A Bit on the Side

There are two main arguments as to why politicians should not have outside sources of income.

The first is corruption - certainly a touchy topic in NSW politics at the moment. If a politicians stands to benefit financially by a decision he or she is making, then there is, at the very least, an apprehension of bias.

In a time where cynicism of politicians is probably as great as it has ever been, this should not be tolerated. This is notwithstanding the fact that political parties almost uniformly vote as a bloc, meaning that anyone who stood to gain personally would have to get their entire party on board.

Many politicians start in politics with significant wealth from their pre-politics careers, and nothing is wrong with that in and of itself. And I don't think that anyone is suggesting that politicians should have to take a vow of poverty before they are allowed to sit in parliament.

But their investment portfolios should be placed into blind trusts, to ensure that there cannot be even the suggestion that their decisions are being influenced by the prospect of personal gain. We can't take away their money, but we can ensure that their votes and/or the decisions they make are in no way coloured by the potential of financial gain.

This is something that, I suspect, few could complain about.

There is, however, a more complicated argument against outside income. And it's one that we've already had to deal with in NSW.

This argument relates the politicians who are effectively "part-time" - they have outside sources of income that are not returns on capital but rather returns on labour.

Clover Moore was an obvious example. She was both the Lord Mayor of Sydney and the Local Member for the State electorate of Sydney. In 2012 there were changes made meaning that she was no longer permitted to serve as both a Mayor and a state member, and she (and a large number of other member who were still serving on local councils) had to give it up.

I wrote about the changes here

In fairness to Clover, she donated her mayoral salary to the Lord Mayor Salary Trust, so there could not be any suggestion that she had both jobs for financial gain.

That change in law was, the government claimed, about ensuring that members did not land themselves in a conflict of interest, where their duties as a councillor conflicted with their duties as a local member or member of the Legislative Council.

That's good and well, but my view at the time (and still today) is that if the voters don't care (and clearly they didn't) it was unnecessary to make it law. There was of course also the fact that the change was a fairly transparent attack on Clover.

It's also a more sensitive topic that someone who has quite literally kept their old job after being elected, like Adam Searle:

From the State Chambers website

From the NSW Parliament website

Personally I think it ridiculous that the parties think that it is appropriate for a member to have a significant job outside their parliamentary duties. Regardless of whether the voters don't care, the parties should require a higher standard from those they put forward for election.

It's also more than a little concerning that the Shadow Minster for Industrial Affairs thinks it is appropriate that he keeps accepting briefs when he is a barrister working in Industrial Law.

This is why Robertson is going about this the right way:

From the SMH

I'm not so sure it's fair to change the rules on Searle now - he should never have been allowed to keep practicing and be a MLC in the first place. But of course that's not the point.

People who are elected to the MLC should not have significant paid employment on the side. That shouldn't be law - the parties should have standards about who they put forward for election. Robertson should be forcing people to chose between their old life and their new one, because anything else suggests that being a MLA or MLC is an easy gig you can do on the side.

There is no doubt, however, those who benefit from the present arrangements are going to make this very difficult for him. And, if Robertson pursues this, his sway with the Labor caucus is going to be sorely tested.

A Bill for Change

Maybe that cheque isn't quite as blank as Labor would have you believe.

In the lead-up to the election last year, Labor conceded defeat and started campaigning with the line "Don't give Barry O'Farrell a Blank Cheque".

The theory was, I expect, that people would be scared about what the Coalition would get up to if they won too convincingly.

As things eventuated (and as most people expected) the Coalition did of course win the election, and convincingly so - but did not win enough Upper House seats to have an outright majority there.

This of course means that to get legislation through the Upper House they need to bring either Labor or a minor party with them.

The presence of the Shooters and Fishers means that the task is a little easier than perhaps some might like - but nonetheless something is better than nothing.

We saw the Coalition having to give something away earlier this year when it came to getting their Power Sale Legislation through the Upper House. Of course what they had to give was a massively unpopular opportunity for hunting in our National Parks - but, as I said at the time, it was democracy at work.

Earlier this week, however, we saw a far more edifying example of this process.

Last year the Coalition introduced a real dog of a bill on graffiti.

I wrote at the time about why it was such an awful bill, at least in part. In short, there were there main changes to be made in the way that offenders could be dealt with.

The first was to require a court sentencing a person to community service for a graffiti offence to spend time cleaning up graffiti. This is sensible.

The second was to give the court various powers in relation a person's driver's licence if that person is convicted of a graffiti offence.

The powers included:

• Extending the time the person could spend on their L's or P's by up to 6 months
• Suspending a person's licence for up to 6 months, or
• Reducing the threshold number of points before a person can have their licence suspended

I wrote about why it was a dumb idea at the time.

The third change was to remove the power to issue a caution to young offenders. Again, why it was that this change was necessary, and why the additional burden this would place up the court was justified was never properly explained.

In any event, the bill (as expected) sailed through the Lower House. An amendment was moved by Paul Lynch (ALP) to allow police to issue a caution for a first offence, but this was easily defeated. The bill was promptly passed and sent to the Upper House in August 2011.

Here, the Coalition ran into some more trouble. First, Labor moved a amendment. It was explained Adam Searle (ALP):

The changes he suggested were as follows:

• To allow police the power to give a warning for a child where the offence was a first offence, and
• To remove the power over drivers licences.

These amendments were made with only the Coalition opposed, and the bill was passed (with the Greens opposing the bill in its entirety) and returned to the Lower House.

The very next day, the Lower House rejected the amendments. When the bill bounced back to the Upper House in mid-September, the Upper House took the unprecedented step of asking for a "Free Conference" - essentially a working group of 10 Upper House and 10 Lower House members to try and reach a mutually acceptable solution.

The motion for a Free Conference was passed by the Upper House with the Coalition and the Christian Democrats Opposing it.

There matters ground to a halt. O'Farrell pontificated about how the Coalition had made this promise but couldn't get the bill passed, and it appeared that that was were things would lie.

Then, earlier this week, completely out of the blue, the Lower House rejected the request for a Free Conference and sent the bill back to the Upper House.

When it arrived, the leader of the Shooter and Fishers moved an amendement. As best I am able to understand it, the amendment removed the power to extend the period of time a young person must spend on L's or P's, removed the power to suspend a licence, but retained the power to reduce the number of points a person must accumulate before their licence as suspended.

As David Shoebridge said when speaking on the amendment, it improves the act (he said "marginally", but I suppose that is a matter of perspective).

The bill as amended was passed and returned again to the Lower House, where it will no doubt promptly pass.

The deal was reported in the Daily Terror as below:

I stand by my opinion that the bill remains a pretty awful one. It is a vague attempt to do "something" without any evidence whatsoever that the "something" will achieve anything. It is another example of politicians engaging in back-of-an-envelope lawmaking.

But it is good to see a bill being improved (however marginally) through the convoluted and drawn out parliamentary process.

It is also interesting to see the Shooters using their position in the Upper House to do this - so many have written about how the Shooters are merely O'Farrell's lapdogs, but here they have forced him to abandon what was seen a key promise made to take action of graffiti.

It remains to be seen if this is the trend or the exception.

*(I'm a little unsure about some of the procedural details above as, in places, I had some not inconsiderable trouble understanding the Hansard transcript. If I've misunderstood something, please let me know in the comments or on twitter)*

An Eggcellent Bill

Today I want to write about eggs.

That's not some sort of metaphor about the hatching of a new policy, or the neat encapsulating of an idea - I mean those things that come out chickens that are just so yummy.

Eggs

The reason you're hearing about eggs on a politics blog is this story:s

Original story on SMH

As the person in our house who does the shopping, I think the number of egg options is pretty bewildering.  There are cage eggs, free range eggs, barn eggs and then of course there are the eggs with the smiley face stamped on them.

I always buy the smiley face ones because the missus likes free range eggs, and because I like to talk to eggs when I crack them and say things like "This oughta wipe the smile off your face!"

Getting back on point, there is little understanding amongst the public as to what exactly the different descriptions mean.

I don't intend to get stuck into the precise legal framework for this area - there are national standards, state standards, cross-border issues, and heaven knows what else.

It was interesting, however, to come across this PDF that purports to define the present labelling rules:

Full size version here

Suffice to say, the Greens introduced a bill to standardise the labelling for Free Range.  The full text can be seen here.

The overview explains things quite nicely, and the requirements are very detailed. On that, one that is worth picking out is the following:

Have a look at a square metre next chance you get, and imagine 10 chickens per square metre.  It's not exactly spacious, but there you go.

The debate ran over two days in the Legislative Council, and luckily for us the speakers (and interjectors) took the chance to have a bit of fun:

There was some disagreement as the bill progressed through.  Labor amended the bill and, as I mentioned earlier, the government initially opposed the bill.

Interestingly, the Shooters and Fishers agreed to support the Green's bill, despite the Government's opposition.  As much was noted by their leader Robert Brown:

In those circumstances, the Government would in fact have lost the vote had they maintained their opposition, so it is likely that their vote in support was merely a tactical retreat, or, as I like to call these things, an advance in a different direction.

The fact that the Shooters supported the Greens bill is not the only surprising part. A minor party lead the charge on a bill and got it passed, which is no small triumph. Not just any bill as well, but a bill that will no doubt piss off a lot of people.

Additionally, there is something to be said for the way this brands the Greens in NSW.

Federally, the Greens are perceived (at least in some quarters) as being the party really running the country.  Moreover, the Greens campaign for action on Climate Change is probably the only reason that Labor has stuck with the Carbon Tax.

At the State level their brand is not as well defined.  People seem to know what the Greens stand for generally, but aren't necessarily as clear on what that means in practice. This bill seem to be right in their wheelhouse - it will appear to the younger, environmentally conscious voters and annoy many rural voters who will see it as hurting an already struggling industry.

Wins are often hard to come by for a minor party, and no doubt the Greens are feeling pretty good about themselves this weekend.

A Shoe in the Door

David Shoebridge MLC, I stand and salute you.


The Premier may have accused your party of "abusing parliamentary process" but he is just complaining to the media because he doesn't want to force you to stop. 


First up, a confession.  I really have very little interest in industrial relations as a political discussion.


I don't for a second suggest that it is not an incredibly important area of governance, or that the consequences of the decisions made are not far reaching or crucial.


It just doesn't get me excited.  So, for future reference, don't expect to see me writing much about it.


That said, things got very interesting last night.


For those of you not aware, the Coalition is attempting to pass legislation that will, in short, remove much of the Industrial Relations Commission's power.

At present, under section 146B of the Industrial Relations Act 1996:


"A person may apply to the Commission to have a dispute resolution process conducted by the Commission... if the parties are bound by a federal enterprise agreement."


As I understand, a large proportion of the state government's employees are so eligible.


This bill would insert a new section, which reads as follows:

In simple terms, that would give the state government unprecedented control over the pay and conditions of public sector employees.


The Coalition is making this change because of the burgeoning cost of running this state.  The government's wage bill is unsustainable, and something needs to be done.


That said, Labor and the Greens are unsurprisingly horrified by such a drastic grab for power over pay and conditions.


It was always going to be an emotional debate, but I don't think anyone foresaw this.


I've had the chance to review the Hansard of yesterday's proceedings in the Legislative Council, and suffice to say it is thoroughly worth a read if you have the opportunity.


Thursday started uneventfully enough.  There was a 2 hour debate over whether government business (debate on IR) should take precedence over the general business, which it inevitably did.


Another 2 hours was spent deciding if the IR laws should be the general business discussed.


I suppose time must fly when you're having fun.


Sophia Cotsis (ALP) was the first to speak, kicking off at 2:00.  She spoke passionately about the people who she suggested would be affected by the bill, until she was interrupted by Question Time at 2:30.  


After Question Time and Walt Secord's inaugural speech, debate on the IR laws resumed at 4:07.


Cotsis was interrupted by a constant stream of points of order, mostly pertaining to repetition and relevance, no doubt in an attempt by the Coalition to force her to sit down and shut up.  It wasn't until 6:15 that she resumed her seat.


David Shoebridge (GRN) then rose to speak.

Photo from The Australian

He began by speaking about the plight of the "front line workers" and others who will be affected by the legislation. He then turned to discuss the operation of the act and the doing away of the "independent arbiter".


Unlike Sophie Cotsis, he was for the most part allowed to speak without interjection or points of order, at least at first.


He then moved on to discuss the the consequences of the legislation, and specifically the ability of the unions to work with the government to reach industrial solutions.


It was only once the interjections commenced that his true purpose was revealed (if it was not obvious before):

He then moved on to criticise the government for the manner in which the IR laws have been dealt and the unwillingness of the Coalition to put the matter over for public "debate".


The Herald article published today suggested that the Greens and Labor believe that the other cross-benchers (Christian Democrats and the Shooters and Fishers) would have their resolve to support the changes weakened once the new laws received further exposure.


By 9:25, things had started to get ugly:

Undeterred, Shoebridge swivelled back to start quoting from letters he has received from concerned members of the public.  He spoke passionately about the concerns they have expressed to him and their dismay at the changes suggested.


Finally, at 12:15, some 6 hours after he began, Shoebridge resumed his seat.


The President noted the following:

After a few brief speeches in support of the bill, Greg Donelly (ALP) rose to speak.  At 3:19, the long bell was rung, meaning that debate was temporarily suspended, and "Thursday's debate" could resume at 9am on Friday.


Debate continued today.  The Hansard has not been released yet (they're good, but they're not THAT good) but thanks to @tobiasziegler, I know that Peter Primrose (ALP) spoke for two and a half hours, Lynda Voltz spoke for something similar, and John Kaye spoke for marginally less than the 6 hours David Shoebridge managed last night.


As best I can tell from @greencate's tweets, the long bell was rung sometime around about 11pm.  No doubt the debate will continue tomorrow,


To everyone who thinks it is disgusting that the Greens and the ALP are able to get away with this, the fact is, the Coalition is allowing them to do it.  I'm no expert on Legislative Council procedure, but as I understand it, by a simple majority the Coalition could vote to the have the debate truncated.


So why haven't they?  We all recall how O'Farrell frothed at the mouth with fury when Keneally prorogued parliament so long before the last election to try and prevent an inquiry being held into the fire sale.


The Coalition is understandably wary of ending the debate and then having their own words on the issue thrown back at them, and having the fact that the debate on this law was truncated hurled back at them every day until the next election.


But are the Green's tactics, as O'Farrell described them, an abuse of parliamentary process?


I would say no.


As I said at the start, I have no strong views about the IR changes.  But I celebrate the determination of the Greens to fight the changes until the bitter end.


There is a kind of beauty about the process.  Speakers forced to stand and orate, without falling foul of the rules surrounding relevance and repetition, in a desperate attempt to stave off laws that they feel so strongly about.


It is so different from the usual disgusting behaviour we see from our politicians - crude insults and juvenile joking.  These are politicians that believe something.  You might not agree (I certainly have my reservations) but you have to admire their courage and their determination.


Will it make a difference?  Probably not.  The Shooters and Fishers and the Christian Democrats know which side their bread is buttered - they receive generous dispensations from the O'Farrell government in return for their support, and this bill is right up the conservative alley.  They would not have required much encouraging to vote for it.


What the filibuster does is make sure that the government pays the highest possible price.  The Greens come off as the party that sticks to their guns and fight for what they believe (which, to their credit, they usually do), and these IR changes get the exposure that the Greens desperately want them to get.


