here's part of a comment on this ref page...
"steelerudd of coolie Posted at 12:47 PM Today
Angela Evans of Brisbane Posted at 11:59 AM Today Couple of points. The GST arrangements are a Commonwealth tax and a simple agreement to distribute the proceeds to the states according to the HFE relativities. The states have no right to the revenue - it is a gift from the Commonwealth which the Commonwealth can alter by simply changing the intergovernmental agreement and the GST tax legislation. No ifs, buts or maybes - Barnett is completely wrong and will lose his 30% once the legislation is passed and Gillard tires of his grandstanding. Wrong on so many points that I can,t even be bothered to point out your non factual parts , as for Joolya / Swan getting any thing past their master (B.Brown ) I,d Like To See That. MS So that's how they will get around the constitutional challenge? its a gift not a right?
here's the article
A NEW battle over the mineral resources rent tax is looming as Western Australia and Queensland push for the regional infrastructure fund promised as a sweetener to be excluded from the system for carving up more than $50 billion in GST receipts.
West Australian bureaucrats fear the state will be short-changed and have insisted the fund be quarantined from the Commonwealth Grants Commission process that siphons GST and other revenue from the rich states to the poorer ones.
The Queensland Labor government also insists that its share of the new fund must not be reduced because of the GST formula.
When Wayne Swan announced the Regional Infrastructure Fund -- to be funded with the proceeds of the then resource super-profits tax -- he said the "lion's share" should go to the mining states of WA and Queensland to fund rail, roads, ports and other crucial infrastructure.
But putting the cash -- an initial $700 million and up to $6bn over the next decade -- into the grants commission process for allocating the GST pool could reduce the amount received by WA and Queensland in favour of poorer states such as South Australia and Tasmania.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related Coverage
EDITORIAL: Tax reform must head the agenda
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
The push threatens to add to the row between the Gillard government and the states over the MRRT, which replaced the RSPT in July. Canberra is already threatening to penalise states that increase their mining royalties in the future after a damaging stoush over whether miners would get a credit against federal taxes for hikes in state royalties.
West Australian Premier Colin Barnett said he remained vehemently opposed to the MRRT and the Regional Infrastructure Fund "doesn't win over our support for it at all".
"Julia Gillard keeps on talking about $2bn for Western Australia. I think it's over 10 years. It's not a large amount of money. You're talking about $200m a year. That won't build much."
While the Premier is focused on scuttling the MRRT, the WA Department of Treasury and Finance has pushed for the money to be quarantined from the grants commission process. It has outlined its position in a paper handed to a Senate committee inquiring into the mining tax.
Because the grants commission's formula for distributing the GST works by redistributing revenue windfalls -- including some federal payments -- between the states, the mining states stand to be punished if the infrastructure fund is not excluded from that process.
Queensland's Treasurer, Andrew Fraser, said it was crucial to ensure that his state was "not short-changed" because of "any unintended consequence" of the grants commission formula.
"We believe the federal government will honour its commitment to ensure the states that contribute to the mining boom get the lion's share of the infrastructure funds," Mr Fraser said. "This fund has been dedicated to meeting the infrastructure task in mining states and we won't accept moves by other states to claw back the funds."
WA is already refusing to hand over a third of the state's GST as part of the federal health takeover and new Victorian Premier, Ted Baillieu, has also threatened to resist the deal. Mr Barnett said the commonwealth could not "unilaterally, or even with majority state support, change the GST formulas".
As well as inflaming federal-state tensions, the stance being taken by the resource-rich states over the treatment of the infrastructure fund is reviving bickering between the states over the GST carve-up.
NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal hit back at WA and Queensland, accusing them of acting like the "Bonnie and Clyde of the Australian federation". "Enough is enough. It is time that the developing economies of Western Australia and Queensland were held to account for squandering the resources boom," he said.
While there was a strong case to help small states like the Northern Territory that needed to provide services to isolated Aboriginal communities, NSW had cross-subsidised WA and Queensland to the tune of $1bn over the past 10 years, he said.
