to the AEC an alternative in having the deliberate informal vote registered as some form of ‘protest’ vote.

Hopefully with the tally of this part of the informal vote being made clear – our political and electoral system will provide clear messages to both candidates and political parties over the voter dissatisfaction.   It was hoped that the submission would raise issues like voters wanting to know who their candidates are and know what they stand for – as opposed to being party aligned hacks and/or puppets doing a lip service on behalf of a political party.

The Joint Standing Committee for Electoral Matters Submission can be read by clicking the link below, (PDF file):

Submission_None of the above Campaign

________________________________________

It this campaign topic and vision interests you – please subscribe for updates via the RSS feed links below and E-Mail links provided in the right hand margin Admin section:

If you want to become an active supporter of the campaign ahead of the next Election due in the second half of 2013 – please get in touch via this E-Mail address:

  • Send E-Mail to the EYE-BALL – “None of the Above” campaign.

________________________________________

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL’s “None of the Above Campaign”

EYE-BALL Opinion on – Democracy v Party Politics … The reason why it fails us all …

The-EYE-BALL-Opinion-Header-2
Title:
Democracy v Party Politics
… The reason why it fails us all  …
5th July 2012.
The recent Immigration/Asylum Seeker debate proved yet again that regardless of what our MP’s feel or believe in – the tug of Party Politics fails our Democratic system in many ways.

In previous posts on the Asylum and Immigration debate during last week – click here to read Part 1 of 5 with links to all five- I advocated that ALP Member Kevin Rudd should have crossed the floor on the Oppositions Amendment Bill put forward by Scott Morrison to break the deadlock on this matter,  and see if Gillard would have voted against the Bill in the Senate with the Opposition Attachment.

If she failed to support the Bill with attachments n in the Senate it would have sent another clear picture just how her Government is intent of denying Abbott any victory.   It would have proved she had not real intent to try and help the Asylum seeker problem.

Had the ALP Senate supported the Bill with the Amendment – it would have been game on between her and RUDD yet again.

Why RUDD never crossed the floor is unknown and pure conjecture right now.  Whether he wants the Leadership again is also unknown – but if he does, and had he crossed the floor Gillard would now be on a ‘slow-roast spit’ to hell.

This prompted some research on how many ‘floor-crossings’ have taken place in the Federal Government, and particularly the House of Representatives.   I thought it would have been miniscule – but the following document published on-line from the Parliamentary Library and – linked here – gives a statistical summary of MP’s in State and Federal politics who have crossed the floor since 1950 and up to 2004.    The Document is reproduced below and makes for some interesting reading:

Crossing the floor in the Federal Parliament 1950 – August 2004

| Date: 10th Oct 2005 | Link to On-Line Story. | Source – Parliamentary Library, Dept Parliamentary Services. |

Definition

For the purposes of the study crossing the floor is defined as an action unique to Westminster style parliaments where a Government or Opposition member of parliament refuses to vote with his or her own party in a particular division and crosses the floor of the parliamentary chamber.

Floor crossings

In the period of the study there were 14 243 divisions. Of these 439 (3%) were identified as divisions in which members of parliament (MPs) crossed the floor. The floor crossing divisions in each chamber were:

  • Senate: 297 (67.7%)
  • House of Representatives: 141 (32.1%)
  • Joint Sitting: 1 (0.2%)

Floor crossing divisions in the Senate as a proportion of all Senate divisions was 5%. This compares with 2% for the House of Representatives.

Number of floor crossers

Between 1950 and 2004, 245 MPs, (87 senators, 154 members and four who served in both houses) crossed the floor. This represents 24% of all MPs who sat in Parliament during this period. The proportion of floor crossers from the House of Representatives (63%) compared to the Senate (36%) reflects the relative size of these Chambers, although senators were more active dissenters (see table 2). A slightly higher percentage of all senators (26%) crossed the floor compared to members (23%).

In 48% of all floor crossing divisions there was only a single MP who crossed the floor, and in 26% two or three MPs were involved. Only 6% of the divisions had 10 or more floor crossers.

Floor crossers by party

In the period of the study, 63% of floor crossers came from the Liberal Party, 26% from the National Party and 11% from the Labor Party. The small percentage from the Labor Party reflects the party’s particular emphasis on discipline where a formal pledge binds all Labor MPs to support the collective decisions of the Caucus. The last two Labor MPs to cross the floor—Senator George Georges in 1986 and Graeme Campbell MP in 1988—were both suspended from the party for their actions.

Table 3: Current MPs who crossed the floor to August 2004

Name…Floor crossings…Subject

  • - Senator Eric Abetz (LP, Tas)…1…human rights (1)
  • - Senator Ron Boswell (Nats, Qld)…6…primary industry (2), human rights (1), parliament (1), referendum bills (2)
    - Alan Cadman (LP, NSW)…1…referendum bills (1)
  • - Senator Paul Calvert (LP, Tas)…1…human rights (1)
  • - Senator Robert Hill (LP, SA)…10…tax (3), environment, human rights, referendum bills (3), committee referral (2)
  • - David Jull (LP, Qld)…2…civil aviation (2)
  • - Bob Katter (Nats, Qld, now IND)…9…native title (2), tariffs (1), chamber procedure (5), human rights (1)
  • - De-Anne Kelly (Nats, Qld)…3…native title (2), chamber procedure (1)
  • - Senator Sandy Macdonald (Nats, NSW)…2…native title (2)
  • - Senator Julian McGauran (Nats, Vic)…8…primary industry (4), human rights (1), chamber procedure (1), native title (2)
  • - Peter McGauran (Nats, Vic)…1…parliament (1)
  • - Paul Neville (Nats, Qld)…1…human rights (1)
  • - Phillip Ruddock (LP, NSW)…1…immigration (1)
  • - Warren Truss (Nats, Qld)…1…human rights (1)
  • - Wilson Tuckey (LP, WA)…4…civil aviation (2), tax (2)
  • - Senator Amanda Vanstone (LP, SA)…1…tax (1)
  • - Senator John Watson (LP, Tas)…4…environment (1), referendum bills (1), chamber procedure (1), human rights (1)

