Well done Judith Troeth!

Liberal crosses floor to end detainee debt. Well done Judith Troeth! (And & also Labor, The Greens, Nick Xenophon and Steve Fielding).

Move Australia Day to January 1

Today - for some strange reason - is called Australia Day. It has sparked another round of criticism, from indigenous Australians especially, that Australia Day should be moved ABC News Story. It is, after all, the day European settlement arrived in Australia, and so is a day of mixed emotions for indigenous Australians. It also implies that only one sort of Australian settlement matters.

Another reason to move Australia Day, is that has nothing to do with Australia itself. What was proclaimed on January 26 1788 was not "Australia", but the "colony of New South Wales" (See Phillip's own account, scroll down to 7 February 1788). It was by no means inevitable that this colony would lead to a united nation. NSW and the other colonies did not unite until January 1, 1901.

So January 1 is the day our nation began, moving from colonies to a commonwealth. It's true that was not independence day - independence from Britain was a gradual process. But it is the day the colonies united, it is a day all Australians can celebrate. For me, it really is a no-brainer that Australia Day should be celebrated on January 1.

"Elections are good" - reflections on Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam

Tomorrow, 11-Nov-2008, is the 33rd anniversary of the dismissal of the Whitlam government by governor-general John Kerr. No doubt there will be a few newspaper columns marking the occasion. Perhaps some, like in the past, (like this this one) will call it a "coup", or criticise John Kerr in some other way.

For those who missed it: the government of Gough Whitlam controlled the Australian House of Representatives, but not the Senate. Due to some barely-legal manouvering, and a defection to the Liberal party, the opposition led by Malcolm Fraser was able to block supply in the Senate, blocking all government funds. In effect, Fraser held the country to ransom, insisting that Whitlam (or Kerr) call an early election.

Fraser's actions were unpopular - and in my mind unethical - but they were legal. Really, while the Fraser's Liberal-Country Coalition insisted on blocking the supply, there was no alternative but to call an election.

Now historians have argued over whether Kerr dismissed Whitlam too early, or whether he should have told Whitlam what he wanted to do. But all Kerr really did was call an election. And elections are good. They mean that the people decide.

The mindset that says Kerr shouldn't have called an election, is really a mindset that says the Australian people can't be trusted, that elections are bad things. I disagree! Elections are good!

Every now and then, proposals emerge to lengthen Australian political terms from 3 to 4 years. In the name of "stable government", we get less elections. I disagree! Elections are good!

What should have happened in 1975 was that the electorate should have punished Fraser for holding country to ransom by blocking supply. But it didn't. The Australian people chose a Fraser government over a Whitlam government.

Whitlam and Labor have every right to be angry at Fraser, for blocking supply, or even at the Australian electorate, for voting them out. That Labor instead reserved its rage for Kerr, when all he did was call an election because he felt he had no alternative, is bizarre. Elections are good.

AFL premiership medals

Here's something I've raised on Usenet in 1999 and again in 1993 - why does the AFL only give premiership medals to the 22 players on Grand Final day? It's grossly unfair to the players who help them get to the Grand Final, but don't get to play, due to injury (like Tony Modra), suspension (like Jason McCartney) or plain old bad form (like Derek Kickett).

Fred Nile, you do not speak for me on Muslim Immigration!

Today, Fred Nile of the New South Wales Christian Democrats has announced that Austalia should place a moratorium on Islamic immigration.

As a Christian, let me say loudly and clearly: you do not speak for me! Despite all the problems with Islam, I fully affirm Australia's non-discriminatory immigration policy. Does Nile really want to go back to the days of racial or religious tests as part of Australia's immigration policy?

Muslim immigration is good, in that it leads to more mixing of Muslims and Christians, and so hopefully better understanding. Besides, many Muslim immigrants are fleeing the excesses of Islam fanaticism in their home countries.

I hope other Christian politicians will strongly repudiate Nile's ill-conceived words.

Negative Gearing, the Great Aussie Rort

Lately in Australia there has been much discussion about housing affordability. Housing prices have skyrocketed in the last 5 years or so.

What has been the cause of this? A sudden upsurge in new home buyers? No, what has changed has been the increase in investors, competing with owner occupiers for the same, finite, pool of houses.

Of course, people are quite entitled to buy property for investment. But the problem, The Great Aussie Rort, is this: investors get help from the Tax Office, but owner occupier do not. All expenses on an investment property - including interest on the loan - can be claimed as tax deductions.

That is negative gearing. A tax evasion, oops I mean minimisation, scheme available in Australia, but few other places in the world.

This is crazy. With all the tax help investors get, owner occupiers cannot compete. As house prices rise, housing continues to be attractive to investors (who can get the tax man to pay half their losses anyway, but pay minimal Capital Gains Tax on any profit they make when they sell the property), but housing is becoming out of reach to the younger generation.

