The Dreamwidth Account

Apparently the Liberals are claiming the recent Australian election was a "referendum" on the various policy packages of the major parties, and that as they won the majority of seats in the lower house of parliament, they therefore have the right to implement all their policies (even the ones there's strenuous opposition to for practical reasons, such as their NBN-on-the-cheap one).

Let's just break this down a bit. If an election is a referendum on policy, then clearly these policies should be readily stated in detail, adequately debated, and fully costed, and all of these details supplied to the public at the beginning of the campaign. As it stands, neither of the major parties supplied all of this detail to the public even by polling day (and the Liberal party was by far the most egregious offender in this regard - there were more and better costed policies from the Greens than from the Liberals).

In a referendum, the winning answer needs to get a majority of votes nationally, AND a majority of votes in all the states. Referendums, being voted on yes/no questions, don't go to preferences, because they don't need to - it's straight first past the post all the way. Yes, there are a majority of Liberal and National party members in the House of Representatives at present (if we're going to be continuing with the "referendum" analogy, presumably they'd count as "yes" for the Liberals, and "yair" for the Nationals), and there are more of them than there are members for the ALP (who are presumably the "no"s in this analogy). But where does this leave the Greens, the Palmer United Party, and the other few Independent MPs in the chamber? They don't readily analogise to a straight yes or no response.

As regards to the majority of the states, the composition of the new Senate is still being decided (further complicated, of course, by the fact that only HALF the senate seats were up for contest in this election, so we still have a senate which is being half-decided by responses we made to questions asked back in 2010), but it seems likely the Liberals and Nationals won't have a clear majority there, and will be required to do some horse-trading with the various minor and opposition parties in order to get policies passed. Or, in a return to our referendum analogy, the Liberals did NOT get a majority of senators in all the states... and thus the referendum doesn't pass.

The Liberals don't have a simple "mandate" for their entire policy list. Particularly since at least some of their policy list is stuff which is disputed even within the party itself.

Now, if the Liberal party really does want each election to be a referendum on policy rather than the current popularity contest, here's a suggestion for how it would need to work. Firstly, the parties would be required to have their policies worked out, costed, and ready to defend at the beginning of each electoral campaign period. These policies would need to be summarised into single line items, and each line item policy would be placed (with its costing - no costing, no consideration) in a list, with tick boxes at the end of each line - one for yes, one for no.

Incidentally, this could be a big saving, because it would mean only a single ballot paper for both the House of Representatives AND the Senate, and only a single ballot paper Australia-wide. Yes, that does mean people in Melbourne and Sydney would be voting for and against pork-barrel measures aimed at people in the rest of the country. On the other hand, the rest of the country would be voting for and against pork-barrel measures aimed at people living in Sydney and Melbourne. Just think, winning Federal policies would most likely be the ones aimed at the entire country, rather than the ones aimed at winning individual seats.

In each seat and each state, the respective yeses and noes would be added up. For the House of Representatives, the candidate for the party whose collection of policies best conformed to the wishes of the voters for the seat would be chosen as the member for the individual seat. The current parliamentary convention of the Prime Minister being the parliamentary leader of the party with the greatest number of members in the House of Representatives could still apply. In the senate, the votes would be counted at a state level, and as each constellation of policy choices which matched a particular party's platform reached a quota, a senator from that party would be elected.

In addition, the AEC at the end of the day would have the ultimate opinion poll on which policies were supported and by which percentage of the population - and they could basically hand this to the incoming government with instructions that THIS is what they have a mandate for. Each individual member could also be given the same sort of run-down for their individual seat as well, thus indicating which way they were mandated to vote by their electors.

It would certainly change the How-to-vote cards.

There's a lot being written about Occupy Wall Street, and a lot being written about the copycat protests which are now springing up in a lot of other countries (including Australia). There isn't as much spoken or written about where the movement to occupy city areas and public spaces, and calling for a renegotiation of the social contract as it is interpreted by the powerful, actually got started, and where it's been flourishing for the better part of a year.

It started in Egypt, in Tariq Square (where it's still ongoing, to the best of my knowledge). Occupation-style protests have been happening in Iceland, in Spain, in Greece, and in a lot of other European countries since at least June this year. And they're still going on there. See this list of articles from Pressenza to get a better idea of the scope of the actual demonstrating, both in terms of global spread, and temporal spread.