Subjects on which MPs crossed the floor

MPs crossed the floor over a range of subjects. Taxation was the major issue being the subject of 43 floor crossing divisions. This was followed by legislation on referendums (26), the environment (23), issues relating to the parliament (21), parliamentary entitlements (21), primary industry (19), committee establishment and referral (17), civil aviation (14), electoral law (13) and human rights (12). Table 3 lists the subjects on which current MPs have crossed the floor.

Fate of floor crossers

The act of crossing the floor does not appear to have adversely affected many floor crossers’ careers. The number of floor crossers who went on to become ministers, parliamentary secretaries or presiding officers is substantial (43%) compared to the number of all MPs who attained such office (30%). Among the current MPs who have crossed the floor 12 became ministers or parliamentary secretaries (Abetz, Boswell, Cadman, Hill, Jull, Kelly, Macdonald, P. McGauran, Ruddock, Truss, Tuckey and Vanstone) and one became a presiding officer (Calvert).

Many MPs, such as Reg Wright and Graeme Campbell, have survived floor crossing because of the support of their state or local branches. Fred Chaney observed that he ‘very seldom saw anyone cross the floor against the wishes of their endorsing body’.10 David Hamer, senator in the Fraser Government, wrote that:

“… none of the cross voters was penalised by loss of selection as the Liberal candidate in the next election. … in some cases their position was strengthened, for they were representing the views of the party organisations in their states, which were opposed to what the federal government was proposing.”

Northern Territory Senator Grant Tambling encountered the power of the Country Liberal Party when he defied the Party’s instruction to cross the floor on the question of internet gambling. Tambling voted with the government to impose restrictions on online gambling. In September 2001 Tambling failed to regain preselection after the ‘party’s executive [had] disendorsed the government frontbencher in July’.

Some high profile floor crossers have suffered as a result of their actions. Unlike Senator Reg Wright who became a minister in the Gorton and McMahon governments, Senator Ian Wood never achieved his long-standing ambition to become President of the Senate.13 Senator Alan Missen was never included on the Liberal frontbench. Some of his colleagues apparently believed that, apart from his independence which was characterised by numerous floor crossings, he would not have been able to make the compromises required of ministers and shadow ministers.

Crossing the floor and party discipline

Crossing the floor is one indicator of party discipline. As stated above the study shows that discipline is stronger in the Labor Party than the Coalition parties. Whether Labor was in government or not, its MPs crossed the floor on only 18 occasions. This is many fewer than Coalition MPs who crossed the floor on 427 occasions.15 Coalition MPs were much more likely to cross the floor when they were in Government (4%) than when in Opposition (1%), whereas there was no difference for Labor.

The Liberal Prime Minister subjected to the most floor crossings was Harold Holt (11% of all divisions had floor crossers) followed by PMs John Gorton (7%), Malcolm Fraser (6%) and Robert Menzies (5%). John Howard has had MPs cross the floor in 9 divisions (0.3%). These involved Queensland Nationals members De-Anne Kelly, Bob Katter (now IND) and Paul Marek and Queensland Liberal member Tony Smith.

In Opposition, Liberal leaders Andrew Peacock (two periods as leader: 3.1% and 2.3%) and Alexander Downer (1.3%) experienced the most floor crossings. The figures for Billy Snedden, Malcolm Fraser and John Hewson were 0.8%, 0.4% and 0.4% respectively. John Howard, on the two occasions he was Opposition Leader, experienced floor crossings in only 7 divisions (0.6%) on the first occasion and none at all on the second occasion.

The attitude of Coalition MPs towards dissent has not appeared to change markedly since Robert Menzies established the modern Liberal Party in 1944. Current Coalition MPs still argue that, in certain circumstances, they are entitled to cross the floor.16 However, the figures above confirm that ‘the modern Liberal Party just as much as Labor, comes down very hard on dissent’.

Effect of floor crossing

Floor crossing affected the result of floor crossing divisions in only 53 (12%) of cases. The vast majority of these occurred in the Senate 48 (91%) compared to five (9%) in the House of Representatives. The successful floor crossing divisions in the House of Representatives all occurred between 1952 and 1955. The last successful division in the Senate involved Nationals senators crossing the floor to vote with the Labor Government on the Representation Bill 1983. This bill sought to increase the number of MPs in Parliament.

The study considered the effect of crossing the floor on the final outcome of bills, amendments to bills, regulations and substantive motions. The study does not include the final effect on procedural matters. These findings show that the practical effect of crossing the floor is much less important than the symbolic impact. At the final stage of the legislative process the influence of floor crossers has been seen only in the Senate.