But Mr Fraser said the non-mining states already reaped a "huge benefit" from royalties redistributed by the grants commission. While Canberra and the states agreed to the process for distributing GST in an inter-governmental agreement, the commonwealth has the scope to decide matters like quarantining of payments.
The government has not yet provided the terms of reference to the grants commission for its 2011 review of the distribution of GST money. Mr Swan's office said the government would work with the states and territories on the arrangements for the distribution of the Regional Infrastructure Fund. If federal payments are not specifically quarantined from the GST carve-up by the commonwealth, the grants commission typically decides whether they should be included. For example, if the money is paid to a third party and it has no impact on a state's budgetary capacity, it could decide to exclude it.
ref http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/states-flag-new-mining-tax-row/story-fn59niix-1225980692715?referrer=email&source=Punch_nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
ref article http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/states-flag-new-mining-tax-row/story-fn59niix-1225980692715?referrer=email&source=Punch_nl&emcmp=Punch&emchn=Newsletter&emlist=Member
Showing posts with label federal elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal elections. Show all posts
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Thursday, October 7, 2010
SO why is it all so secret?
Swan's secret surplus recipeStephen Bartholomeusz
Published 1:24 PM, 7 Oct 2010 Last update 10:14 AM, 8 Oct 2010
ref: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/BHP-Billiton-Rio-Tinto-MRRT-RSPT-swan-xenophon-pd20101007-9Z44C?OpenDocument&src=kgb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unclear why Wayne Swan thinks releasing the commodity price assumptions on which the federal government’s forecasts of the revenue that will be raised by the mineral resource rent tax and expanded petroleum resource rent tax is such a sensitive issue.
Swan has been resisting calls from independent senator Nick Xenophon to release the details of the forecasts and the assumptions under-pinning them, saying that Treasury has never published detailed information about individual commodities. Discussions Treasury had with the big resource companies were confidential and would be damaging to the companies and the national interest if those numbers were released, he said today.
The MRRT, of course, was the substitute for the controversial resource profits super tax that emerged after pre-election negotiations with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.
Had it not been for a convenient revision of the commodity forecasts that had been behind the government’s assumptions that the RSPT would raise $12 billion in its first two years, the MRRT would have raised at least $7.5 billion less. Instead it is expected to raise only $1.5 billion less – $10.5 billion versus $12 billion, thanks to a $6 billion boost from the more optimistic assumptions.
The MRRT has a much lower headline tax rate (effectively 22.5 per cent versus 40 per cent) than the RSPT it displaced, a more generous uplift rate, the option of using market value rather than historical cost as the base for the tax calculations and applies only to iron ore and coal projects that generate more than $50 million of profits a year.
At the time the revision was made iron ore prices were actually falling, so the forecasts presumably weren’t based on the market prices at the time but on somewhat longer term forecasts that emerged from the discussions with the miners, as well as "new information" from ABARE and "industry sources."
Treasury has said it has assumed commodity prices will actually start to fall in the later stages of the forward estimates and continue declining in the medium term as the supply-side response to strong iron ore and coal prices starts to impact.
Companies like BHP and Rio are coy about the precise commodity price assumptions they use to plan their capital expenditure programs but have said on a number of occasions that they use the forward curve in the near term – 18 to 24 months – but then revert to long term trend pricing. From Treasury’s description of the impact of its revised forecasts it would appear it has taken a similar approach.
Provided the revised assumptions that enabled the government to ditch the RSPT and replace it with the narrower and less punitive MRRT aren’t wildly out of kilter with the forward curve and/or market consensus for the critical 2012-13 and 2013-14 budget years there would be nothing particularly sensitive about divulging the forecasts, particularly as Treasury has cited several sources for the revised assumptions – the assumptions being used by the individual big miners wouldn’t have to be revealed.