It is time for the government to wind back, and eventually abolish, negative gearing on residential property, so that there are investors in the market, making housing prices fall, making housing more affordable for Australians.

Now quickly dealing with the usual objections...

1. It was tried in 1985 and didn't work - well duh, that was 20 years ago. Times have changed. The housing market has changed. In 1998, the government reintroduced the GST only 5 years after the electorate had rejected it. So if there's nothing wrong with revisiting a tax reform idea after 5 years, surely it's acceptable after 20.

2. Rents will go up, as they did in 1985 - that's right, and prices will go down. That means more owner occupiers and less renters. Isn't that a good thing? Government assistance, such as public housing, exists for those who still can't buy a house.

3. It will reduce investment and jobs in the housing sector - correction: investment and jobs will move from housing to elsewhere, as people invest in industry (e.g. via the Share Market) instead of housing. And this can only be a good thing: these jobs will produce real export products, not simply houses. Also, there won't be huge amounts of investment sunk into inflated land prices, generating no real wealth at all.

4. Housing prices will fall, and some people will lose money. It's just the same as when housing prices rose: some people will lose money and some people will gain money. The housing boom made some undeserving winners and losers. Removal of Negative Gearing would do the same. And I can't see how it can possibly be more socially disruptive than the huge increase in house prices. There are two types of people who will lose money. First there are the investors. I don't have any sympathy for them. When you invest, sometimes you lose. Besides, they can claim a capital loss when they sell the property. And the government could alleviate the pain by allowing them to spread the loss over more than one year. I have more sympathy for owner occupiers who will be stuck with huge mortages on homes which reduce in value. However, they at least are people who have already decided they can afford it. Again, the government could introduce measures to help people who lose money when they sell their house (again, perhaps allowing a tax loss to be claimed).

So... I'm not holding my breath, but the government needs to act on negative gearing. The sooner it does it, the less disruption. Otherwise, more and more houses will be investment properties subsidiesed by the Australian taxpayer, which means that less and less Australians will own their own home.

Hundreds of Centrelink staff disciplined over privacy violations

Hoo boy. This deserves to be a big news story: Centrelink staff sacked for privacy breaches.

Massive, and I mean massive, breaches of privacy rules at CentreLink, the Australian government agency which co-ordinates welfare and unemployment benefits:

• 5 cases referred to the police;
  
• 19 staff sacked;
  
• "almost 100" quit after being caught out;
  
• "more than 300" face discipline.
  

If this was one or two isolated individuals I would not be concerned. But it's not. It shows that breaches of privacy are rampant in Centrelink.

Only caught because Centrelink installed spyware to monitor their staff's access to records.

Now for the biggie: if this was caught in Centrelink, what about all the other organisations which store private information? Is this problem unique to Centrelink, or unique to Australia? I don't think so.

So how secure is your private information? Not very, I'm afraid to say.

Asylum Seeker Legislation in Australia

Recently, Australian Prime Minister John Howard withdrew his latest Border Protection Bill, to avoid its inevitable defeat in the Australian Senate.

Good riddance! Here's why:

First, it is bad for families. Liberal backbenchers worked hard to
change Australia's refugee processes, so that women and children would
not be locked up inm detention. This bill would have undone those
changes. To lock children up in detention, when it is not needed, is
inhumane.

Second, the bill was to appease Indonesia. I was appalled at the "Pacific
Solution" that the government introduced in 2001. But that, at least,
was in response to concerns in Australia. This 2006 bill was not due
to Australian demand, it was due to Indonesia's protests. When
Indonesia first protested at our giving refuge to 42 West Papuan
asylum seekers, Howard should have said, "It is our business who we
let into our country. Stay out of our internal affairs". To attempt to
change our refugee legislation, in reaction to Indonesian demands, was
a disgrace. Tellingly, Indonesia was quick to protest when the Bill was withdrawn.

Third - contrary to the claims of Liberal Senator Don Randall -
rejecting this bill does not go against the will of the Australian
people. I did not see any polls, but I did not sense any ill-will
among Australian people to these West Papuan asylum seekers. The bill
was unnecessary. There was no Australian demand for it.

Fourth, on the subject of the West Papuans, they were not asylum
shoppers. In 2001, one criticism of the Middle Eastern refugees
arriving was that they were shopping around for the "best" country to
seek asylum in. However this has stopped. Not due to the "Pacific
Solution", but due to changed circumstances in Afghanistan and Iraq,
and due to better co-operation with Indonesia in stopping people
smugglers. But these West Papuans were not shopping around, they went
direct to the nearest country practical to offer them asylum -
straight across the Arafura Sea to Northern Australia.

So well done to all Senators who opposed the Border Protection Bill!

Just testing...

Welcome to the new blog of peter ballard. This is just a test. More to come.