As a direct result of their actions:

  • two Bills became Acts: Representation Bill 1983 and ACT Evidence (Temporary Provisions) Bill 1971
  • 14 amendments supported or moved by floor crossers were included in Bills that became Acts
  • two amendments supported or moved by floor crossers were partially successful
  • four disallowance motions on regulations or ordinances supported or moved by floor crossers were successful
  • four motions relating to the establishment of Senate committees were successful.

No current MPs were involved in these divisions.

Conclusion

This study shows that since 1950 there have been periods of frequent dissent in the federal parliament contradicting the belief that ‘actual defection is rarely, if ever, observed’.18 The study also shows that, despite the frequency of floor crossing, the effect of this action still remains largely symbolic.

The study found that when a Coalition government controls the Senate instances of crossing the floor increase. In the 41st Parliament it will, therefore, be interesting to see whether this trend continues or whether party discipline is maintained and Liberal Senator Michael Ronaldson’s view reflects the events of the next two years:

… [I] have always been a passionate believer in the sanctity of the party room … I am just so passionately and vehemently opposed to the option of crossing the floor. I actually think it’s gutless … you [are] there as part of a team.

… Note: Some table data has been excluded from the information above – to view the full paper please use this link.

This data is up to 2004 and it has been advised that the Parliamentary Library has kept the data feed up to date.   Aa updated version will be made available at some point in the future. A source has been helpful in advising were recent data can be found – in particular since the 2010 minority Government came to power.

It is worth noting that the current Minority Government is where any crossing of the floor would have had a serious impact on the Government – all previous crossings in the Federal Senate and the House of Representatives had no impact or outcome to any Government Legislation – please note the quote from the research paper above:

…The successful floor crossing divisions in the House of Representatives all occurred between 1952 and 1955. The last successful division in the Senate involved Nationals senators crossing the floor to vote with the Labor Government on the Representation Bill 1983. This bill sought to increase the number of MPs in Parliament.

Therefore it is a fair question to ask:  when MP’s in the House ‘cross the floor’ when there is no risk to Government or of a Party sanction – does that mean that MP’s are truly voting their conscience and own beliefs?

The flip question is: when there are risk’s involved – i.e. the current minority Government where crossing the floor by any Member of the Government could have significant and dire consequences for the Government and its Leader – why do Members not follow their conscience and cross the floor to vote against or for a Bill they believe in or their conscience tells them to?

The example of this of course in in the debate that took place last week on the Oakeshott Bill concerning Immigration and Asylum Seekers when Opposition Immigration spokesperson, Scott Morrison proposed his Amendment Bill that was finally defeated 73-72 with the GREENS Member Adam Bandt abstaining.

Please look at the data reflection all the ‘floor crossings since this 2010 minority Government was formed below:

  1. 22 Feb 2011 – ALP – HR – Natasha Griggs (CLP, NT) – No 68-6 – She voted with Independents Tony Windsor, Rob Oakeshott, Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt (AG) and Tony Crook (Nats) against the second reading stage of the National Radioactive Waste Management Bill 2010. The Bill passed the second reading stage.There was no division at the third reading stage.During the second reading debate the shadow minister for Energy and Resources, Ian Macfarlane , stated that ‘the coalition will support this bill. This is one of the few good pieces of legislation we have seen come into this House in recent times’. The Opposition abstained from the vote at the second reading stage except for Tony Smith (Lib, Vic) who voted with the Government and Natasha Griggs. AAP News reported that Mr Macfarlane’s ‘spokeswoman said the opposition abstained in the vote because “it was up to the government to get the numbers”’.On 21 February 2011 – Adam Bandt (Vic, AG) moved an amendment at the second reading stage. The amendment which was supported by Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, Andrew Wilkie and Tony Windsor was defeated 57-5. The Opposition (including Natasha Griggs) abstained from this vote except for Patrick Secker (opposition whip, Lib, SA) and Sussan Ley (Lib, NSW) who voted with the Government.
  2. 28 Jun 2012 ALP HR – Judi Moylan (LP, WA) – No Minority votes only recorded- She voted with Independent Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt (AG) in support of two amendments moved by Bandt to the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012. The amendments were defeated. [The Opposition voted with the Government on the Bill]Note: As there were fewer than five members voting aye the Deputy Speaker declared the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of members who were in the minority were recorded in Votes and Proceedings.
  3. 28 Jun 2012 ALP – HR – Judi Moylan (LP, WA) – No Minority votes only recorded -  She voted with Independent Andrew Wilkie and Adam Bandt (AG) against the motion that the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Fair Incentives to Work) Bill 2012 be agreed to. The question was resolved in the affirmative. [The Opposition voted with the Government on the Bill]Note: the Bill passed the second and third reading stages without division.
    Note: As there were fewer than five members voting aye the Deputy Speaker declared the question resolved in the negative in accordance with standing order 127. The names of members who were in the minority were recorded in Votes and Proceedings.

There is clear evidence in the research paper that the ALP do not allow crossings – they are viewed dimly and dis-endorsement would be the sanction if it did happen. See research comments from above:

…Crossing the floor is one indicator of party discipline. As stated above the study shows that discipline is stronger in the Labor Party than the Coalition parties. Whether Labor was in government or not, its MPs crossed the floor on only 18 occasions. This is many fewer than Coalition MPs who crossed the floor on 427 occasions.15 Coalition MPs were much more likely to cross the floor when they were in Government (4%) than when in Opposition (1%), whereas there was no difference for Labor.