If they were wildly optimistic and completely out of line with market expectations, of course, the government would be severely embarrassed and its claims to fiscal responsibility would be in question.
The problem the government has is that neither the mining industry nor those that analyse it believe the tax will raise $10.5 billion in its first two years. Even the big miners are privately sanguine about its impact.
That means there is a credibility issue over-hanging a key element of the government’s promise to return to budget to surplus in 2012-13 – a key election promise.
Swan, who to his credit has consistently committed to sticking with the framework of the MRRT agreed with the big miners despite the kudos an increase in the tax rate and a broadening of the MRRT’s coverage might gain the government with the Greens and independents, could address that by releasing the broad assumptions that under-pin the MRRT revenue estimates. Unless, of course, he does have something to hide.
Published 1:24 PM, 7 Oct 2010 Last update 10:14 AM, 8 Oct 2010
ref: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/BHP-Billiton-Rio-Tinto-MRRT-RSPT-swan-xenophon-pd20101007-9Z44C?OpenDocument&src=kgb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is unclear why Wayne Swan thinks releasing the commodity price assumptions on which the federal government’s forecasts of the revenue that will be raised by the mineral resource rent tax and expanded petroleum resource rent tax is such a sensitive issue.
Swan has been resisting calls from independent senator Nick Xenophon to release the details of the forecasts and the assumptions under-pinning them, saying that Treasury has never published detailed information about individual commodities. Discussions Treasury had with the big resource companies were confidential and would be damaging to the companies and the national interest if those numbers were released, he said today.
The MRRT, of course, was the substitute for the controversial resource profits super tax that emerged after pre-election negotiations with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Xstrata.
Had it not been for a convenient revision of the commodity forecasts that had been behind the government’s assumptions that the RSPT would raise $12 billion in its first two years, the MRRT would have raised at least $7.5 billion less. Instead it is expected to raise only $1.5 billion less – $10.5 billion versus $12 billion, thanks to a $6 billion boost from the more optimistic assumptions.
The MRRT has a much lower headline tax rate (effectively 22.5 per cent versus 40 per cent) than the RSPT it displaced, a more generous uplift rate, the option of using market value rather than historical cost as the base for the tax calculations and applies only to iron ore and coal projects that generate more than $50 million of profits a year.
At the time the revision was made iron ore prices were actually falling, so the forecasts presumably weren’t based on the market prices at the time but on somewhat longer term forecasts that emerged from the discussions with the miners, as well as "new information" from ABARE and "industry sources."
Treasury has said it has assumed commodity prices will actually start to fall in the later stages of the forward estimates and continue declining in the medium term as the supply-side response to strong iron ore and coal prices starts to impact.
Companies like BHP and Rio are coy about the precise commodity price assumptions they use to plan their capital expenditure programs but have said on a number of occasions that they use the forward curve in the near term – 18 to 24 months – but then revert to long term trend pricing. From Treasury’s description of the impact of its revised forecasts it would appear it has taken a similar approach.
Provided the revised assumptions that enabled the government to ditch the RSPT and replace it with the narrower and less punitive MRRT aren’t wildly out of kilter with the forward curve and/or market consensus for the critical 2012-13 and 2013-14 budget years there would be nothing particularly sensitive about divulging the forecasts, particularly as Treasury has cited several sources for the revised assumptions – the assumptions being used by the individual big miners wouldn’t have to be revealed.
If they were wildly optimistic and completely out of line with market expectations, of course, the government would be severely embarrassed and its claims to fiscal responsibility would be in question.
The problem the government has is that neither the mining industry nor those that analyse it believe the tax will raise $10.5 billion in its first two years. Even the big miners are privately sanguine about its impact.
That means there is a credibility issue over-hanging a key element of the government’s promise to return to budget to surplus in 2012-13 – a key election promise.
Swan, who to his credit has consistently committed to sticking with the framework of the MRRT agreed with the big miners despite the kudos an increase in the tax rate and a broadening of the MRRT’s coverage might gain the government with the Greens and independents, could address that by releasing the broad assumptions that under-pin the MRRT revenue estimates. Unless, of course, he does have something to hide.
