Marriage by another name is not marriage

Queensland Deputy Premier Andrew Fraser says he intends to introduce a Bill allowing Civil Unions in Queensland.  While not committing his party either way (mostly because he is politically impotent as Campbell Newman makes all the decisions) Shadow Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie said:

“It's basically marriage by another name,”

“It's always been our belief, our philosophical belief and policy position, that the current marriage act as it stands … goes to the heart of the institution of marriage and we see no need to change it.”

“My initial reaction is this is just a distraction from the real issues to get him [Mr Fraser] and his people talking about issues other than what's important to Queenslanders at the moment,”

(via Brisbane Times)

Why is it that whenever someone raises the issue of Marriage Equality it is done for reasons such as ‘causing a distraction’?  Why is it not a real issue?  Because white, heterosexual males don't believe it is a real issue?

Don’t get me wrong the ALP is a long way behind in this debate as well.  Fraser comes to the game late in his career as a political heavy in Government.  Where was he with this proposal over the past five years? And where is the Federal Labor Government?

But I think the real issue is not for the State Government.  The real issue is that Marriage equality is not found in allowing civil unions.  Civil unions are a different, almost lesser standard.  Equality and a society without discrimination is what this Country should be striving for.  But it seems to me that many of our elected politicians believe it perfectly acceptable to discriminate in the area of Marriage.  

Civil unions are a way of creating a patch over social injustice so people wont notice or care about the discrimination some people face. But a civil union is ALL the Queensland Parliament can do in this debate.  It is up to the Federal Parliament to end this discrimination and injustice and enact marriage equality laws.  Because “Marriage by another name” is not marriage.

CSG populism at odds with his Party’s approach

I recently watched an episode of Landline where the competing interests of Farmers and CSG Miners were highlighted. There is a great divide between the Miners belief in the science and the Farmers scepticism. And as much as I understand the principle that we don't own the minerals beneath our land I still have much sympathy for the farmers. This not an easy issue. The Miners and Government's say that CSG mining is safe and doesn't affect water stores. Many don't believe them and argue that we wont know the affects for many years and perhaps when it is too late.

I don't know the answer. Hopefully some independent research

Campbell Newman however has accused the Queensland Labor Government of "allowing CSG projects to grow at break neck speed to prop up their budget without concern for farmers and the environment."

But he fails to mention that this industry has had bi-partisan support.

But Campbell left himself a back door from which, when in power, he will miraculously step when he fully supports the CSG industry. He said:

"We will only allow CSG to go forward where it clearly doesn't affect the water resources under the ground that are so vital for future generations."

Isn't that the position already held by the Queensland Government? This is also the position now decried by the two great populists Tony Abbott and Campbell Newman.

Voters should be able to expect the Leader to enunciate a clear policy position which isn't at odds with the Party's actual position.

(Via http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/newman-vows-to-protect-farmers-against-csgs-spread-20110813-1irp6.html)

Talk of an illegitimate Gillard Government is just not legit!

#ausvotes

The Liberal party, distraught with the decision of the Independent's on who should govern Australia, are telling anyone that will listen that the Gillard Government is illegitimate and unstable.  George Brandis claims that the "most Australians wanted a change of government. Your government has as much legitimacy as the Pakistani cricket team."  A very funny comment but it’s not accurate.

Talk back radio is also in uproar.  Former Howard Government Minister turned fill in talk back host Gary Hardgrave told listeners last week that more people voted for the Coalition and that they should be in power.

But is this actually true? 

The arguments for these assertions are:

1. The ALP received less first preference votes than the Coalition
2. The ALP are losing the two party preferred vote (or at least they were last week)
3. The Coalition won more seats in the House of Representatives

 

Based on these three criteria the arguments made by the Coalition and their supported are right and also wrong. 