In the research data to 2004 – and of Members who were still sitting at the time – no Labour Member had crossed the floor.

For RUDD to have crossed the floor last week and voted for the Morrison bill – it would have been monumental in Labour land.

Perhaps that is what is necessary to extract from this Government some recogniseable accountability in how the Labour Party hold their MP’s in tow and follow the Party Line.

There were plenty of Labour MP’s who did not support the Government Bill put up through Oakeshott – yet no Labour MP’s or Independent broke ranks. These recent boat tragedies, the many before and the many still to come demanded action.  To data more than 800 lives have been lost.   For this House to break without a resolution to this urgent problem is unforgiveable and demonstrates where the Governments priorities lie.

It is easy to blame Gillard – but she is only the bun part of the hamburger – the Greens got their Carbon Tax price for getting into bed with Gillard to form this minority Government – and now it seems that it plans to grow its strength by opposing the Government on this issue as support for Gillard flounders.

If RUDD had of wanted he could have made the difference in the House – there was still the question as to whether the ALP Senators would have supported the Bill with the Morrison Amendment attached.   But by then RUDD would have sent the message – and if the Government voted against the Bill in the Senate – then all sorts of things would and might have happened.

The media would have been on it like flys on dung – Gillard’s support would have evaporated in the caucus and galvanised behind RUDD for showing Leadership in a time of crisis – it would have been Churchill like.

Instead – the public are in open outcry – the Government and Opposition have retreated to their Hitler Bunkers – Gillard has thrown a bone in the form of a Labour stacked Committee chasing paid for recommendations that Gillard can bring back to the House.  She is an absolute twit if she thinks she is fooling anybody – she did the same on the Garnaut Climate Change Report and the Flannery report on that report … all which netted her the Carbon Tax she had to get through to keep the GREENS on side.

If one was to talk about the moral integrity of this Government – there is none – and as for the presumption of Democracy – if every vote by any MP is not a conscience vote then they have no right to be in Parliament.  The Party side of Politics is ruining our Democracy and every other Democracy around the World. It has come down to the money raised by the Party machine and the allocation of those funds to MP’s who tow the Party line during the course of their tenure.   Break ranks and you’re dis-endorsed.

Here is an interesting point – and raised in the ‘None of the Above Campaign’ submitted to the Joint Standing Committee of Electoral Matters” (JSCEM) after the 2010 election. Click here to download PDF file – please go to page 17 and 18 to see confirmation data presented below.

After the 2010 election, each of the major parties received the following reimbursements from  Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) on a vote reimbursement of $2.32291 per vote.

  • The ALP received $20,935,323 payment
  • The Liberal Party received $20,819,820 on the same vote reimbursement – as did
  • The GREENS $7,086,063 -
  • The National Party – $2,461,843,
  • Tony Windsor – $129,099 -
  • Rob Oakeshott – $91,691,
  • Bob Katter – $87,382, and
  • Andrew Wilkie – $31,557.

Yes that’s right – elections are a business income for Political Party’s and Independent candidates who poll above a certain percentage of the vote.   So when early elections are called – Party coffers are replenshied sooner then they should be – all paid for by the taxpayer.

This is why the Government has had compulsory voting – every vote cast to the major parties and Independents earns them $2.32291 and it does mount up as can be seen.

The theory is that it is supposed to cover campaign costs – but in effect the Political Party’s use these funds to plan strategy advertising and attack campaigns against teh other candidates.  It gets them the Members they want elected and there is plenty left over to fund the Party until the next election.   It’s a great business model and all voted in by the very same Members who use these funds to get elected.

In effect the Parties run their media campaigns and spend based on what they expect to receive back from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC)  based on their expected vote count.  The more informal votes the less it costs the AEC.   Addition monies come from Party memberships and political donations – these political donations will be the subject of another story some time soon.

Can you believe it – this is our Democracy at work!

It’s a business first, and then when or who ever wins Government – the gravy ride really starts with all sorts of perks, addition pay for Committee Positions and House titles, overseas ‘fact finding’ trips, electoral office funding and expense accounts, the free Parliament House and Lobbyist lunches, the travel perks as Mr Slipper has been expose and proned to abuse, the retirement packages, and then there is of course the under the table payments that come for Business’ seeking an audience with a Minister and the like.

The Party Fundraisers are also in the mix as well … it really is a house of cards scenario and they all get sucked in and don’t dare blow the whistle on others when the corruption is glaringly exposed – they all now their turn will come as long as they stay Party loyal and don’t cross the floor.

It really is the cesspool of all corruption arrangements and all done in the name of Democracy.

________________________________________

Have your say where it counts: – contact your Local Federal Representative via the links below and let them know how you feel about this, or any other topic that you feel strongly about – or you can just post a comment below and let off some steam.

Link to Previous EYE-BALL Posts.