It is democracy.  Perhaps not as it was intended, but certainly a noble, invigorating version thereof.


And David Shoebridge has broken a record that must have seemed insurmountable at the time it was set.


You may not agree with his position, but I think we can all admire his determination to have everyone know what it is.

Obeid Obye

Today Eddie Obeid's retirement from the Legislative Council was finally confirmed.


To be perfectly frank about it, he has been hanging round like a bad smell for some time now.

I think he can smell it too.  From SMH

In the year leading up to the 2011 election Kristina Keneally begged the "old guard" to retire and let some "flesh blood" into NSW Labor's ranks.  We saw, as a result, a mass exodus of Labor members of the Legislative Assembly and Council in what would have otherwise been described as rats deserting a sinking ship.


Obeid quite neatly summed up everything that was wrong with NSW Labor, and I have little doubt that Robertson is breathing a sigh of relief that he is to leave.


His record includes the following:


- In 2002 he was investigated and later cleared of corruption in relation to the Oasis redevelopment 
- He repeatedly failed to disclose business interests on Parliament's pecuniary interests register
- In 2004 he was censured due to his undue influence in the elections of Matrite Council
- In 2009 he made representations to NSW Minister for Roads, Michael Daley, on behalf of Mid-Western Regional Council without disclosing his business interest in the area
- In 2009 he was alleged to have links to Ron Medich and the murder of Michael McGurk


Most importantly, when Nathan Rees was dumped and replaced by Kristina Keneally, Rees famously announced that the new premier would be "a puppet of Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid."


Perhaps nothing better characterised the shambolic of Labor's governing by that stage.  In my view, it all but guaranteed Labor's loss at the next election (insofar as it was not already a sure thing).


As a final note, Obeid was the leader of the "Terrigals", a disproportionately powerful ALP subfaction. 


Of course Obeid's departure is only part of the story.  He will now have to be replaced.


As Obeid is a member of the Legislative Council, his replacement can be directly nominated by the ALP without the fuss of a by-election.


As well as Obeid, John Hatzistergos (former Attorney General) announced not long after the election that he would be retiring.


In one sense, it is surprising that so few are quitting.  Labor have been in power for a long time, and once a long reign ends there is normally a purge of the ranks as former ministers contemplate 4 years on the backbench in opposition.


That said, Keneally's plea for renewal in the year leading up to the election may have adequately depleted of the ranks of those who weren't in it for the long haul.


The word around the traps is that Obeid is to be replaced by Walter Secord, former chief of staff to Keneally, and Hatzistergos is to be replaced by former Blue Mountains Mayor Adam Searle


Unsurprisingly, some have let their displeasure be known about Sussex Street appointing the replacements, even calling for a rank and file ballot of members.


Others have suggested that those that missed out on election to the Legislative Council in 2011 (Andrew Ferguson and Natalie Bradbury) should be the replacements.  


That does make sense to some extent, but in fairness it's not as if Obeid and Hatzistergos ran intending to retire if Labor lost - both were not up for reelection round as they were continuing members elected in 2007.


It would certainly be unfortunate for Labor if the issue of Obeid and Hatzistergos' successors became the circus that Labor avoided by electing John Robertson unopposed on 31 March.


At least insofar as it avoids a drama, a quick and quiet appointment of suitable candidates would make sense.


Having said that, backroom deals are one of the prime causes of Labor's present seat-count - people tired of seeing power-brokers (like Obeid) calling the shots and disenfranchising "rank and file" members.


The point was neatly summed up on twitter by @rickeyre who tweeted today: "If Secord gets parachuted into the NSW upper house ahead of candidates who stood for election, it shows the ALP has learnt nothing."


The problem is that Labor cannot resort to a rank and file vote every time something contentious comes up - their is a time to cnsult everyone and a time to just get things done and LEAD.


This may well be one of those times.