It is true that that the Coalition received more first preference votes than Labor.  However, when you break it down, the Coalition is made up of four separate groups.  The liberal Party, the National Party, the Queensland LNP and WA National (who claimed to be independent) Tony Crook.  The Coalition believe they are one group based on their Coalition agreement.  I guess that is fair.  But why then aren’t Labor and The Greens allowed to do the same.  Labor and the Greens have now formed an alliance not based solely on preference deals at election time.  Looking at the figures (which are not yet complete):

	First preference Vote
Australian Labor Party	4,711,369
The Greens	1,459,002
	6,170,371
Liberal	3,777,391
Liberal National Party of Queensland	1,130,525
The Nationals	462,391
	5,370,307

As at 15/9/10

Based on this Labor/the Greens have it won hands down.  But this doesn’t even take into account the 861, 724 people who voted for one of the other parties/independents at this election.   This is why the 2PP method is employed in Australia.  (Incidentally the UK is talking of introducing this method rather than their first past the post method)

On the second point, the 2PP vote is fluctuating daily.  Just last week the Coalition were ahead, but now Labor is back in front.  But the AEC website still doesn’t provide a clear picture of where the 2PP will land once counting stops. 

Paul Howes commented in the Sydney Morning Herald that:

The Australian Electoral Commission has the two-party vote neck and neck between Labor and the Coalition, but this count doesn't include the eight or so seats that are not contests between the major parties - those between Labor and the Greens or the Liberals and an independent.

The bulk of these seats are Labor, and once they're added to the final two-party vote when the counting is finished, Labor will have a clear majority.

Don't just take my word for it; just about every electoral expert, including Antony Green, agrees.

Antony Green makes his assessment of the AEC 2PP figures here.

That the 2-party preferred total displayed on the AEC's website is meaningless can be seen if you tally the members elected in these 142 electorates. You get Coalition 72, Labor 70. Missing are four Independents, a Green, a WA National and two Labor MPs.

The reality of forming government in the newly elected House of Representatives depends on those eight elected members, but the AEC's total of 2-party preferred vote currently excludes all votes cast in these eight electorates, the eight electorates whose elected members will determine who forms government.

Which illustrates why the AEC's incomplete 2-party preferred vote is pointless.

 

The third argument that the Coalition won more seats than Labor is true.  But this is not the basis on which elections in Australia are won or lost.  It is a complete distortion of how our system of Government is constituted.  Our system is one where the party who controls a majority of the votes in the House or Representatives forms Government.  This is the system and it may seem to have flaws at times, but generally the people who think it is flawed are on the losing side of a close election.  One like we saw this year. 

There is no easy way to decide on who forms Government.  No way that everyone will agree on.  The only way we can do this is by electing representatives who then vote according to their own beliefs at the time.  That may be along party lines or if independent this may be which ever way they choose.  That is what the Greens and the Independents did.  If there respective communities disagree with their choice I guess they will lose their seat at the next election.  That is the basis of our democracy.

To float statements like “utterly without mandate” or “illegitimate” are wrong and contemptuous of our entire system of Government.  The Gillard Government was formed according to the correct principles and conventions of the Westminster system.  They have a mandate to run the country.  If the Australian people disagree, they will surely change it at the next election.  That’s democracy!

Economics: Some very basic basics

#ausvotes

I am not a student of economics.  At times I struggle to understand all the implications of the Macro and Micro Economic situations of my household budget let alone Australia and the World.  But last week I read an article on Peter Black’s Election Blackout Blog written by Tom Gole an Economics student from UQ now studying his PhD at Harvard University.  This article put into perspective why we don’t need to be worried about Debt (at least at Australia’s current levels).  Here are some of the pertinent points. 

… it seems that a lot of the confusion about the level of federal government debt stems from the natural intuition of comparing a nation to a household. If it makes sense for me or my family to avoid taking on too much debt, surely a country shouldn’t either.   …

The reasoning behind households not holding too much debt is based on a lifecycle pattern: people should borrow when they are young to finance purchases they don’t have enough savings for (houses etc), then as their wages grow as they get older they pay off those loans, and then accumulate an asset base to live off once they stop working.

There is no analogous lifecycle for a country: Australia, as a nation, will never collectively stop working, so we will never need an asset base to live off. And the point goes further: Australia’s earnings, our GDP, will continue to grow, with the occasional up and down, for the foreseeable future.    …

It’s worth noting that the other reason people don’t want too much debt is so they have something to fall back on if they lose their job or get sick. In one sense, the household analogy is appropriate here – if you hit bad luck, you should use up some of your savings or go into debt until you get out of the bad times, and the government should do the same thing in a recession.     …

And there’s a further catch: most people cut back their spending in bad times, because their income has fallen and they don’t know how long it will be until they get back on their feet. On the other hand, if the government cuts its spending in a recession, it usually makes the economy take even longer to recover. The instinctive urge to tighten the belt during bad times is appropriate for a household, but if a government does the same then things only get worse.

After reading this I wondered why I hadn’t heard such an easy concept like this before.  I was then gobsmacked to hear Julia Gillard make the analogy to Laurie Oakes of the Weekend Today program:

JG: Look, I understand people worry about debt, I worry about debt too Laurie. I also understand that as we emerge from the global financial crisis, our debt position as a nation is like someone earning a hundred-thousand dollars a year, having a $6,000 loan.

When Tony Abbott is out spruiking his debt and deficit lies, why are we not hearing the fight back put in such simple terms.  I think a lot of people would be scared by the debt and deficit scare campaign and by hearing Joe Hockey talk of our borrowing Billions of dollars. 

But when the Government (and Opposition) claim they will be in surplus inside 3 years and thus be able to begin paying off our $6000 (equivalent) loan, I tend not to worry so much and I am thankful the Government didn't tighten their belts and see us enter recession! 

Coalition running scared on policy costings

Andrew Robb the Shadow Finance Minister, today announced that the coalition would not release a further set of policy documents to Treasury for costing until it was known who leaked a policy costing document to the Fairfax newspapers earlier this week. 

You can listen to the interview with Andrew Robb:

I smell a rat. 

The Coalition probably have every right to be upset that this damning assessment of their spending promises was released to the newspapers but they still haven’t explained the real issue - Why are their costings not backed up by Treasury.  Why is the an $800 Million+ hole in their estimate of one policy.  They aren’t claiming that this document is false, they just demand that the leaker should be found and arrested.  On this basis they are confirming that there is a hole in their assessments. 

And now the clincher.  They aren’t going to release any more costing documents to Treasury until the leaker is found.  What spin.  They are now terrified that the rest of their policy costings are grossly underestimated that they do not want Treasury to review them.  This si the easy out.  They know that the leaker will not be found.  At least not in the next ten days.  They can try to walk the high moral ground while at the same time withholding from the Australian people vital information with which they can use to assess the truthfulness of their promises.  The Coalition (and all other parties for that matter) should be forced to release the costing documents to Treasury for analysis when they release the policy.   This would ensure that we have more than just  a politicians word that the figures are right.  That would be a true ‘Charter of Budget Honesty’

Abbott does the Time Warp!

This is a very funny advertisment produced by the ALP. 

 

My only question is why they don’t release ads like these on mainstream media.  This would have people talking and produce a much more favourable result than the typical ad with a horrible black and white picture of Tony Abbott and a large stamp across his face with slogans like “Don’t risk him”.  Here is an example of the later advertisement.

 

Newspoll: 50/50 – But scary for the ALP

According to the latest Newspoll the two party preferred is 50/50.  But the ALP would be very worried by the primary vote.  The primary vote is nearly back where it was when Julia Gillard took over the top job. 

Kevin Rudd was at 35% primary vote on 18-20 June 2010.  Julia is now on 37% and heading downward.  There needs to be a massive shakeup in the ALP camp and not just by throwing more money at the electorate.  I think next weeks Newspoll will be the most telling and politically terrifying for Julia Gillard and the ALP. 

I want both parties to engage, make some hard decisions, give us a point of difference and stop being small targets.

 

PRIMARY VOTE+ 

IN THE FEDERAL ELECTION FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES TO BE HELD ON SATURDAY, THE 21ST OF AUGUST, WHICH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING WILL YOU VOTE FOR? IF “UNCOMMITTED”, TO WHICH ONE OF THESE DO YOU HAVE A LEANING?