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL Opinion …

A Report Card on the Australian Labour Government – 2007-2011 – Part 1

June 9, 2011 3 comments
Advertise Here
Title:

“A Report Card on the Australian Labour Government – Part 1 – 2007-2011 -”

… and to think that the these Leaders all believe they’re doing a good job …

Thought of the Day: …

There is evidence everywhere that supports the theory where people who are are overwhelmed by a crisis – seek to find and ask for help – not so in the Political arena – to admit error or strive to push a negative agenda or to pick a position that becomes indefensible – pushes the collective PARTY in Government to close ranks and try to figure a solution from within … this is the position the ALP finds itself – and to think that the Australian people decided to give them another go at the 2010 Election – does not lend a view that the then Opposition were ever considered as an alternative – that said – Australian Politics is in the worse shape it has even been in …

Declaration of Interest:

To declare this Authors position – I have never voter for any other party that the Australian Labour Party in all my years of voting – that is from 1973 onwards … I have voted informal several times when I have felt that the ALP has not been worthy. I treasurer my vote – and I believe that whoever I vote for has to earn my vote – it can never be taken for granted.  To that end and after the 2010 election – at which I was one of the 11.9% of eligible Australian voters who chose not to register a formal vote – I went to the task of trying to garner support for a ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE‘ ballot selection on all future election ballots. This led to a campaign submission to the Joint Standing Committee of Electoral Matters (JSCEM) – to have a ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE’ ballot choice inserted on all future ballot papers. This submission is still before the JSCEM and can be viewed at the  their website via this link.

The general JSCEM web site can be accessed here.

The Australian Labour Party:

The Australian Labour Party is a failing brand – Three years ago they Governed in every State – and had a Federal Leader who was unchallenged. The force 9 GFC then hit the world Financial Markets and forced Governments around the globe to scamper and design policies to suit their own economies.

The initial report card for Australian in its GFC response was a 90% success and the envy of the Globe. Two years on – a number of things are happening that might suggest that the initial response and its success rating was over stated. Some three years later and after the markets bottomed – some of the policies enacted at the time are now viewed as being ill-conceived and a chronic waste of public funds. The long term measure of these spending programs are being reassessed and the repercussions of these initial measures are now be openly questioned and the Government’s responses to this expose is not being received all that well by the Government.

As a collective perspective – Australia is still far ahead of the rest of the world in an assessment based on economic terms. The Australian Labour Party see this position as their claim to fame – they believe that it was their responses to the GFC crisis as why Australia survived the GFC relatively intact. It is a hollow boast – and they are spinning it for all its worth as ‘CROW’s’ atop a dungheap of self posturing that is all about to collapse around them. They are living in a glass house – and are throwing stones at all and sundry boasting of what they claim as their achievement.

The Reality of Australia’s post GFC position:

Let’s face the subject of Australia’s survival post GFC it as it really stands – China has given Australia a life-line via its insatiable demand for our mineral resources. The 2008 Olympics was China’s re-birth within the global community – and was also the trigger that starter the Post Olympic GFC crisis. To China – the Olympics was their gift to the world – and in so many ways the event confounded us all – how did they make all that polluted air disappear on the Opening Morning ceremony and keep it away for all the the two odd weeks of the Olympics?

They lived up to the global expectations of how a superpower should be – China is modernising – it is building infrastructure – and its population will insure this goes on for decades. Fortunately for Australia – our economy is the by-product of China’s boom. If China had not emerged through the GFC unscathed as opposed to Nth America and Europe – Australia would be in the same boat. So while the ALP claim their fame as saviours of the Australian Economy – most of us know the real truth of the matter – and in claiming the success as they – they only diminish their own creditability to the point of ‘laughing stock’ class of Government.

The Chinese are masters in diplomacy – their plea to have their currency fixed and attached to the US$ in the early 90′s providing them with external trade stability was a masterstroke. They knew at the time they had a labour force that would compete very well with America and the rest of the world – and within a decade their trade surplus and accumulated wealth was the highest in the world. China built its reserves and foreign capital and the world stood back believing that the poverty within China were to be the receipants of the new wealth and thus lead to the emergence of China to become the economic superpower that would fuel material expenditures and conform to the vision the West wanted for China..

Another decade on – China’s plan has been exposed for all to see – they did not conform or emerge as the West wanted them to – they are not part of the capitalist system that infected the rest of the Western World – they took the best Capitalism had to offer – and retained the human cost of cheap labour as their chief export.

The US$ is about to go into free fall – and that fall has most to do with China – as the US$ falls – China’s exports became cheaper to all the other Global trading partners. Americans will not work for the same labour cost’s of the Chinese – and that then makes America’s workforce unemployable. Yet – Americas efforts are about trying to create employment – if one was to take out the Federal and State public service employment – and lets face it – these employees contribute nothing to the growth of American real commerce – their real employment – of people paying real taxes – as opposed to employees receiving taxpayer funded salaries – is probably much less than 40% – perhaps as low as 20%. That translates to 20-40% of the population having to pay the salaries of all the public servants and to cover the cost and repayment of the $14.25 Trillion dollar debt. Simply can’t be done …

Returning to China and their masterstroke of economic Management – and the continued need to import the raw materials to modernise their infrastructure and commercial developments – the raw materials are being devalued in real terms of trade with the weakening US$ – and that means Australia is selling these precious resources at 50% of what they were receiving in the worst of the GFC … The mean average of the A$ value to the US$ over the last 40 odd years is around A$.75c – it is currently trading at $1.07c and that is an appreciation od around 35% – during the GFC – the currency dropped to A$.60c and from that point – the appreciation has been 80% or so.

