Political Discussion part #2 - SA General Election 2018 and onwards!

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jo172

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Posts
15,468
Likes
10,387
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
San Antonio, Redbacks
Electricity - no.
Telstra - no.
Medibank Private - no.

Surely there must be some examples of privatisation which have worked out better for the taxpayers?
Lotteries SA. Got out of a business that the government had no real business being in and ran incredibly poorly.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Lotteries SA. Got out of a business that the government had no real business being in and ran incredibly poorly.
I'll have to take your word on that, given that I don't live in SA and don't buy lottery tickets (I refer to gambling as "paying the stupidity tax").

That said, historically lotteries were used to generate funds for hospitals, there was a strong and direct linkage between the two. To that end, the government definitely had a very real reason for being in the business. I suspect that was lost over time, with the money just going into general revenue, in which case the government's reason for being in the business would no longer be valid.
 

Cuzz09

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2004
Posts
18,533
Likes
4,387
Location
Adel - SA - Aust - Earth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Norwood & Liverpool.
September I believe. I think they'll be pushing to get there though.

Hopefully it doesn't become drawn out like the tram extensions.
Yeah? September's not too bad. Its coming along. Maybe just the finishing touches.

On [device_name] using BigFooty.com mobile app
 

Cap

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
29,497
Likes
13,034
Location
*cough*
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood
Electricity - no.
Telstra - no.
Medibank Private - no.

Surely there must be some examples of privatisation which have worked out better for the taxpayers?
I guess it depends on your viewpoint

Agree Telstra no = only because we sold a monopoly, the retail arm could have been sold
Medibank - I have not idea if good or bad, I can only think that it became like the rest of the superfunds in terms of having to cover its liabilities instead of having the Government backing it.
Electricity - whilst people would like to tell you that privatisation has been awful but factcheck a few years ago was pretty unconclusive and they aer about as good a report as we can get. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...isation-increase-electricity-prices3f/6329316
Australian Wheat Board - ? apart from being caught up in some scandals has that gone ok?

Privatisation of a Government service for me should only happy when there is a broad enough industry that competition keeps things fair for the consumer.

selling off Government assets as a monopoly is quite frankly (in my view) criminal. That's where I get angry at this stage where everyone is pissed off we sold ETSA to create a near monolopy, and then our Labor Government sells of something like the LTO - which is a monopoly.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
My definition is that taxpayers benefit if the privatised company provides a materially better service and/or has a lower cost than the publicly owned version.

Telstra's service has improved due to changing technology, but it's reasonably safe to assume this would have happened regardless of ownership. Prices have gone up, to provide shareholder profits, and customer service has either stayed the same or gone backwards. Fail.

The price of electricity has skyrocketed as a direct result of privatisation, and there hasn't been any real improvement in the service provided. If anything, it's deteriorated (ref: SA state-wide blackout). Electricity is an essential service, which is by definition something that governments should be providing, rather than having private companies gouging the public.

I have no position on the AWB, Iraq scandal aside.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

jo172

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Posts
15,468
Likes
10,387
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
San Antonio, Redbacks
Shakes head, imagine if they were still in power, this would all be hidden
Until the inevitable ICAC/Supreme Court decision where it would all come out.

I've said it a few times here but it's going to be fascinating/terrifying what Lander QC and Livesey QC find out over the next year about the Weatherill years.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
So... Malcolm's hand-picked committee on S44 recommends a referendum to change the constitution. Malcolm rejects this suggestion within an hour, and comes up with a legislative alternative of his own:
https://www.canberratimes.com.au/po...us-but-shirks-referendum-20180517-p4zfto.html

Can someone, anyone, please explain to me how his suggested legislation would be constitutional? Surely the HC would strike it down immediately.

Malcolm is right to ditch the idea of a referendum. It's not a workable solution in the short term, and the chances of it being voted up are slim at best. Most people (quite rightly) recognise that the problem isn't with the constitution, it's the politicians' failure to observe the requirements of the constitution.

However, his solution is just plain horrible. It's designed to subvert the constitution, and emasculate the High Court. There is no way on earth that his proposed law is going to be constitutional. No way at all. It's just dumb, dumb, dumb.
 

jo172

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Posts
15,468
Likes
10,387
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
San Antonio, Redbacks
How would some minor amendments to the Electoral Act requiring more disclosure by candidates be unconstitutional?

Doesn't change the jurisdiction of the Court one iota (but would seem to ease the fact finding burden, something the High Court is ill-equipped for).
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
This is the bit which is almost certainly unconstitutional:
People would have 40 days after an election to challenge someone based on the above declarations, after which the issues "cannot be raised again" for the life of the Parliament. If issues arose later or the declaration was inaccurate, the matter would be taken to Parliament's privileges committee, which would decide whether to refer it to the High Court.

Crucially, the privileges committee should agree not to refer to the High Court any MP whose case swung solely on a question of foreign citizenship law.
There is no way on earth this complies with S44 of the constitution.
 

jo172

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Posts
15,468
Likes
10,387
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
San Antonio, Redbacks
This is the bit which is almost certainly unconstitutional:

There is no way on earth this complies with S44 of the constitution.
That's a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee which the Government hasn't accepted.

And I disagree. Parliament has a clear power to to set out its own procedures. That proposal isn't a statutory one.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Vader, are you sure you're not conflating the Joint Standing Committee's recommendations with the Government's response?
The JSC recommended a referendum. The Government rejected this, in under an hour. I support the Government in rejecting the referendum - partly because the Constitution isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, partly because of how long it would take to hold the referendum.

My issue with Turnbull's response is that the legislation he's proposing isn't even close to being legal.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
That's a recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee which the Government hasn't accepted.
Upon closer reading, you appear to be correct. It's still unconstitutional.
And I disagree. Parliament has a clear power to to set out its own procedures. That proposal isn't a statutory one.
S44 doesn't say that a dual citizen is allowed to sit in Parliament if they go 40 days without being detected. It says that they're ineligible to sit. End of discussion.

The proposal is just trying to find a loophole which the constitution doesn't permit. If enacted, this legislation would be thrown out by the HC within seconds of it being challenged.
 

jo172

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Posts
15,468
Likes
10,387
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
San Antonio, Redbacks
The JSC recommended a referendum. The Government rejected this, in under an hour. I support the Government in rejecting the referendum - partly because the Constitution isn't broken and doesn't need fixing, partly because of how long it would take to hold the referendum.

My issue with Turnbull's response is that the legislation he's proposing isn't even close to being legal.
You've misread the article.

Further arrangements urged by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters - but not yet agreed to by the government - would give MPs extra protections against being dragged before the High Court.
The only legislation being proposed at the moment regards the disclosure by candidates in the lead up to an election.

Of course that's constitutional.
 

jo172

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Posts
15,468
Likes
10,387
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
San Antonio, Redbacks
Upon closer reading, you appear to be correct. It's still unconstitutional.

S44 doesn't say that a dual citizen is allowed to sit in Parliament if they go 40 days without being detected. It says that they're ineligible to sit. End of discussion.

The proposal is just trying to find a loophole which the constitution doesn't permit. If enacted, this legislation would be thrown out by the HC within seconds of it being challenged.
That's not the effect of what the JSC appears to have proposed.

They have proposed a limitation on parliament's power to refer. It does not amend the effect of s 44.

There are other ways to skin the cat of getting people who are ineligible under s 44 before the Court for determination. Self-referral or private actions for review being the obvious.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,744
Likes
19,797
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
You've misread the article.

The only legislation being proposed at the moment regards the disclosure by candidates in the lead up to an election.

Of course that's constitutional.
I accept that this is the findings of the JSC, not the Government's legislation. The proposal is still unconstitutional.
 
Top Bottom