Showing posts with label vote. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vote. Show all posts
New Tax Rules Make Multinationals Pay
Governments are clamping down on Tech businesses who avoid paying their dues. ⦿ New convention treaty beps Tax countries treaties country Rules international australia multilateral Make company global sign Multinationals including g20 signed Pay business bilateral reform profits New leading states united Tax ⦿
⦿ amend prevent rule Rules project base future Make architecture legal time Multinationals laws companies google longer Pay multilateralism china foreign New information cooperation financial Tax chair current australia’s Rules measures arbitration taxpayer Make governments years resolve Multinationals inserts presence avoidance Pay national anti-abuse significant New signing network havens Tax actions shifting profit Rules erosion multinational result Make loopholes close Multinationals do Pay ⦿
∎ close loopholes result multinational erosion profit shifting actions havens network signing significant anti-abuse national avoidance presence inserts resolve years governments taxpayer arbitration measures australia’s current chair financial cooperation information foreign china multilateralism longer google companies laws time legal architecture future base project rule prevent amend united states leading profits reform bilateral business signed g20 including sign global company multilateral australia international country treaties countries beps treaty convention ∎ || governing, nations, law, legally, legislation, oecd, clamp, down, vote, block,
The 1967 Referendum to Give Aboriginals Equal Rights
I was in my twenties in 1967 when the referendum on giving Aboriginals the vote was held. Obviously, I must have voted, but I cannot remember anything at all about it nor the way I voted. Should I be ashamed about this? Well it seems many Australians do not remember a thing in regard to the referendum. It was nearly half a century ago.
Rarely does a yes vote to change the Constitution "get up". This to non-Australians means that few attempts to make a change have been successful. Of the 24 referendums held only four have got a majority yes vote. People from other countries would think it odd that an advanced country such as Australia had not given Aboriginals the vote decades before. However, think about the racial discrimination in the United States in the supposedly enlightened 1960s.
Other discrimination existed then. Young Australian men who were forcibly enlisted into the military to fight in the Vietnam War could not go into a pub and drink alcohol until they reached the age of 21. Most conscripts were in their teens. When they came home on leave they were condemned by society for fighting the wrong war, even though they did not want to fight at all.
Though the referendum was commonly assumed to be about giving Aboriginals the right to vote, they could already do this but seldom did. The referendum was to give Aboriginals all the rights that Caucasion Australians had. A yes vote gave them the pride and dignity of being accepted as "real" Australians. Before 1967 Aboriginals were a non-people. They had no real identity and were ignored by white society generally.
They got access to welfare and took it dismissively calling it "sit-down money". They began to openly express themselves for good or bad. Discrimination still exists against aboriginals today. The Northern Territory is controlled by the Federal government. Aboriginal men in the Northern Territory are forbidden to drink alcohol. Clearly, many white Australians still feels that Aboriginals are racially inferior and cannot handle alcohol. Go to a night club in the early hours of the morning and see the number of white Australians stunbling about completely out of their minds on alcohol.
Politics by Ty Buchanan
No Freedom in Federal Politics
It seems very odd and even selfish for a leader to prevent a conscience vote just to get his own way. This is the only conclusion that can be reached when Tony Abbott, an ardent Catholic, will not give members of the Liberal Party freedom to vote as they like on same-sex marriages. It is common knowledge that the majority of the Coalition would vote to support it if freedom was given. Julia Gillard was just as bad when she was Prime Minister and would not allow the Labor party a conscience vote.
Australia is too conservative for the rest of the world on same-sex marriage. We have been left behind. Liberal senator Cory Bernardi is one of the "dictators". He says, there is "no room for a personal view". These fossils are living in 18th century mode. The whole world is going down the road of more freedom.
This issue will not go away. Private members' bills will continually be resubmitted, until rationality ultimately wins. Tanya Plibersek could ask Liberal Malcolm Turnbull to co-sponsor her proposal.
In a democracy as Australia claims to be, there is no democracy within political parties whose members are put there by the people. Politicians know if the issue was put to a referendum same-sex marriage would be passed. Though it is a peculiarity of Australians that they usually vote "No" to any referendum, this case is different. It is also time again for a referendum to make the Northern Territory a state, so the High Court would find it more difficult to overrule its laws.
Politics by Ty Buchanan
The NBN Will Remain an Issue into the Next Election
The NBN will live on. Despite the Coalition winning government with the ex-National Party Independents support, the National Broadband Network will remain with Labor at the next election. Indeed, they will win and put Australia on a path to a better future. There is no way the Australian people will accept "the private sector will provide" because it certainly won't. Telstra is only interested in market share. Hope lies in Telstra investing heavily and freezing out small telcos. This is its long term plan. Faster broadband is needed now, however, for medicine, education and scientific endeavours.
As a voter said in Bob Katter's electorate, God help Bob if he supports a Labor government. He will try to keep broadband. Tony Abbot will refuse and Bob will give in to his own deep conservative emotions. Like the Green who has already said he will support Labor. Eighty percent of Green voters used to vote for Labor. Even Bob Brown the Green leader openly prefers Labor over the Coalition. He has already warned that not much will get through the upper house.