This appreciation in the A$ has knocked the export revenues into the ‘Crazy Clark’s’ fire sale realms. Mr Wayne Swan – the Australian Treasurer presented his 2011-12 Budget a few weeks ago and claimed that the reduced tax revenues of $8 billion in were a factor of the GFC – he was misleading the Australian Public – whether it was deliberately so – or whether he has still not made the connection in how the A$ appreciation caused the revenue crash – is still an unknown – but it does give clear warning just how out of touch he is with the reality of the GFC – China’s intent to take advantage of their advantage in the US$ weakness – and the stupidity of imposing a Mining Rent Resource Tax on top of the reduced export revenues these miners are suffering. The same scenario applies to all Australian exporters including agriculture.

This Columbus type moment of a fumble by the Australian Labour Party – and at a time where right decisions had to be made at the right time – has led to a need to issue the following REPORT CARD on their performance since the Federal election in 2007.

Economic Management -

Report Card Assessment on the ECONOMY – “GOT LUCKY”

Currency:

There was complete failure on the Governments part to manage or respond to the appreciating A$ value and its impact on export revenues during the whole of the GFC crisis. The Treasury could have introduced many forms of tariff and excise relief against the appreciating currency to compensate against revenue erosion cause by the currencies appreciation – yet – the Government stood by and did nothing.

Some of the measures that could have been undertaken – [and this is not to say that they did not try or think of any of these options]- but what is clear is that they failed even if they did try …

  • Wharf fees and tariffs -
  • Export tariffs and excise duties to be paid by the importer on Australian exports to protect the trade value of the goods shipped -
  • Direct Trade levy via a ‘royalty’ tax similar to the State Royalty levy on all exported raw materials – both mineral and agriculture -
  • Direct trade negotiations with China and other trade partners to negotiate set-off structures to compensate Australian Exporters for the reduced A$ returns for goods shipped – all in the interests of the Australian economy and to compensate exporters for China’s and the other pegged currency Nations windfall – and to address their own reluctance to let their own currencies respond to a free market economy. In particular – China has held a gun to the world on its currency tie with the US$ – and Australia like the rest of the World have been unable to use diplomacy to entice China to change or address the trade imbalances this currency pegging brings – this is a failing of all Governments – but particularly Australia because this continuing export trade with China is the only thing holding the Australian economy above water – and while that currency imbalance remains – Australia are exporting its precious resources at cheaper than ‘Crazy Clark’ type prices.
  • Australia could also have looked into many domestic options – creating employment options to do what China is doing with our raw materials – developing and boosting subsidies to existing steel manufacturers to create the steel product domestically – this would have created a new steel export market to China’s customers and to China itself – and at whatever the subsidy would have cost – it would have only been a fraction of the export revenue lost to the A$’s appreciation. This action – or threat of action would have keep all the added value from the raw materials and its commerce within Australia – and created direct competition with China – thus diminishing their export revenues and perhaps force them to the negotiating table to compensate Australia for the A$ appreciation. I bet you Treasury never thought of this option ...

Some charts to prove the real cost of the A$ appreciation are presented below:

Chart courtesy of:

As can be seen from this chart – the second and most severe of the GFC fallout happened after the 2008 Olympics – and continued through to Mar 2009.

The chart underneath is the AOI for the same period – and as can be seen – the recovery from the lows has not been a match to the DJIA recovery –

Chart courtesy of:

There is only one real reason why the AOI has not matched the DJIA in chart value terms – and that is the appreciating value of the A$ – when the appreciation of the A$ is taken into account – the true value of the AOI as measured against the DJIA is reflected. The A$ chart below gives visual proof of this fact –

I don’t have a chart reflecting the AOI in US$ terms – but it would show a similar chart to the DJIA chart above.

Chart courtesy of:

The Australia dollar is seen as a commodities currency – and the CRB index chart appearing below gives a perception of how commodity prices have fared throughout the GFC crisis.

Chart courtesy of:

This chart shows the Fibonacci retracement of .618% having been attained an April 2011 – and the price action since then has seen the Index weaken – you might recall the A$ v US$ value peaked in April at the A$1.10 level as well [see above chart] – and has traded off those highs in sympathy with the CRB index.  The two are ‘bed buddies’ and the result is US$ trade denominated deals hurt Australian exporters.

A flip to this is that the A$ per/litre for petrol in this country has not reflected this A$ appreciation and as previously reported at this blog site – the current per/litre price is a good A$0.20 -30c above where it should be if all factors before the GFC were still the variants that determined the A$ price of petrol in this country. 

The ACCC does not include petrol in its list of watched price fluctuations any more – it was struck off during Mr Costello’s time as Treasurer and since then – it’s only the RACQ and NRMA type bodies that report on how petro prices in this Nation are being manipulated to the advantage of the Oil refiners … another failing of Government to rein in big business from ripping off motorists – and that is linked to the monopoly of Woolworth’s and Coles and their influence on petrol prices.

