Australian Federal Election 2022

[Jerry_Atrick]

Sad, but true, OME.. I was over here when Abbot got elected in.. I thought, "WTF? Well, they elected him, they deserve it..." Not even a month later, I had a mate of mine in Aus complaining about how bad he was... "Who did you vote for?" I asked, and you guessed it.. the local Lib candidate.. "Yeah, but I would never want to see Labor in".. That's when I formed the opinion it is a vote to keep the other guy out.. bugger the facts.

 

Even my parents used to say they vote the way the do because they don't like the other one... not that the ones they vote for are any good (in fact, my mum still does).

[old man emu]

6 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

"Yeah, but I would never want to see Labor in"..

Why?

The Labor Party, for all its faults otherwise, has been the Party that has introduced more legislation that has been of benefit to Joe Blow than the Conservatives ever have. The Conservatives would have us still working 48 hours per week, paying through the nose for health insurance and having no superannuation and a host of other social security benefits.

 

1908: Introduction of old age and invalid pensions - Andrew Fisher (Labor)

 

1912: introduction of a maternity allowance - Andrew Fisher (Labor)

 

1927: Family Endowment Act (NSW) - Jack Lang (Labor)

 

1941: Family endowment was replaced by the Commonwealth child endowment system.

 

1945: introduction of unemployment and sickness benefits - Curtin/Chifley (Labor)

 

Universal Health Insurance

1975: The first iteration of Medicare was called Medibank, and it was introduced by the Whitlam government early in its second term. The federal opposition under Malcolm Fraser had rejected Bills relating to its financing, which is why it took the government so long to get it established. Medibank began on 1 July 1975 after the passing of legislation by a joint sitting of Parliament on 7 August 1974. It had only a short period of operation before the Whitlam government was dismissed. The incoming Fraser government modified Medibank, establishing a levy of 2.5% on income to fund it. Interestingly, the levy was higher than that proposed by the Whitlam government and which the Coalition had blocked while in opposition.

 

Superannuation

1992: The Superannuation Guarantee (SG) is introduced by the Keating Labor Government, with a mandatory 3 per cent contribution rate (or 4 per cent for employers with an annual payroll above $1 million), requiring employers to make a contribution into a super fund on their employees’ behalf. Superannuation assets at the time are estimated to be $148bn. 

 

1993: The World Bank endorses Australia’s ‘three pillar’ system: compulsory superannuation, the age pension, and voluntary retirement savings, as world’s best practice for the provision of retirement income. 

 

Much is made by the Conservatives of the spending of money by Labor governments. This forms the basis of their attacks on Labor's economic management ability. Labor might spend money on sun shades for school children everywhere, but doesn't allocate it to car parks for non-existent commuter hubs. The people might have killed off the idea of a bunyip aristocracy in 1853, but the robber barons still rule. 

[Old Koreelah]

The Great Myth perpetuated by conservative media is that the Liberal National COALition are better managers of our economy.

 

The LNP have been the worst at selling off our assets, increasing our national debt and allowing foreign corporations to rape our land without paying taxes.

[Marty_d]

23 hours ago, Yenn said:

Albanese just looks like a looser, he has no saving graces 

I would have thought "honesty" would be a big saving grace and a welcome change from the incumbent.

[Yenn]

So Labor brought in th old age pension. Who did away with it? Result being massive super schemes awash with money and also awash with  highly paid directors and CEOs.

 My knowledge of Albanese comes from the ABC and SBS news mainly, combined with an historical memory of Albanese in years past when he was useless.We have a clash here in Flynn electorate with the Sitting Qld member, up against the present city mayor of Gladstone.

The Qld member is a climate change denier and has done little in the state parliament. The mayor is well liked and does get things done, although I cannot go along with the councils handling of rural weed problems, which the mayor does nothing about.

The one thing that must happen is that Scott Morrison must go because he is a liar and rorting the taxpayers money, also he has surrounded himself with a like group of people.

[kgwilson]

One possibility is that neither the LNP Coalition or Labour wins anywhere near enough seats to form a government. That then leaves either the Greens or a consortium of Independents to become Kingmaker and no matter who they choose to partner with they should be able to ensure that the rorts stop, a Federal ICAC with teeth is set up, Indigenous people are recognised in the constitution, climate change actions are accelerated, are real and not political BS.

 

Whether they can reduce the huge waste of taxpayer money like the 5.5 billion or so lost on the French Submarine fiasco is another matter. How much additional healthcare would that have been able to provide?

 

It the LNP coalition is returned then it just demonstrates the stupidity and gullibility of the voting public. 