However, there appears to be this strong media (and now internet) -fed meme which says something isn't actually "real" until it affects white citizens of the USA - preferably white, middle-class, male, heterosexual Christian citizens of the USA. Unless they're affected, unless they're doing it, whatever's going on in the rest of the world doesn't matter. The global economic crisis didn't affect anyone (even though the economies of many countries were affected for months, or indeed years, before the US banking system was forced to own up to its iniquities at the end of 2008) until it affected the USAlien middle classes. Various World Wars didn't actually "start", in the opinion of hegemonic popular culture, (despite the involvement and devastation of multiple countries) until the USA sent troops. Poverty in the USA didn't exist until it started lapping at the toes of the middle classes (despite the presence of a growing underclass of persons who were born into poverty, and who have lived their entire lives in poverty, and who could not escape their poverty no matter how hard they tried, since approximately the Reagan years) and more particularly the white middle classes.

It's nice that the USAlien middle classes have apparently finally decided they're part of the world majority. It's nice that they're finally joining in with the rest of the people on the planet to demand a bit of equity, and a bit of fairness.

It would be even nicer if they would just, for once, publicly acknowledge that the problems existed before they'd noticed them or been affected by them; that the movement they've joined (and effectively hijacked) existed before they started to participate; that they were, once again, late to the party, and only joining in once other people had got things started. It would be really good to have this acknowledgement that not everything happens in a vacuum, and that the world outside the window of the USAlien white middle classes is actually present. It would be really good if the ongoing efforts of people outside the USA to renegotiate the social contract weren't erased, or ignored.

Dear Senator Cash,

My partner recently received your lovely little screed in the mail - the one about the carbon tax and how this is going to cost local employers and local industries vast amounts of money, and leave them vulnerable to excessive competition from overseas interest. You cited a total of ten companies which employed people in the electorate of Brand (or, more specifically, on the Kwinana industrial strip) by name. Curious, I decided to do a little bit of research on the internet.

Of the ten firms your leaflet mentioned by name, precisely two are actually based and headquartered here in Western Australia (Wesfarmers and Coogee Chemicals - both of which are fairly large companies). Of the rest, six are owned pretty much entirely by multi-national corporations. The other two are Australian-based, but one is based in Queensland, and the other is based in Melbourne.

To give you a quick run-down of the rest:

* BHP-Billiton is a joint Australian-Dutch company (so no, it's no longer the Big Australian, and you'll notice BHP-Billiton doesn't use that slogan any more);
* Alcoa is an alumininum mining and refining multinational firm, with the overall headquarters for the company based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA;
* Tiwest is a joint-venture between two Australian subsiduary companies of two different multinational firms - Tronox Incorporated (USA) and Exxaro Resources Limited (South Africa);
* BOC is part of the Linde Group, a large German-based multinational corporation;
* Air Liquide is part of the Air Liquide group, a multinational corporation first incorporated in France, and headquartered in Paris;
* Bradken (while having a wholly Australian company name) is actually owned by a combination of Castle-Harlan Australian Mezzanine Partners (a subsiduary of Castle Harlan, a US-based private equity firm); ESCO Corporation (US owned and based multinational) and Bradken Management (as minority shareholders);

Forgive me for seeming sceptical, but aren't these multi-national corporations exactly the sorts of international competition that your leaflet is implying our local industries and employers will be attempting to match? Given this information, I doubt they'll be having huge amounts of trouble.

(Incidentally, finding all this information took me approximately thirty minutes all up. It's amazing what you can find out from the internet. The information was on the websites of the companies concerned - all it took was a few seconds on google to find each one).

I took a look down the rest of the list of "facts" you provided, and noticed you failed to mention the various tax offsets which were planned (an important part of the carbon tax package) in order to compensate average Australian householders for the increased expense. Since these offsets and compensation are being introduced at the same time as the carbon tax, not mentioning them seems a little disingenuous, to say the least. Particularly since energy bills (both domestic and industrial) in WA have already risen by at least 10% thanks to the actions of the (Liberal) state government.

You failed to mention whether carbon emissions will continue to be rising by the same amount under a carbon tax package as is currently forecast. You failed to mention whether overall carbon emissions per capita will be rising, falling, or remaining steady (and whether there are any changes expected in the size of the Australian population between now and 2020 as well). You fail to mention whether the rise in carbon emissions overall between now and 2020 (from 578 million tonnes to 621 million tonnes) will be a greater or lesser rise than the equivalent period between 2002 and now.

Your leaflet also fails to mention anywhere (a grievous omission, given your final "fact") that you, in fact, represent the political party which gave the Australian political environment the terms "Core" and "Non-Core" promises. It was the Liberal Party of Australia, under John Howard as Prime Minister, which made it excessively plain to the Australian people that the majority of political promises made by them during an election campaign were in fact "Non-Core" promises - or in other words, outright lies made in order to get elected.

I therefore find it somewhat hypocritical, to say the least, that it is the Liberal Party of Australia who are now harping non-stop on a single "broken" promise made by a member of the ALP.

(Again, this internet thingy is amazing.)

Having said all of this, here is my statement as a voter living in Brand, and a voter living in Western Australia.

I support the carbon tax as an overall good not only for people Parmelia, not only for people in Brand, but for people in Australia, and people the world over. Global climate change is occurring, and we here in the south-western corner of Western Australia have been seeing the effects of it for the past thirty years or more. Something needs to be done to at least begin to tackle the problem. The carbon tax may not be the optimum solution to the problem, but it's better than nothing.

I find the highly negative style of advertising, polling, and campaigning used by the Liberal Party of Australia to be highly offensive. The Liberal Party of Australia has a strong tendency to provide such negative statements particularly surrounding policy areas where their own solutions are lacking either in detail or in existence (I checked your party's website - the last constructive thing I can see about a climate change policy is dated almost a year ago - all the more recent stuff is basically slinging off at the ALP, without offering constructive solutions). I'd be more willing to at least listen to your side of the argument if your party showed any signs of willingness to either fish or cut bait. Instead, the Liberal Party of Australia gives the strong impression of a bunch of whiny toddlers who are sorely in need of being put down for a nap while the grown-ups get on with business.

Sincerely,

Meg Thornton (Ms)

The scandal over the phone message data theft in the UK is terrible, and one of the questions which is being asked is "who is responsible?". Who is responsible for this terrible thing happening? Who should take the blame? Who should we punish?

Well, from one angle, the Murdoch family and their News Corporation bear at least some of the responsibility, for creating a news climate where such things can happen, where they can be tried, and where they can be covered up with such success that the true depth of the scandal is only starting to become visible five or six years later. This means everyone in the chain, all the way up from the first journalist to pay the PI for information, right the way through the corporate hierarchy to Rupert Murdoch himself. They profited from the misery of others, and they haven't paid the price. Some of the responsibility is theirs.

From another angle, some of the responsibility lies with the advertisers, who are always seeking the ideal vessel to purvey their product - they want something which will attract a lot of people to see or hear their ads, but they don't want their precious product associated with anything bad. So the advertisers play their part in this, through demanding both the high circulation that the News of the World achieved, and through also demanding the cover-up of sources, and the hiding of illegal behaviour. They were willing to accept the high circulation figures, without asking what was done in the name of achieving this circulation. So some of the responsibility is theirs, also.

From a further angle, there's the responsibility of the telephone companies to provide education and data security for their users. In a large part, the crime of hacking into the message databases was caused by the lack of knowledge on the part of people who owned phones - they didn't know the pass-code existed, didn't know they could use it, didn't know they could alter it. So the pass-codes were left at their default. A simple procedural change, such as ensuring that the account was locked to external access should the user not attempt this within a month of opening their account, would have secured the vast mass of this data. That there was a back-door left not only unlocked, but practically gaping wide open, is not decent data security. So the phone companies bear some responsibility, too.

The journalists who paid for the stolen data bear responsibility, because they knew this data wasn't coming from kosher sources. They knew they weren't respecting the privacy of the people involved. They knew they were effectively breaking the spirit of the law, if not the actual letter of the law, by using this data in order to create their stories. They knew they were encouraging further breaches of the law by paying for the data.

The private eye who figured out how to hack into the phone message banks, and then sold on the data to the News of the World, also bears responsibility, as the one who committed the crime. According to reports, he was paid 100,000 UKP for his services.

There's the politicians who permitted the Murdoch family to purchase so much of the world's news infrastructure (the world's largest news gathering organisation is a privately owned family company). There's the police, who didn't understand the magnitude of the crime when it was presented to them (not to mention the police who were bribed into silence). There's the various managements and journalists of other news organisations, who let their concerns about their own profitability over-ride their interest in the privacy and rights of the people they purport to represent. All of these people are responsible, and all of them will probably be mentioned in articles regarding the whole scandal.

But there's one responsible group the news media won't mention. One group who will be allowed to skate by scot free. One group who won't ever be expected to look their responsibility in the face and name it for what it is. And that's us.

If you've ever bought a newspaper, if you've ever clicked on a link to a news site, if you've ever listened to news radio, or watched the news on television, you bear some responsibility for this as well.

As viewers, listeners, readers, we create the demand for news articles. As viewers, listeners and readers, we've fed the Murdoch machine, given it the money it needed to create a monolithic view of the way news "should" be, a monolithic view of "what sells newspapers, what sells advertising space". We have allowed our news to become tawdry, cheap, nasty, vicious, invasive, insensitive. We have allowed this, because we haven't spoken up and said no. We have allowed this because we've purchased the products the advertisers sell. We have allowed this because we've bought the papers, listened to the radio stations, clicked the links, watched the programs, bought the magazines. We have allowed this, we have facilitated this, by demanding more and more and more and more from the news media; by not criticising it enough; by continuing to feed the maw.

If you feel sickened by the actions of the News of the World; if you feel angry about the actions of the Murdoch family; if you feel self-righteous about the way the advertisers are fleeing the sinking ship, remember: we asked for it.

We asked for it. Now we have it.

Maybe we should start asking for something different.

Is there some sort of a legal requirement for US Republican congresscreatures to make such brain-breakingly daft pronouncements on a regular basis? Or is it just party doctrine?

Meanwhile, over here in Australia we've stopped arguing about whether climate change is occurring (we have three states full of soggy people saying "yes, it bloody well is" being reinforced by all the drought-affected ones, some of whom are in the same states) and we're now arguing about what should be done about it. The current government is proposing a price on carbon (and they're currently in discussion with various industry and community groups to determine what that price should be). Meanwhile, our loyal opposition are busy saying we should leave it all up to the market (but please don't ask the miners, the farmers, the manufacturers, or any other large industry to actually do anything about the mess they're making, because they might get all offended and move off-shore).

( Read On... )

So, the election is over and done, the counting goes on, and it looks like we're going to have a minority government no matter which party gets the most seats (so far it's looking like 73 all for both Labor and Liberal - which means the balance of power, which is currently held by 4 independents and a Greens member, is going to be crucial in getting legislation across the line). It hasn't been a big win for either of the major parties, although Tony Abbott is busy talking up the idea of the Libs having a mandate to form a government (they don't) and that the Labor party has lost out to the Liberals (they didn't - most of Labor's lost votes went to the Greens).

Either way, we're getting the two standard post-election behaviours out of things. The first is the party which is perceived to have "lost" the election (in this case, the ALP) is turning into a circular arse-kicking contest. The second is having people saying the election result proves we're doin' it rong, and we should change the way Australian votes are cast or counted. The old chestnuts which have been brought out for their regular polishing are "abolish compulsory voting", "bring in first-past-the-post counting" and "one vote one value".

Let's deal with each of these in turn. The "abolish compulsory voting" one is fairly straightforward - in Australia, as in any democratic nation, one of the responsibilities of a citizen is to participate in the political process by voting in elections. So in Australia, we take this seriously, and expect people to turn out and receive their ballot papers so they can vote. If you don't turn out and get your ballot paper, you can be fined. It's a small fine ($50 - you pay more if you're caught speeding) but it's enough to make people actually head down to the local primary school once every three years and get their ballot papers. Note I'm not saying it actually makes people VOTE - the compulsory bit stops when you receive your ballot paper. You don't have to fill in a valid vote (and the number of people who voted invalidly during this election increased, which some folks are seeing as another message to the various political players). But you do have to do your democratic duty and participate in the process - even if nobody's taking their time to spoon feed you all the information about your local candidates, or their policies or similar.

I happen to think this is a good thing for Australia, overall. For one thing, it means elections are much more representative of the opinions of the Australian public than any poll, write-in survey or other measure, because there's a sufficiently large sample being taken (approximately 90% of all Australians over the age of 18). It's also much more representative than the sample obtained in such places as the United States (where the election results measure the opinions of as little as 40% of the US voting population) or the United Kingdom (again, about 40% turn-out). To put this in perspective - an elected government in the US or the UK can represent the opinions of as little as 20% of the population. An elected government in Australia represents the opinions of at least 45% of the population.