The Coalition has not faced a hostile Senate before. It will be tough going for Tony Abbot. He is not a man for compromise. He has his own opinions and he wants his own way. The maternity leave issue is a case in point. Hardly any Coalition members want this. They don't want a heavier burden placed on business. The mining tax is not over yet either. It will be almost impossible for any government to balance the books without savage cuts much like the cuts in the UK. Like the problem government in the UK which will see the Liberal Democrats blamed for "sleeping with the enemy" and slaughtered at the next election, so the Independents here who go in with either party will face termination at the future poll in Australia.
As a voter said in Bob Katter's electorate, God help Bob if he supports a Labor government. He will try to keep broadband. Tony Abbot will refuse and Bob will give in to his own deep conservative emotions. Like the Green who has already said he will support Labor. Eighty percent of Green voters used to vote for Labor. Even Bob Brown the Green leader openly prefers Labor over the Coalition. He has already warned that not much will get through the upper house.
The Coalition has not faced a hostile Senate before. It will be tough going for Tony Abbot. He is not a man for compromise. He has his own opinions and he wants his own way. The maternity leave issue is a case in point. Hardly any Coalition members want this. They don't want a heavier burden placed on business. The mining tax is not over yet either. It will be almost impossible for any government to balance the books without savage cuts much like the cuts in the UK. Like the problem government in the UK which will see the Liberal Democrats blamed for "sleeping with the enemy" and slaughtered at the next election, so the Independents here who go in with either party will face termination at the future poll in Australia.
Australia's Voting System is Quite Straightforward
Voting informal just because you don't understand the Australian voting system is not a smart thing to do. Admittedly, the way Australians elect representatives is a bit odd, but other countries have idiosyncratic election methods as well. The US collegial way is considered far too complicated to explain to an outsider. Though quite simple, the British process of first past the post tends to favor a choice between two parties. It was unusual for the third party, the Liberal Democrats, to win so many seats as in the last election.
The Australian voting system is not that complicated. In Britain votes going to a third party are lost, totally. Just remember that in Australia a vote to a weaker party is counted as a full vote to the first or second party leading in the count. It doesn't matter where you put the major parties in your numbered list on the voting paper. What does count is which of these parties appears higher in your list. The party highest, i.e., closer to number "1", in your list is allocated your vote. That about sums it up.
Voting for the Senate is ordinary proportional voting with an Australian twist. The number of Senate seats is six for each state and two per territory. For a double dissolution 12 seats in each state are up for grabs plus two for each territory. If candidates were elected by voters selecting only one prospective Senator the result would be much the same as Australia's proportional system.
The voting paper has a horizontal line drawn across it. To vote below the line, number all of the squares next to candidates, "1", "2", "3"... and so on until you reach the total number of candidates - choosing the most favored candidate as "1" then allocating accordingly. Voting above the line is known as a "ticket vote". If you put number "1" in one of the squares in the top section your votes are "preallocated" by the party you chose as "1", as if you filled out all squares below the line.
All the number "1" votes are counted by party. In each state, if a party has 14.3% of number "1" votes (a quota) the party has a Senator elected. Two Senators get up when more than 28.6% "formal" votes are gained. A ridiculous complex mathematical formula is used to determine the remaining one or two of the six Senate seats not achieving a quota in each state. Basically, selection is worked out based on highest preference by the numbers on the ballot papers.
Considering ticket votes comprised nearly 95% of all Senate votes in the 2001 election it is time for a review of the system. As noted, the way selection is carried out is ridiculous.
As long as you remember the forgoing explanation voting is quite straightforward.
The Australian voting system is not that complicated. In Britain votes going to a third party are lost, totally. Just remember that in Australia a vote to a weaker party is counted as a full vote to the first or second party leading in the count. It doesn't matter where you put the major parties in your numbered list on the voting paper. What does count is which of these parties appears higher in your list. The party highest, i.e., closer to number "1", in your list is allocated your vote. That about sums it up.
Voting for the Senate is ordinary proportional voting with an Australian twist. The number of Senate seats is six for each state and two per territory. For a double dissolution 12 seats in each state are up for grabs plus two for each territory. If candidates were elected by voters selecting only one prospective Senator the result would be much the same as Australia's proportional system.
The voting paper has a horizontal line drawn across it. To vote below the line, number all of the squares next to candidates, "1", "2", "3"... and so on until you reach the total number of candidates - choosing the most favored candidate as "1" then allocating accordingly. Voting above the line is known as a "ticket vote". If you put number "1" in one of the squares in the top section your votes are "preallocated" by the party you chose as "1", as if you filled out all squares below the line.
All the number "1" votes are counted by party. In each state, if a party has 14.3% of number "1" votes (a quota) the party has a Senator elected. Two Senators get up when more than 28.6% "formal" votes are gained. A ridiculous complex mathematical formula is used to determine the remaining one or two of the six Senate seats not achieving a quota in each state. Basically, selection is worked out based on highest preference by the numbers on the ballot papers.
Considering ticket votes comprised nearly 95% of all Senate votes in the 2001 election it is time for a review of the system. As noted, the way selection is carried out is ridiculous.
As long as you remember the forgoing explanation voting is quite straightforward.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