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Twiggy and the mining tax
I last posted on election day 21.08.10 And WOW! what a result it was!! Historical and almost hysterical.A hung parliament which is still in the throes of indecision.
I stood for the NSW senate as an independent opposing the anti-constitutional MRRT / PRRT with its secrecy provisions. That position made it very difficult in getting any media coverage, and I didn't do that well, BUT I did have a chance to make a difference with my press releases, comments, facebook and twitter. I can say proudly "I did my bit for change," Just as I had in the 1980-90's
I was also hindered by lack of funds for ads, etc (now with empty pockets). There was a cave-in by the mining groups, who pulled their ads and ran off scared after labor accused them of "being political". It was a time to be political! They thought their lobby friends would be able to "fix everthing", but they can't fix this one. What they probably didn't know is that they could've claimed their expenses as a 3rd party support under the electoral system.I should have mentioned that.
Anyway, Twiggy Forest (FMG:AX) has been trying again today to save the situation. He had a meeting with the independents. At this moment in history, it does not look good. If the liberals - the opponents of the mining tax, get two of the independents to cross over, they may still lose. Its all up to the Govenor General, (Bill Shortens mother in law AND APPOINTED BY LABOR) Labor has the first option to ask the GG and convince her that it can govern. Right now, I think that will be the outcome.
Here is part of the quick view news item below.
Independents meet with Andrew ForrestPublished 2:30 PM, 2 Sep 2010
Two independent MPs have met with Fortescue Ltd chief executive officer Andrew Forrest to discuss Labor's proposed mineral resource rent tax, according to The Australian.
Rob Oakeshott confirmed that he was considering backing the tax after he and Tony Windsor met with Mr Forrest, a vocal opponent of the MRRT, the paper reports.
But Mr Oakeshott also said it was "too early to call" any outcome on his support for concessions for smaller miners.
“I think there is a lot of sense for government to go back to that document and to then have a big public discussion about genuine tax reform in this country and release responses to recommendations," he said, according to The Australian.
“In that environment, if there is room to move from state-based royalties to resource rents taxes then I would be backer of that through a sensible process."
I stood for the NSW senate as an independent opposing the anti-constitutional MRRT / PRRT with its secrecy provisions. That position made it very difficult in getting any media coverage, and I didn't do that well, BUT I did have a chance to make a difference with my press releases, comments, facebook and twitter. I can say proudly "I did my bit for change," Just as I had in the 1980-90's
I was also hindered by lack of funds for ads, etc (now with empty pockets). There was a cave-in by the mining groups, who pulled their ads and ran off scared after labor accused them of "being political". It was a time to be political! They thought their lobby friends would be able to "fix everthing", but they can't fix this one. What they probably didn't know is that they could've claimed their expenses as a 3rd party support under the electoral system.I should have mentioned that.
Anyway, Twiggy Forest (FMG:AX) has been trying again today to save the situation. He had a meeting with the independents. At this moment in history, it does not look good. If the liberals - the opponents of the mining tax, get two of the independents to cross over, they may still lose. Its all up to the Govenor General, (Bill Shortens mother in law AND APPOINTED BY LABOR) Labor has the first option to ask the GG and convince her that it can govern. Right now, I think that will be the outcome.
Here is part of the quick view news item below.
Independents meet with Andrew ForrestPublished 2:30 PM, 2 Sep 2010
Two independent MPs have met with Fortescue Ltd chief executive officer Andrew Forrest to discuss Labor's proposed mineral resource rent tax, according to The Australian.
Rob Oakeshott confirmed that he was considering backing the tax after he and Tony Windsor met with Mr Forrest, a vocal opponent of the MRRT, the paper reports.
But Mr Oakeshott also said it was "too early to call" any outcome on his support for concessions for smaller miners.
“I think there is a lot of sense for government to go back to that document and to then have a big public discussion about genuine tax reform in this country and release responses to recommendations," he said, according to The Australian.
“In that environment, if there is room to move from state-based royalties to resource rents taxes then I would be backer of that through a sensible process."
Saturday, August 21, 2010
what a result - federal election 2010!
What a result!. right now a possible hung parliament, but maybe a coalition win of one seat with negotiated agreement of the 3 independents.
The Liberals have a "moral right" to govern, in that they had a higher primary vote than labor. Labor had a preference swap with the greens, and that 2nd preference has helped them to be nearly "over the line". In some places their vote dropped as low as 35% others 38%.
The greens now will have 9 in the senate after July , and 1 in the house of reps. 14%of the vote, and the preferences made them the kingmakers.
So what does this mean for the MRRT/PRRT?
Bob Brown is determined to bring on the MRRT. There will be no negotiation.
IF ONLY, the miners hadn't caved in, and had kept up their campaign. IF ONLY they had helped and fostered other candidates with email campaigns, and donations for advertising.(or their names on the ads) Much more could have been done.
Mine owners and miners thought the lobby groups would get the results, but they overlooked the fact that you MUST split the vote, with as many "voices" as possible.. you must get preferences or support from more than one group.
We can look forward to much more instability, and a futher damage to our good investment destination - our reputation.The sharemarket is likely to remain under the 4500 level for sometime.
The USA looks to be in more trouble and the 2nd wave recession is looming. so cut back on your costs, and unecessary spending.
I will keep up the lobby campaign to try to change the way the miners are taxed, (on nett not gross CGS ) but it doesnt look good.
If the liberals manage to make government, they might still be presured by the independents to charge the tax.
If labor wins it is a certainty. Either way the greens will demand it.
We might see another federal election in 18mths. so be ready.
The Liberals have a "moral right" to govern, in that they had a higher primary vote than labor. Labor had a preference swap with the greens, and that 2nd preference has helped them to be nearly "over the line". In some places their vote dropped as low as 35% others 38%.
The greens now will have 9 in the senate after July , and 1 in the house of reps. 14%of the vote, and the preferences made them the kingmakers.
So what does this mean for the MRRT/PRRT?
Bob Brown is determined to bring on the MRRT. There will be no negotiation.
IF ONLY, the miners hadn't caved in, and had kept up their campaign. IF ONLY they had helped and fostered other candidates with email campaigns, and donations for advertising.(or their names on the ads) Much more could have been done.
Mine owners and miners thought the lobby groups would get the results, but they overlooked the fact that you MUST split the vote, with as many "voices" as possible.. you must get preferences or support from more than one group.
We can look forward to much more instability, and a futher damage to our good investment destination - our reputation.The sharemarket is likely to remain under the 4500 level for sometime.
The USA looks to be in more trouble and the 2nd wave recession is looming. so cut back on your costs, and unecessary spending.
I will keep up the lobby campaign to try to change the way the miners are taxed, (on nett not gross CGS ) but it doesnt look good.
If the liberals manage to make government, they might still be presured by the independents to charge the tax.
If labor wins it is a certainty. Either way the greens will demand it.
We might see another federal election in 18mths. so be ready.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Greens Bob Brown talk at the Press club today
Bob Brown spoke today at the national press club, and emphasised his plan to tax the miners and use that money for education and other causes.
The chances that the greens will hold the balance of power in the senate after Saturday 21.8.10 is very high, and the MRRT/Prrt will be revitalised. He gave the undertaking that he will try to take it further than Julia Gillard, and certainly seems determined.
Meg critised the greens today in saying that: the greens are not sticking to their green platform.
" they haven't even stopped the over- use of electricity in city office blocks at night. All they had to do was to stop or reduce the amounts claimable on tax by 50%. Businesses have been able to claim electricity costs on their tax returns, and
that means that the taxpayer has been funding this shocking waste".
She added,
"1. The Greens have not stopped pamphlets in letterboxes,(they are delivering their own electoral material)
2. The Greens are still going to hand out at polling booths despite knowing that the electoral office
attaches a booklet in the polling booth with all the preferences directed by all parties and groups
3. They have had 3 years to negotiate with labor for a better outcome for climate change and didn't do it.
4. The greens have accepted large donations from unions,(I thought he said 3 million?) despite Bob Brown's pontification that all donations should not be allowed. The federal election is already funded by $2.30 for every vote over the minimum 4% and the greens and the other big parties, will be given that money, as well as having been given donations.
Surely they should have to repay to the government,the donation amount. But I cant see that ever getting past the senate.. they all have their own self interest to protect, rather than the interest of the voters.
5. If the greens do win the balance of power in the senate, it is likely that there will be a double dissolution within 18 months.
The chances that the greens will hold the balance of power in the senate after Saturday 21.8.10 is very high, and the MRRT/Prrt will be revitalised. He gave the undertaking that he will try to take it further than Julia Gillard, and certainly seems determined.
Meg critised the greens today in saying that: the greens are not sticking to their green platform.
" they haven't even stopped the over- use of electricity in city office blocks at night. All they had to do was to stop or reduce the amounts claimable on tax by 50%. Businesses have been able to claim electricity costs on their tax returns, and
that means that the taxpayer has been funding this shocking waste".
She added,
"1. The Greens have not stopped pamphlets in letterboxes,(they are delivering their own electoral material)
2. The Greens are still going to hand out at polling booths despite knowing that the electoral office
attaches a booklet in the polling booth with all the preferences directed by all parties and groups
3. They have had 3 years to negotiate with labor for a better outcome for climate change and didn't do it.
4. The greens have accepted large donations from unions,(I thought he said 3 million?) despite Bob Brown's pontification that all donations should not be allowed. The federal election is already funded by $2.30 for every vote over the minimum 4% and the greens and the other big parties, will be given that money, as well as having been given donations.
Surely they should have to repay to the government,the donation amount. But I cant see that ever getting past the senate.. they all have their own self interest to protect, rather than the interest of the voters.
5. If the greens do win the balance of power in the senate, it is likely that there will be a double dissolution within 18 months.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Is mark Latham guilty of sedition?
see http://megansampson.blogspot.com re supporting Mark Latham and his call "not to vote"
re Sedition laws: Not old or outdated..
Australian sedition law is the area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.Effectively defunct for nearly half a century, these laws returned to public notice in 2005 when changes were included in an Anti-terrorism Bill announced by Prime Minister Howard prior to a "counter-terrorism summit" of the Council of Australian Governments on September 27.
The Bill was introduced on November 3 and passed into law on December 6, 2005 after government amendments adding some protection for the reporting of news and matters of public interest were introduced in response to community pressure. The changed laws are to be reviewed in 2006.
Early prosecutions for sedition in Australia include:
the conviction of Henry Seekamp for seditious libel over the Eureka Rebellion in 1854; (how amazing that Julia Gillard is standing in the seat of Lalor Victoria- named after Peter Lalor the Eukeka Hero!)
the conviction of 13 trade union leaders of the 1891 Australian shearers' strike for sedition and conspiracy; and
the action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike.
During the First World War Sedition laws were used against those who opposed conscription and war, in particular the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia [1]. In 1916 members of the IWW in Perth were charged with sedition including 83 year old Montague Miller, known as the grand old man of the labour movement. Miller was released after serving a few weeks of his sentence but was re-arrested in 1917 in Sydney at the age of 84 and sentenced to six months jail with hard labour at Long Bay Gaol on the charge of belonging to an unlawful association [2].
The Sydney Twelve were all charged and convicted with various offences including sedition.
ref wikpedia.
re Sedition laws: Not old or outdated..
Australian sedition law is the area of the criminal law of Australia relating to the crime of sedition.Effectively defunct for nearly half a century, these laws returned to public notice in 2005 when changes were included in an Anti-terrorism Bill announced by Prime Minister Howard prior to a "counter-terrorism summit" of the Council of Australian Governments on September 27.
The Bill was introduced on November 3 and passed into law on December 6, 2005 after government amendments adding some protection for the reporting of news and matters of public interest were introduced in response to community pressure. The changed laws are to be reviewed in 2006.
Early prosecutions for sedition in Australia include:
the conviction of Henry Seekamp for seditious libel over the Eureka Rebellion in 1854; (how amazing that Julia Gillard is standing in the seat of Lalor Victoria- named after Peter Lalor the Eukeka Hero!)
the conviction of 13 trade union leaders of the 1891 Australian shearers' strike for sedition and conspiracy; and
the action against radical Harry Holland, jailed for two years in 1909 over his advocacy of violent revolution during the Broken Hill miners' strike.
During the First World War Sedition laws were used against those who opposed conscription and war, in particular the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) in Australia [1]. In 1916 members of the IWW in Perth were charged with sedition including 83 year old Montague Miller, known as the grand old man of the labour movement. Miller was released after serving a few weeks of his sentence but was re-arrested in 1917 in Sydney at the age of 84 and sentenced to six months jail with hard labour at Long Bay Gaol on the charge of belonging to an unlawful association [2].
The Sydney Twelve were all charged and convicted with various offences including sedition.
ref wikpedia.
Monday, August 9, 2010
here's the link re the campaign junket
Here's the link to the campaign junket.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974190.htm?site=thedrum
And you can go to my blog http://megansamspon.blogspot.com
My campaign is not going forward.. as well as it should.
I'm not sure whether to agree to be a victim of the gruen nation or not..
I'll put up a pic of me in a tablecloth opposing the GG's 28,000 a year clothing allowance. Not sure if that will work.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/05/2974190.htm?site=thedrum
And you can go to my blog http://megansamspon.blogspot.com
My campaign is not going forward.. as well as it should.
I'm not sure whether to agree to be a victim of the gruen nation or not..
I'll put up a pic of me in a tablecloth opposing the GG's 28,000 a year clothing allowance. Not sure if that will work.
The "status" of the election
I hate to say it, but it's enough to make one physically ill. The constant critising by labor and the continued nastiness. Even to calling Abbott a rabbit. So petty, so unproductive.I think we have to take the view that everyone who is brave enough to stand deserves some respect. But of course, the journalists are carted along on the free gravy train, ferried about like an exclusive entourage. All at the campaigners cost.(with launches at taxpayer expense!) Annabel Crab gives a good description of what happens.
While this two party preferred system continues to be promoted, no one else can even get a press release printed. The neilesen poll came out a few days ago and you can go to Anthony greens blog or to the abc.net.au/elections page, for a clearer picture.
The mining tax has become lost. dead , buried and cremated?
It seems to have been agreed by the big miners and that's that.. until it comes before the senate.. and a greens held senate will support labor!
right now, I would have to say that labor will win with the greens preferences. Even german TV is pronouncing that..
The sad thing is this: so many voters are saying they cant be bothered voting. they will just get their name crossed off. What a waste!
While this two party preferred system continues to be promoted, no one else can even get a press release printed. The neilesen poll came out a few days ago and you can go to Anthony greens blog or to the abc.net.au/elections page, for a clearer picture.
The mining tax has become lost. dead , buried and cremated?
It seems to have been agreed by the big miners and that's that.. until it comes before the senate.. and a greens held senate will support labor!
right now, I would have to say that labor will win with the greens preferences. Even german TV is pronouncing that..
The sad thing is this: so many voters are saying they cant be bothered voting. they will just get their name crossed off. What a waste!
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Labors' Pattern Bargaining & I'm standing for the senate NSW
Miners are threatening to place ads during the election campaign.
well. so they should.
why? BECAUSE the Rudd/Gillard labor government engaged in PATTERN BARGAINING. essentially divide and conquer.
that's what the teamsters union do in the USA, and what our unions could do in AUSTRALIA. It's also what work choices was trying to stop.