There's also issues of accessibility to be considered. In Australia, participating in an election is an enforced responsibility. Thus there is a requirement on the part of the people who administer the election process (the Australian Electoral Commission) to ensure the maximum number of people are able to participate in the voting process with the minimum of inconvenience. This means our voting day is inevitably a Saturday (as compared to a Tuesday in the US), when the majority of people aren't at work. Those who are working generally are allowed to take time off to vote, or are encouraged to put in a postal vote. There's also numerous polling places which have facilities for absentee votes (voting in an electorate you're not registered in because you're at work, on holiday, etc). There are facilities for Australians who aren't going to be in Australia when an election occurs to cast a vote by post. There are specialist polling facilities which go around hospitals. There are efforts made to make polling places accessible to persons who are using either permanent or temporary mobility aids (although these vary in effectiveness). There are even efforts to make it possible for persons who have vision impairments to be able to cast a vote in privacy (rather than requiring a sighted person to assist). All of this is the reciprocal side of Australians being required to turn out and get their ballot papers at each election.

Overall, I feel the requirement to turn out and receive a ballot paper is one of the more important ones in the Australian political system. It means we have a system which is accessible, and it means we have a system which encourages participation.

Now, on to "first past the post" counting. At the moment, the Australian system is set up so that in order to win a seat in the House of Representatives, a candidate must achieve a number of votes equivalent to 50% of the vote plus one vote more. If a candidate achieves that amount of votes on first preferences, then no worries, they're elected. But what if none of the candidates achieves the necessary votes to become elected on first preferences alone? In such a case, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and their votes are sorted on their second preference. Then we run the query again: does any candidate have 50% of the votes plus one vote more? (In programming, this would be a while loop - while nobody has enough votes to win, keep eliminating candidates from the bottom of the pile, and redistributing votes according to the next preference down the line).

An example, if you will. Consider the House of Representatives seat of Goddzone, with a population of 100,000. There are six candidates standing - one from the Worker's Party, one from the Conservative Party, one from the Environmentalist Party, one from the Farmer's Party, one from the Christian Theocratic Party, and one from the White Supremacist Party (so in other words, a pretty normal spread for an Aussie electorate). Each voter on election day will receive their ballot papers, and they'll be instructed (both on the ballot paper and verbally by the AEC official) to number the candidates in order of preference from 1 through 6. Here's the numbers after the first preference count:

 

First Round of Counting

Worker's Party	40,000
Conservative Party	40,000
Environmentalist Party	15,000
Farmer's Party	2,000
Christian Theocratic Party	2,000
White Supremacist Party	1,000

( More long-winded political rambling )

Distributing Preferences from White Supremacist Party

Conservative Party	40,400	+400 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Worker's Party	40,000
Environmentalist Party	15,000
Farmer's Party	2,400	+400 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Christian Theocratic Party	2,200	+200 2nd preferences from the White Supremacist Party

( More long-winded political rambling )

Distributing Christian Theocratic Party Preferences

Conservative Party	40,900	+400 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Worker's Party	40,500	+500 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
Environmentalist Party	15,900	+400 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+500 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
Farmer's Party	2,700	+200 2nd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party

( More long-winded political rambling )

Distributing Farmer's Party Preferences

Conservative Party	42,050	+1,000 2nd preferences from the Farmer's Party
		+100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
		+50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
Worker's Party	41,800	+1,000 2nd preferences from the Farmer's Party
		+100 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+100 3rd preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
		+50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
		+50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via CTP)
Environmentalist Party	16,150	+100 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+50 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via FP)
		+50 4th preferences from the White Supremacist Party (via CTP)

( More long-winded political rambling )

Environmentalist Party Preferences

Conservative Party	47,625	+5,000 2nd preferences from the Environmentalist Party
		+200 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+300 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+25 5th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+50 5th preferences from the White Supremacist Party
Worker's Party	52,375	+10,000 2nd preferences from the Environmentalist Party
		+200 3rd preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+300 4th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+25 5th preferences from the Christian Theocratic Party
		+50 5th preferences from the White Supremacist Party

( More long-winded political rambling )