Back to the chart pack – and for the same 4 year period as the previous charts – it can be seen clearly that the rise in commodity prices since the GFC bottom – and when compared with the A$ v US$ value for the same period – the appreciation in the A$ is matched by the rise in the CRB Index …

Further to this – the next chart is the CRB Index since 1988 – and you can see just how volatile the Commodities Index has become relative to the period post late 2003 -

Chart courtesy of:

Interest Rates:

For the first time in a very long time – if ever – the RBA lifted Interest Rates during the 2007 election campaign. The first signs of the GFC were emerging and stock markets had given a glimpse of what was just around the corner. The charts above show this clearly – and provide a time line on the equity meltdown of the DJIA and the AOI and how the GFC unfolded – pay attention to the late 2007 Interest rises and how long it took before the RBA reduced official Interest Rates in response – it would be fair to say that Treasury were asleep at the wheel and really not that aware of what was happening around then until it was far too late:

Chart courtesy of:

Please refer to the A$ v US$ chart shown previously and take note when the A$ value appreciated after the initial Risk Commodity trades were unwound – this was when the A$ sold off to $A.60c from highs near parity. From Feb ’09 when the RBA first moved Interest Rates up from the 3.0% lows – the A$ has appreciated from just above A$0.65c to its current levels. At every release of economic data – the twist and turn indication has been that the RBA was always wanting to lift Interest Rates higher – this has underpinned the A$ appreciation more than anything else all through this period –

Commodity price increases have been more a product of the US$ depreciation than any genuine price rises in real terms for the A$ – there are some abnormalities to this statement – but by and large – the context is that any real increase in commodities during the late 2009 – current period – have been offset to a large degree by the appreciation of the A$ and the TWI index.

One ponders what the A$ value might be if the RBA’s rhetoric had been more direct at finding a reason to reduce Interest Rates – on this score – the RBA and the Treasury Department get a monster fail mark – Australian home mortgage owners are desperate for Interest Rate relief – there is a Housing bubble in this Nation equal to the US bubble pre GFC – our bubble has not been pricked as yet – because Banks are deferring their delinquencies as accumulated interest – all in the hope that the Australian economy will turn around.

Its a pipe dream …

This concludes Part 1 of this special Report Card on the Australian Labour Party’s handling of the economy. In Part 2 – a review of some of the GFC policies will be undertaken and performance assessments of Ministers and their Parliamentary staff will be offered.

________________________________________

The EYE-BALL …

Harry’s Growl – Political Updates – 16th May 2011

Harry HD HARRY’s GROWL: Harry's Growl -
Political Updates – 16th May 2011
By Harry Hound-Dog
Harry’s No-Brainer: …
Whenever camping – don’t piss into the wind … don’t shit near an ant’s nest … and make sure whatever you use to wipe isn’t poison ivy …

The Budget 2011:

Budgets come and Budgets go – and this has the official tag as the worst budget in 20 years … what can one say – don’t become a disability pensioner – don’t become a 40+ unemployed person – don’t become pregnant at 16 – but by all means become mentally challenged by all of the above and we’ll just categorise your differently.

I may not be a frisky or as horny as I once used to be – but golly-gosh – the love fest the ALP front-bench put on after Swannie put over his well watched floor show made me want to puke …

Everybody was feeling the love until Phony Tony – [Buckets Abbott] – put up his response two nights later and then it was his turn to have his front bench all want to grab his firm and bike-hardened ass … didn’t the Government Front Bench look like a motley crew listening to the Opposition Leaders speech – if Duchess Julia’s nose pointed out anymore – it could of scratched Tony’s cheek … or whatever else was itching …

Do you think she had it put out of joint?

You should have heard the chit chatter in the womans loo after when they all took a recess break – nobody checked the cubicles – and of course your trusted snoop was there scribbling away recording how the Duchess and her dress holders – Roxon and Macklin – all wanted to screw Phony Tony’s neck – but mind you that is not all they wanted to screw … Harry’s hand is still wringing with the language used to describe their wants and desires … apparently he is viewed as quite the stud in the corridors of Parliament House … he’s only a short ass – but the way these women were talking he must have a dangler on him …

Fashion News:

Water-Cooler gossip had Duchess Julia’s grooming attendant contacting some of Australia’s best known clothes designers with promises and incentives to build/construct/sew/… whatever it is they do – but she wants someone to design her a new wardrobe – apparently some polling the ALP did a few months back suggested that she needed to get rid of the pants-suits … and after her appearance at Westminster – she took note of how dignity dressed – and she hopes to boost the ‘softening approach’ – there is that phrase again – for her public profile…

A little source in the Parliamentary checks and balances Department – whispered that she has enquired with the Tax man about how she can deduct her cosmetic purchases – since becoming the PM – and with all the public appearances – her spend has gone up 500% and she thinks it is worth a try to get them made tax deductible. This is a ‘smoking story’ – can you imagine all these high profile women in Politics and in the Business community – and what they will spend on cosmetics if the taxman allowed deductions – it would be worth buying shares in Revlon and the like … more on this as the gos comes to hand …

The honey-pot sitting on the Opposition front bench – forever the bridesmaid – and the ‘never to be Leader’ – Deputy Leader – has also lent her support to Duchess Julia’s efforts on this cosmetic deduction front – she just does not want Phony Tony to know about it … she even suggested that the Botox injections be made deductible – how else can she give her face a lift …

This little birdie got a look at the Parliamentary wardrobe of Minister Roxon’s late last week – what one has to do to get these bits of information – her Secretary fancies me and it cost and arm and a penny – and a half a box of condoms – you know how it is when blokes get together – but I can report that it is all Black from start to finish – there ain’t no coloured garments in there at all … talk about dull and dreary – or is it that Black hides the unmentionables …

Australian PM

HON Julie Bishop

Hon Nicola Roxon

HOR Nicola Roxon

You see – when Nicola dresses with a bit of colour and does the hair thing – she’s a bit of a hottie … get out of BLACK Nicola …