 

Personally I think part of the problem is that voting is compulsory. In my opinion this is undemocratic. Yes you can always spoil the paper or make a donkey vote but forcing people to choose when many do not have a clue and are poorly educated makes them easy political fodder. I also think the how to vote card BS should be banned as it can result in some people making a choice based on the best looking card. Also all political advertising should be banned on polling day not just radio & TV advertising. When I lived in NZ this was the case. There is no such thing as "How to Vote cards" there.

Edited May 8, 2022 by kgwilson

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, kgwilson said:

One possibility is that neither the LNP Coalition or Labour wins anywhere near enough seats to form a government. That then leaves either the Greens or a consortium of Independents to become Kingmaker and no matter who they choose to partner with they should be able to ensure that the rorts stop, a Federal ICAC with teeth is set up, Indigenous people are recognised in the constitution, climate change actions are accelerated, are real and not political BS.

 

Whether they can reduce the huge waste of taxpayer money like the 5.5 billion or so lost on the French Submarine fiasco is another matter. How much additional healthcare would that have been able to provide?

 

It the LNP coalition is returned then it just demonstrates the stupidity and gullibility of the voting public. 

 

Personally I think part of the problem is that voting is compulsory. In my opinion this is undemocratic. Yes you can always spoil the paper or make a donkey vote but forcing people to choose when many do not have a clue and are poorly educated makes them easy political fodder. I also think the how to vote card BS should be banned as it can result in some people making a choice based on the best looking card. Also all political advertising should be banned on polling day not just radio & TV advertising. When I lived in NZ this was the case. There is no such thing as "How to Vote cards" there.

I agree with you on the "how to vote" BS.  (Not so much on compulsory voting - look at the USA).

I'd like to see political advertising held to the same standard as normal advertising, ie it has to be truthful.

Good example, my 9 yo daughter read a flyer from the LNP.  She said "I hope Scott Morrison wins - if Labor get in a whole lot of bad stuff will happen!"

I had to explain that the LNP tells lots of lies and she shouldn't believe their advertising.  But it just goes to show.

[old man emu]

When a Party says openly to the electorate that telling lies during an election campaign is not wrong, then what does that say about the morality of the Party?

 

Let's get this election business into perspective. What we are doing is choosing people to be part of a management team whose task it will be to run Australia Pty Ltd. If you were doing interviews to fill an important managerial task for your company, or even if you were selecting a mechanic to maintain your car for the long term, would you hire a person who had a proven record of lying and deceitful conduct?

 

Neither major Party is without sin in relation to a bit of backroom shonkiness, but at least the Labor party has admitted its mea culpa and is prepared to establish an independent watch-dog to curtail future misconduct. It is an action that has the support of most of the other political entities in this Job Seeker campaign, except the LNP. 

 

[onetrack]

How to vote cards are useful and I don't believe they need to be banned. The HTV cards give you a good idea on the day of how the parties are going to split their preferences - and preferences decide a lot of elections, and I reckon preferences will play a huge part in this coming election.

 

I don't see how you can hold pollies to the same level of truth in advertising, as regular advertisers are held - because of the big differences in what they're selling.

Situations such as economic conditions can change rapidly and surprisingly (e.g. - who could have predicted the sudden onset of COVID-19?), so pollies have to be flexible.

 

But decisions on major defence projects should be sent to a sizeable, qualified panel of experts, who would have to decide on at least a two-thirds majority vote, as to what was purchased, and for how much.

And defence projects should be delivered on a fixed project, for a fixed sum, none of this changing the requirements, and upping the costs every second day.

Some of these defence chiefs need their arse kicked regularly, and held personally responsible for major and incredibly costly design changes to defence equipment, that they always claim are necessary - when a lot of the time, defence equipment already produced, does the job just fine.

 

The money charged for defence equipment is simply outrageous. Defence suppliers should be made to produce evidence of their costs incurred in supplying equipment.

I can recall the stories a young bloke, who worked for me one time in the late 1960's, told me - when he'd previously worked for a British aviation instrumentation supplier - and he told me stories about how gauges that cost the company £14, were on-sold to the Indian Defence Dept for £1000 or more.

There's very little checks on what defence equipment really costs to manufacture, once a manufacturer has developed a cosy relationship with the "top brass".

[Jerry_Atrick]

I think this video hightlights why the teal  (and otther) independents are in with a shot. Intersting the independent candidate for Kooyong knew her figures...

 

 

 

[old man emu]

In 1986, then Treasurer Paul Keating said that Australia risked becoming a third-rate economy – a ‘banana republic’ – if it allowed the sophisticated industrial side of the country to fall away. The definition of a banana republic is a small state that’s politically unstable because of the domination of the economy by a single export controlled by a foreign capital. In a 2019 international comparison of economies, ( http://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/rankings )Australia ranked 93rd in the world for economic complexity, down from 57th in 1995. The downward trajectory has been consistent and strong. Australia is devolving quite rapidly now from a developed economy to a developing economy.  It is impossible to ignore the reality of Australia’s shocking performance and downward trend in improving economic complexity.

 

in recent years Australia has produced a clutch of world-class entrepreneurs and some great global businesses. But while its fine to celebrate these successes, the often overnight success of some of these entrepreneurs makes one wonder how much corruption is bolstering their activities. These entrepreneurs seem to be most adept at manipulating financial credit - robbing Peter to pay Paul, or employing iterations of the more modern Ponzi Scheme - until the crunch comes. Are they crushed? Never. They simply close one shop and open up under a new, flashy name next-door.

 

And who are the greatest supporters of these self-indulgent entrepreneurs? Conservative governments.

[kgwilson]

How to vote cards may have some use but the influence on the unwary or poorly informed is the issue. It is the system of preferential voting that is the real problem. When someone like Ricky Muir of the Motoring Enthusiasts Party gets in to the Senate and a $190,000.00 salary with only 0.51% of the primary vote in 2013, the system is broken.

[Old Koreelah]

Well done all those good people for exposing the rorts, but I fear too many voters won’t actually watch the debate or these exposes.

[old man emu]

3 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

 but I fear too many voters won’t actually watch the debate or these exposes.

But they will watch the news and talk shows on commercial TV channels which are obviously pro-Conservative. 

 

Goebbels was the Nazis’ leading propagandist who had the wit and wisdom to employ the audio and visual aspects of modern communications to alter and mould the perceptions of the populace. Since then, every regime has employed that method of entering through the eyes and ears in getting its message into the brains of those it wishes to control.

[Yenn]

I agree that the system of compulsory voting is wrong, but it is not really compulsory to vote. You have to get your name crossed off on the electoral roll, that is all. What you do with the voting papers is up to you. My son told me that he once put the paper straight into the waste paper bin and one of the officials chatted him about it. He just asked what law he had broken.

I consider that anyone who has no interest in voting should not be required to vote, and we would then have a much better government

As far as defence spending goes when did we ever have a contract deliver on time and on budget? The LNP are spruiking that the Aukus agreement is a plus for their planning and foresight. Just conning the voters into accepting that their piss poor planning when the ordered the French submarine was something to be overlooked. They could have changed the order to a French nuclear powered sub, with none of the animosity coming from France. I surely would like the French President to have a vote in the Scott Morrison electorate.

[old man emu]

13 minutes ago, Yenn said:

put the paper straight into the waste paper bin and one of the officials chatted him about it

There's a very good reason for that. The officials have to account for every ballot paper issued at a polling booth. What if a lost ballot paper was a legitimate vote and by not counting it, the ballot for that Seat ended up in a draw? It would take months to confirm that all votes and redistributed votes had been correctly accounted for, and that accounting was agreed to by the two candidates as being totally correct and that there was  no disagreement with the AEEC's published result. Then you'd have to run the election for that seat all over again, and you and I would have to foot the bill.

 

So, throwing a ballot into the waste paper bin is a highly irresponsible thing to do. If a person has no interest in voting, at least assist by having their name marked as attending, then simply fold the paper and put it in the ballot box, unmarked. It won't count for a vote for anyone. Alternatively, if a person not want to participate in our democracy, the gates are always open to leave.

[willedoo]

I could well be wrong, but I've always thought non compulsory voting would favour the Coalition in a big way. I think it would be hard for Labor to get across the line.

[onetrack]

I consider the poor state of Govt in the U.S. is largely due to a lack of compulsory voting. At least compulsory voting gets the donkeys thinking for a couple of minutes, at least.

In countries without compulsory voting, the numbers of people voting are increasingly getting lower and lower, thus making it easier for elections to be manipulated.

 

If someone disagrees with compulsory voting, they only have to scribble something across their ballot paper and the vote becomes informal.

The percentage of informal votes usually doesn't alter a huge amount, but it does appear to range between about 3% to 7% in some cases, where individual elections had specific protest vote levels.

The AEC does examine and track informal voting trends to apparently try and address the reasons behind them.

 

https://legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/hot-topics-voting-and-elections/compulsory-voting-and-against

 

https://www.aec.gov.au/about_aec/research/analysis-informal-voting-2016-election.htm

[kgwilson]

You just have to look across the ditch. Voting is not compulsory but the voter turn out is usually very high, a little under 80% at the last election, and they have a labour government. Admittedly a charismatic woman PM who is well known & admired at home and around the world helps.

 

In the US many of the Republican states go out of their way to make voting difficult for blacks and hispanics who make up the bulk of the lower paid working population so they actively discourage voting. Voter turnout in 2016 was just over 50% but in 2020 it was 62% mostly to make sure they got rid of Trump.

[old man emu]

4 hours ago, onetrack said:

https://legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au/hot-topics-voting-and-elections/compulsory-voting-and-against

Most of the "Against" reasons in this appear to indicate a lack of knowledge amongst the population. When the case for "against" uses terms like 'uninterested', 'ill-informed' and 'politically educated' it is clear that there is a failure at the very start of our schooling to teach our future citizens what responsibilities they have in order to enjoy the rights of citizenship. The study of the rights and duties of citizenship is called "Civics". In an educational system that aims at producing graduates with the various basic skills to make a contribution to Society, Civics has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the 3-Rs.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Surprisingly, none of the against arguments included the skewed result stemming from the donkey vote, although the against in point 2 touches on it. It looks like this has been sonewhat addressed by what appears to be a draw of some sort to determine where the candidates appear on the ballot paper. But all this does is skew it to whoever is lucky enought to be put in the top couple of spots, and is no more valid.

 

The preferential system can be fixed relatively easily.. There should be a requirement to number a minimum of 5 candidates (unless of course, there are less than 5) - even for the most feeble voter, that is not too hard an ask. It would probably result in a donkey vote skew - but if people had to select their top 5, my guess is more would take it seriously than not. Either way, the senate ends up getting its fair share of donkeys, so there's nothing to lose and everything to gain.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Hmm.. seems the fix is already there...

 

 

 

 

[kgwilson]

They explain it well but then that is the problem, it has to be explained to people. It is not that difficult but far too complex for a lot of people who are FORCED to vote so they go in to the booth with a how to vote card & copy everything on to their ballot paper.

 

This system was rejected when put forward at the rerefendum in NZ in the 90s where the old first past the post system was reviewed. The MMP system selected is simple as you have 1 vote for a candidate in the electorate & 1 vote for the party you like. The parliament is made up of 50% elected members & 50% of party votes based on the %age of what they got. Simple and truly proportional so you can vote for 2 different parties or an independent in your electorate and a party you think is best able to run a government. There is no upper house in NZ so when legislation is discussed & passed it can be implemented quickly. That would not work here though. The senate is the only way to try & keep the bastards honest though it doesn't always work & slows everything down.

 

Both systems can end up with a hung parliament even with coalitions between parties. That is where independents and parties like the Greens (if LNP get back in) can have influence on decisions that otherwise might be damaging for the environment and full of false claims to benefit the wealthy or self interest above the good of all and the future beyond the next 3 years. So as they say Hung parliaments can be better for the country than what LNP & labour tell you.

[old man emu]

Informal voting in 2013 and 2016.

 

The national informality rate (informal votes as a percentage of all votes cast) decreased from 5.91 per cent of all votes cast at the 2013 House of Representatives elections to 5.05 per cent at the 2016 House of Representatives elections. For the first time since 2001, the ten Commonwealth electoral divisions with the highest levels of House of Representatives informality were not all located in Sydney. While eight of these divisions were in Sydney (Lindsay, Blaxland, Watson, Fowler, McMahon, Parramatta, Werriwa and Barton), the two other divisions were located in Victoria (Murray) and Queensland (Longman).

 

Have a look where those Sydney electorates are:

 

They are all Western/Southwestern areas with high levels of migrant populations. Populations of low political, and English literacy. Not saying that ethnic media doesn't cover politics, but it's one thing to read articles in a newspaper, and another to have the years of experience living under political policies.

 

More than a quarter of all informal votes cast in 2016 had incomplete numbering, with more than half of these showing a number ‘1’ only. That shows confusion with the slogan "Vote 1 for Bloggs".

 

A further quarter  (1.25% of the 5%) of all informal ballots cast were totally blank, while about one in five were informal due to scribbles, slogans or other protest vote mark. People who were actually making a comment.

 

One in six (1.6% of 5%) showed non-sequential numbering. Once again, possible confusion with the Senate voting method, or possible too many candidates.

 

 

 

[Yenn]

It is a good thing that the most informal votes come from migrant suburbs. If the voter cannot understand English they should not be allowed to vote. At least if they stuff it up it is as good as not being allowed to vote.