		COALITION %	LABOR %	GREENS %	OTHERS %
Election	24 November 2007	42.1	43.3	7.8	6.8
Newspoll	28-30 May 2010	41	35	16	8
Newspoll	18-20 June 2010	40	35	15	10
Newspoll	25-27 June 2010	40	42	10	8
Newspoll	16-18 July 2010	38	42	12	8
Newspoll	23-25 July 2010	42	40	12	6
Newspoll	30 July - 1 August 2010*	44	37	12	7

*4 per cent “uncommitted” and 2 per cent “refused” excluded.

 

 

TWO PARTY PREFERRED+
Based on preference flow at November 2007 Federal election 

	COALITION	LABOR
Election 24 November 2007	47.3	52.7
Newspoll 28-30 May 2010	49	51
Newspoll 18-20 June 2010	48	52
Newspoll 25-27 June 2010	47	53
Newspoll 16-18 July 2010	45	55
Newspoll 23-25 July 2010	48	52
Newspoll 30 July - 1 August 2010	50	50

Nielsen: 52-48 to Coalition

The election seems to be turning and the latest poll seems disastrous for Labor.  Perhaps Julia Gillard will now come out of her shell and stop the one line, focus group tested answers and show us some of the spark she has in Question Time in the Parliament.    Or she could become the fifth shortest serving Prime Ministers.

Courtesy of the always reliable GhostWhoVotes, we are informed of a bombshell Nielsen poll which puts the Coalition at an election-winning 52-48 lead, from primary votes of 45 per cent for the Coalition, 36 per cent for Labor and 12 per cent for the Greens. More to follow.

UPDATE: Michelle Grattan reports “the gender gap on voting intention has disappeared, with primary and two-party-preferred votes now little different” – which frankly doesn’t seem likely. Julia Gillard’s approval rating is down five points to 51 per cent and her disapproval up six to 39 per cent, while Tony Abbott is up six points on approval to 49 per cent and disapproval down six to 45 per cent. Gillard’s lead on preferred prime minister has narrowed from 55-34 to 49-41. The poll was conducted from Tuesday to Thursday from a sample of 1356.

Via The Poll Bludger

Toeing the party line on same sex marriage

If anyone doubted that Senator Penny Wong was a consummate politician who would never depart from the party line, an article from the Sydney Morning Herald smashes that doubt.

Senator Wong, the first openly gay cabinet minister, said of same sex marriage:

‘‘I think the reality is there is a cultural, religious, historical view around that which we have to respect,’’ she told Network Ten today.

‘‘The party’s position is very clear that this is an institution that is between a man and a woman.’’

Senator Wong said she respected Labor’s view of marriage as an institution between a man and a woman.

‘‘I am part of a party and I support the party’s policies.’’

Senator Wong did point out that the Rudd Government did make a number of advancements of the cause of same sex couples.

Senator Wong … said she was proud of what the party had achieved in recognising the value and importance of same-sex relationships.

Various reforms had been made during Labor’s first term of government, including the changing of 80 pieces of legislation to remove commonwealth discrimination.

It is amazing how politicians can hold back their personal views on issues that directly affect them, just to hold the party line. 

This story made me think of an episode of The West Wing (incidentally my favourite TV show) where a gay congressman produced a bill banning marriage.  Deputy Chief of Staff Joshua Lyman wrongly thought he was trying to ban gay marriage.  Senator Boniot clarified:

“My bill bans all marriage. If the government can't make it available to everyone, I want us out of the business entirely.  Leave it to churches and synagogues, and, of course, casinos and department stores.”

Makes for an interesting point.  If Government’s have all sorts of discrimination legislation then why is this one area of discrimination so hard to deal with.  If Governments want to be in the business of sanctioning (non-religious) marriage then why can it not be afforded to same sex couples?  It is certainly not that it wouldn't get through Parliament.  The Gillard Government would have the support of the Greens.  Recent polling also suggests that it is favoured by a majority of Australians. 

I am not naive and I know that this is an emotive issue and would create a massive wedge between the ALP and the Coalition.  Perhaps the politics is the main reason why we will not see same sex marriage on the agenda for many years to come. 

Because as Penny Wong has shown this week, politics is number one in the land of politicians.