Keating’s “YouTube” BLAST from the PAST:

Now a blast from Mr Phony Tony’s past where he heaps praise on Keating …

Harry’s SNIFF:

Harry has had some time off since his Royal Wedding visit and the Logies night coverage – so the SNIFF this week is a bit of the old and a bit of the new type theme … There is just so much not happening in Australian Politics at the moment – it’s like watching reruns of Princess Diana and Prince Charles take their ride in the NUT mobile in QLD on their first visit after their marriage – yea folks that is how dreary it is now that Winter has shoveled everybody inside behind closed doors … but the latest appears below …

  • Mr Hockey was seen at lunch with Channel 9 Executives a week ago – it gives some reasoning when you heard and saw his plug for Mr GREENWOOD in the Budget reply Question time … surely some subtlety is in order – Joe is looking for friendly copy from the Channel 9 executives down to their news producers -
  • Our favourite beehive has been out and about with the roadshow that is the JSCEM – [Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters] – and their Nationwide meetings to discuss the Sept 2010 Election. A friend of mine the – EYE-BALL sent in a submission to this Committee re the informal vote and a submission to have a ‘NONE OF THE ABOVE’ selection included on the ballot paper – EYE-BALL’s submission can be read on-line at the JSCEM website here – or at this Blog site here – anyway this was Phony Tony’s way of getting her out and about – and more to appease her want to take more of a Leadership role in Party Policy … she really is the old dragon – and such eye-candy with her fashion sense on the road …
  • Very hot news on this one – it’s and oldie but a goodie – sources very close to the QLD NP Leader in the Parliament – Mr Jeff Seeney – and worshipper of the unelected Leader Campbell Newman – has Mr Beattie – ex Premier of QLD – and Mr Seeney as step-brothers – talk for years in the local community of Mr Seeney has them both as off-spring of the same father … another source with a half-brother whose father is also the same man – can attest that he looks just like Mr Beattie – and when you compare Mr Seeney and Mr Beattie – there are many physical features confirming the gos … no journalist will go there on this story – so Harry HD has given you all a scoop … it is well – its was well discussed in local circles when Mr Beattie was Premier and Mr Seeney was the Leader in opposition.
  • The inside word on The Duchess and squeeze Tim tying the knot – it was a kite flying exercise in response to the latest drop in the PM’s poll numbers – she is very sensitive – but overly so when it comes to the popularity between her and Mr Abbott … -

Cartoon Corner:

This reporter loves the messages Political cartoon images of our Leaders deliver. For your pleasure and good humour – and courtesy of the Art Blog USA web site [linked here] the following cartoons of Duchess Julia are pasted:

Oh – by the way – if you can made a Gratuity/Donation – to Harry Hound-Dog’s Pension Plan – please click the ‘DONATE” button below … all receipts are gratefully accepted – it’s not like begging on the street – here you get some entertainment value … so cough up you cheapskates …

Donate-Harry HD

[this is a secure payment link via PayPal - For your notification and my Bank balance - Bank transfers incur no charges - Credit Card payments do incur fees ... and I detest BANKS and their FEES ...]

If you did make a donation – Harry extends his extreme thanks for your generosity …

Links to Previous Post by this Author …

Harry’s Growl – Political Updates 16th May 2011 …

Harry’s Growl – Political Updates 8th May 2011

Harry’s Growl – Political Updates 4th May 2011 Special Royal Wedding and Logies Report…

Harry’s Growl – Political Updates 29th Apr 2011

Harry’s Growl – Political Updates 22nd Apr 2011

‘NONE OF THE ABOVE CAMPAIGN’ – final draft for JSCEM submission

Linked below is the final draft pending final argument revision to be sent to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM).  The document is quite lengthy and will be sent early February.

Comments are welcome either via this site or by e-mail to blogcomment@bigpond.com.

Linked file (PDF):

JSCEM Submission – None of the above Campaign

Australia Votes: ‘NONE of the ABOVE’ campaign.

Extract:

‘…Over the last six months or so I have been waging a campaign with the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), to have a None of the Above vote choice on the Ballot paper for all free political elections.

I accept the ‘compulsory’ requirement in our voting system  …  I just believe that when you are asked to cast your vote, and you do not know any of the candidates on the ballot paper,  and you do not agree with the Party policies they represent, you should have the opportunity to truly vote your conscious.  As opposed to having to vote informal, or make a choice of the lesser of two evils.

Our AEC Laws do not allow this type of vote … and those who do not want to vote for any candidate, are forced to vote informal.  There is no way the AEC can decipher from the informal ballots as to what percentage deliberately voted that way.

The amendment sought via the linked submission with this Rant Post, to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM),   is to present to the AEC an alternative in determining why people vote informal.  With that knowledge, our political and electoral system will provide clear messages to both candidates and political parties.  That message being that we want to know our candidates, and know what they stand for as opposed to being party hacks, and puppets doing a lip service on behalf of a party that controls and implements its policies, outside of the eye of the public electoral landscape…’

Please click below to read this post in full, (PDF file):

Newsletter 51 … Australia Votes … None of the Above Campaign

The Joint Standing Committee for Electoral Matters Submission can be read by clicking the link below, (PDF file):

Submission_None of the above Campaign

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 130 other followers

%d bloggers like this: