Say what you might about Greenies who chain themselves to trees or people who o marching for cause, outside of voting and lobbying, there aren't that many options to make political point, short of violent revolution. You might - out of some class prejudice - dislike or disrespect dreadlocked tattooed grungy greenies marching to protest coal seam gas mining but you need the dreadlocked tattooed grungy greenies marching to protest coal seam gas mining to ensure governments get the message. The right to free assembly is an important component in our society because it's what allows political parties to exist.
Thus, the laws against protesters gathering actually strikes at the foundations of our rather fragile democracy.
NSW's harsh and unnecessary new anti-protest laws are the latest example of an alarming and unmistakeable trend. Governments across Australia are eroding some of the vital foundations of our democracy, from protest rights to press freedom, to entrench their own power and that of vested business interests.
The NSW laws give police excessive new powers to stop, search and detain protesters and seize property as well as to shut down peaceful protests that obstruct traffic. They expand the offence of "interfering" with a mine, which carries a penalty of up to seven years' jail, to cover coal seam gas exploration and extraction sites.
They also create a tenfold increase in the penalty applying to unlawful entry to enclosed land (basically any public or private land surrounded by a fence) if the person "interferes" or "intends to interfere" with a business there. At the same time as ratcheting up this penalty for individuals who protest, recent changes made by the NSW government mean that resource companies that illegally mine can receive a $5000 penalty notice instead of a potential $1.1 million fine.
Disturbingly, these laws aren't isolated.We've been so distracted by how dastardly and woeful the Federal Government under the Coalition has been, it's allowed the State Government - also run by the same parties - to fly under the radar with their crappy authoritarian moves. These anti-protest laws are entirely the bidding of lobbies that pay into the coffers of the Liberal and National parties. These parties are brazenly shutting down democracy in order to appease their political donors. Just because the transaction can't be pinned down to individuals, it is no less corrupt than the Obeids who sought to influence matters of state to suit private interests (albeit their own).
Tasmania last year targeted environmental protest with broad and vague new offences including "hindering" access to business premises or "obstructing" business operations, with penalties of up to $10,000 and four years' imprisonment. In Western Australia, proposed legislation contains extremely broad new offences of "physically preventing a lawful activity" and "possessing a thing for the purpose of preventing a lawful activity" with proposed penalties of up to two years in prison and fines of up to $24,000.
Common to these anti-protest laws are harsher penalties, excessive police powers and the prioritisation of business interests (particularly mining and forestry operations) over the rights of Australians to gather together and protest about issues they care deeply about.
Further to the point, the NSW police still have the APEC powers which are also anti-democratic. These came in at the time of the 2007 APEC meeting, and have not been rescinded. The current NSW government is essentially giving licence for the NSW police to brutalise those who would protest against mining or logging interests where the media is less likely to be there to offer coverage. In a year that the NSW police issued an apology for the brutal treatment it dished out to the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras of the late 1970s, it seems like they're setting themselves up for more future apologies to protest groups.
Governments across Australia are deliberately using a range of funding levers to suppress advocacy by NGOs including gag clauses, targeted funding cuts and threats to the ability of environmental organisations to receive tax deductible donations from supporters – a tax status which is often critical to financial sustainability.
Secrecy laws and an increasingly aggressive attitude to whistleblowers mean that people who expose even the most serious human rights abuses face unprecedented risks of reprisals, including prosecution and jail. Press freedom is being eroded by new laws and policies jeopardising journalists' ability to maintain the confidentiality of sources and to report on matters of public interest. All the while, in critical areas governments are undermining or sidelining the courts and institutions that were created to keep them in check.On that note, I thought I should bring this up about any and *all* governments, *everywhere*:
Speaking Of Corruption
The NSW Liberals are under a cloud over donations they can't explain. suspect.
More than $4 million in public funding is being withheld from the NSW Liberals by authorities until the party can prove hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations it received before the 2011 election that swept it into power were not illegal.
The donations were made by the controversial Free Enterprise Foundation, which the Independent Commission Against Corruption heard had "washed" illegal contributions from property developers before donating them to the NSW Liberals.
More than $690,000 in donations remains unverified.
The NSW Electoral Commission has said it will withhold reimbursement of expenditure from last year's state election and annual administrative funding totalling $4.3 million until the matter is resolved.
Failure to secure the funding would potentially leave the NSW division in financial dire straits just months before a federal election.Good. They deserve the grief.
But Wait There's More
There's also this doing the rounds today.