LABOR picked an industry that they thought they could force to pay more money and one that they hoped that the voters would condone on moral grounds. THEN THEY picked only a few companies to force to an agreement. Then they would use that agreement to force others.
I oppose the mining tax because (1) it is against the constitution (you cannot create tax laws which might not treat the states fairly- in this case WA and QLD were being offered extra incentives.) and ( 2) because of this deceptive way of getting agreement instead of our representatives debating and creating a law about it..which could then be challenged in the supreme court.
(3) by abolishing the royalty system, labor is taking money from the states, and gaining more federally.
(4) Labor will target more industry sectors and bring them to heel one by one. It shouldn't be allowed.
(5) I also oppose the secrecy clauses in the PRRT (and in 176 other pieces of legislation.)
read these articles, and vote for me - Megan Sampson in the NSW senate.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/newmont-mining-and-barrick-gold-threaten-newcrests-lihir-bid/story-e6frg9df-1225876664954
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/clive-palmer-angry-over-mining-super-proft-taxation-advertisements/story-e6freon6-1225873061291
well. so they should.
why? BECAUSE the Rudd/Gillard labor government engaged in PATTERN BARGAINING. essentially divide and conquer.
that's what the teamsters union do in the USA, and what our unions could do in AUSTRALIA. It's also what work choices was trying to stop.
LABOR picked an industry that they thought they could force to pay more money and one that they hoped that the voters would condone on moral grounds. THEN THEY picked only a few companies to force to an agreement. Then they would use that agreement to force others.
I oppose the mining tax because (1) it is against the constitution (you cannot create tax laws which might not treat the states fairly- in this case WA and QLD were being offered extra incentives.) and ( 2) because of this deceptive way of getting agreement instead of our representatives debating and creating a law about it..which could then be challenged in the supreme court.
(3) by abolishing the royalty system, labor is taking money from the states, and gaining more federally.
(4) Labor will target more industry sectors and bring them to heel one by one. It shouldn't be allowed.
(5) I also oppose the secrecy clauses in the PRRT (and in 176 other pieces of legislation.)
read these articles, and vote for me - Megan Sampson in the NSW senate.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/mining-energy/newmont-mining-and-barrick-gold-threaten-newcrests-lihir-bid/story-e6frg9df-1225876664954
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/clive-palmer-angry-over-mining-super-proft-taxation-advertisements/story-e6freon6-1225873061291
Friday, July 16, 2010
Fed. Election announced 21st August 2010
So the election is announced for 21st August 2010., with the issue of writs on Monday(?)This will effectively cut off all new voters, and also the election will be fought on the old federal bondaries.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES?
WELL JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM ILLEGAL BOAT PEOPLE (PEACEFUL INVASION?) to employment, climate change, global financial crisis, schools funding and of course 50% tax deduction for school uniforms. etc etc.
Not much about the miners tax (MRRT) to the PRRT, yet anyway.
did you know that the PRRT has secrecy provisions as does 176 pieces of legislation.
Not just fines of $10,000 and or 2 years jail if you relay information but also saying you can't show a can't any documents from the company in question.
Might be great for AWB Directors but horrifying when you think that OUR government applies a law to prevent justice.
WHAT ARE THE MAIN ISSUES?
WELL JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING FROM ILLEGAL BOAT PEOPLE (PEACEFUL INVASION?) to employment, climate change, global financial crisis, schools funding and of course 50% tax deduction for school uniforms. etc etc.
Not much about the miners tax (MRRT) to the PRRT, yet anyway.
did you know that the PRRT has secrecy provisions as does 176 pieces of legislation.
Not just fines of $10,000 and or 2 years jail if you relay information but also saying you can't show a can't any documents from the company in question.
Might be great for AWB Directors but horrifying when you think that OUR government applies a law to prevent justice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