The New South Wales Government's Upper House whip Peter Phelps has quit the role and says he will cross the floor to vote against the Government's biofuels amendment bill.
The goal of the bill is to force small retailers to meet the government's 6 per cent ethanol mandate by applying fines of up to $550,000 for business owners who do not comply with requirements to sell E-10 fuel.
In a fiery speech to Parliament, Peter Phelps described the bill as a "fundamental attack on small businesses", "a joke" and "disgraceful".
He said the bill went against the Liberal Party's principles.
"We believe in a series of pro-business, pro-individual ideals," Mr Phelps said.
Mr Phelps said he had fought the bill every step of the way, raising it in the party room and with NSW Premier Mike Baird.
He then said he could not vote for the legislation, so under Liberal Party rules was resigning as whip as well.
"For five years now I have enjoyed the golden handcuffs of being the whip ... and as part of that for my extra $20,000 a year I have on occasion had to whore my principles," Mr Phelps said.
"But this bill, this bill which criminalises people for the purchasing decisions of their customers, is such an egregious breach of the core values of the Liberal Party that I cannot support it.
"As whip I am supposed to encourage people not to cross the floor, so on that basis, I resign as whip effective immediately."
I don't think Mr. Phelps is about to go Frank Underwood, but it is an interesting spectacle. The government is pandering to lobbyists and a party whip is objecting. The joke is that te bill is set to pass because even the ALP is supporting it. So the lobbyists got to them too. Talk about being disgraceful.
It Would Make Too Much Sense So They Won't Do It
It Would Make Too Much Sense So They Won't Do It
Here's an article by Jessica Irvine on a Land Tax.it's a touchy subject because people who don't move and change houses would suddenly be paying for the privilege of owning a house, in exchange for no stamp duty.
The McKell paper proposes a broad based land tax levied at 0.75 per cent.
On a median priced Sydney home, the land would be worth around $700,000, meaning an annual tax of $5250.
Owners of expensive homes would pay more and taxes collected would rise over time with land values, providing a steady stream of income for state governments.
A land tax would also allow state governments to more easily fund new urban infrastructure projects, the paper argues.
"One of the key factors that increase the value of land is its proximity to public transport and good roads." A new rail or road project, therefore, boosts the value of local homes, providing a windfall to existing landowners.
"If land values are taxed, then the annual tax bill would increase slightly to reflect the increased value of the land. Therefore those who are receiving a significant windfall from public expenditure would make a small contribution towards the project."
Which is all very nice but you know this NSW government is going to balk at it because its constituents are the older demographic who own lots of property.
There's more on the actual study, penned by the guy who worked on the study here.
There's more on the actual study, penned by the guy who worked on the study here.
For a start, land tax is extremely fair. All landowners would pay the tax annually based on the value of their land, and not on what improvements they have made. This means renovations would not be punished.
Land tax is also easy to understand and administer, while being nigh-on impossible to avoid.
Land tax does not disincentivise home owners from moving freely, making it easier for workers to accept jobs where they crop up, providing a boost to the economy.
Land tax would also encourage more infrastructure spending by making it possible for the government to tax some of the additional value it creates when it builds near homes. A rail line that boosts property prices in a given area, for example, could be partially funded by those whose homes had shot up in value as a result.
Now this is the point where the hardheads nod sagely and say while all these advantages sound attractive the reality is that any attempt to introduce land tax would be susceptible to the mother of all scare campaigns.
Another argument in favour of putting in a Land Tax is that it likely will take the heat out of the property bubble because people would be disincentivised from speculating through house-flipping. It would also disincentives land banking where people buy property and simply mothball it, taking it out of regular usage.
Of course it would be hard to convince this NSW Government of doing anything so bold as to abolish Stamp Duty and put in a Land Tax. It would cause enough of a furore to get themselves voted out.
As with all these things, the politics of implementing good policy is going to be difficult and you can see the Coalition government in NSW has no appetite for selling this policy.
Still, given the current problems to do with the Property Bubble are going to significantly impact on future growth, and therefore Stamp Duty revenue, one might think the NSW government might look at this sooner than later and before the Bubble pops.
As with all these things, the politics of implementing good policy is going to be difficult and you can see the Coalition government in NSW has no appetite for selling this policy.
Still, given the current problems to do with the Property Bubble are going to significantly impact on future growth, and therefore Stamp Duty revenue, one might think the NSW government might look at this sooner than later and before the Bubble pops.
No comments:
Post a Comment