None so Blind...

There are none so blind as those that will not see.


Pauline Hanson's legal challenge for a seat on the Legislative Council crashed and burned in dramatic fashion in the NSW Supreme Court late yesterday afternoon.


Her star witness was revealed to be a not only a liar, but a vicious prankster who deceived everyone for reasons that we may never know.

Sean Castle.  Photo from SMH

Hanson withdrew her case after Sean Castle revealed that he had sent the email purporting to be from "Michael Rattner". He further revealed that he did not know anyone who worked at the Electoral Commission and that the emails suggesting that the count was incorrect were utter fabrications.


One issue I wanted to discuss first - contrary to just about every article I have read and the chat on twitter yesterday (with the exception of an excellent analysis by Matthew Knott over at Crikey), I don't think that Castle received immunity from prosecution in return for his evidence.


No one in that courtroom had the power to grant that immunity.


Rather, the "immunity" spoken about related to protection from his evidence being used against him at a later date, as per section 128 of the Evidence Act.


There is a general protection before Australian courts against giving evidence where that evidence might be used against you at a later date.


On that basis, if there is a possibility of the answer you give to a question being used against you at a later date, you can refuse to answer a question.


It's similar to the way that, if you are accused of a crime, you have no obligation to give evidence, and the crown cannot force you to get on the stand.


Judging from the live tweeting that @tobiasziegler was kind enough to provide, we can see that Castle first refused to answer questions:

and then was granted a "certificate" meaning that the evidence could not be used against him at a later date.

He can still be prosecuted for a offence in relation to the emails - it just means that his evidence before the court yesterday cannot be used against him.


The hard part, having said that, is to find an appropriate offence. It seems unlikely that he has committed fraud, as there was no obvious "benefit" received by him or anyone else.


He hasn't committed perjury - in fact, when finally under oath, he appears to have told the truth for the first time.


I haven't looked into it closely enough, but he may have committed some sort of forgery type offence. 


I don't propose to recreate the wheel by listing all the reasons that Hanson perhaps should have cottoned onto what was going on before everything collapsed so spectacularly - Matthew Knott lists 5 very good reasons in his article.


I do, however, want to pick up on the one oddity that was plainly obvious without the benefit of hindsight.


The email that we now know to be fake says "I have heard through the chain that there could be as many as 1200 that are in with the blanks."


This is information that Hanson had from day one - as you can see from the email, it was part of the original document that Rattner/Castle sent to Hanson.

Part of the email sent to Hanson's team.  From Crikey

There are a multitude of reasons why the issue should have died right then and there.


Firstly, the person who (according to the document) wrote the email said that he has heard it "through the chain" which to me means "unsubstantiated gossip".


Moreover, that number of votes would have required some sort of conspiracy - it is difficult to imagine how anything less than a team of saboteurs could have achieved something of that scale.


Who are they?  What are they trying to achieve? How could they manage such a deception?  


How did Rattner/Castle get hold of this email? Surely the people having this discussion would have been sensitive to the consequences if it was to be leaked?


Then there was the fact that neither Hanson or anyone in her legal team had ever actually met with this whistleblower.  Surely the fact that he refused to sit down with them and swear and affidavit should have been a clue that things were not as they seemed.


But the biggest issue, the one that should have stopped her before she launched any legal action, is this - she lost by more than 1200 votes.


The email suggests that "as many as 1200 votes" went missing.  As I wrote about here, on the last count Pauline was 1306 behind Sarah Johnson and was eliminated.

Even if the email was true, even if the unsubstantiated allegation was true, even if Rattner was a real person, she was still over 100 votes off the pace.


I have no idea what advice her lawyers did or didn't give her - I don't know them personally.  But surely we have to assume they explained to her very clearly that she was on shaky ground and that there didn't appear to be a huge amount to work with.


I wrote about the unanswered questions when the perceived irregularity first came to light, and asked a bunch of questions, most of which Hanson's team were clearly not able to answer until yesterday.


But, as I think we can all attest to, sometimes there is just no telling some people.


Clearly Hanson was distraught about her loss, which I think we can all identify with on some level. However, there does also have to be a time when we accept that things are the way they are and move on gracefully.


The very first day the email came it, her team should have gotten Castle/Rattner to front up with evidence, or simply ignored him.  It was Hanson and her team that fuelled this story, and it is Hanson who is left looking like a fool.


She launched a massive legal action, knowing that if it all blew up she would leave herself horribly exposed, on the basis of an email sent to her by someone she had never met.


Sometimes, however, common sense has no chance against the genuine belief that you have been cheated.  Her lawyers may very well have told her that the case was doomed from the very start.


Heck, they may have pleaded with her not to proceed because they were able to see this coming.


They no doubt warned her about the potential for a 6 figure costs order against her from the defendants.


But, sometimes, there are none so blind as those that will not see.  And they may just have been her undoing.

A Minor Influence?

As many of you will be aware, the Christian Democratic Party and the Shooters and Fishers Party hold the balance of power in the NSW Upper House.


The Upper house has 42 seats.  At present (assuming that Pauline Hanson's challenge does eventually fail) the make-up of the Upper House will be as follows:


Coalition: 19
Labor: 14
Greens: 5
CDP: 2
S&F: 2


Put simply, the Coalition needs the support of either Labor, the left minority (the Greens) or the right minority (CDP and S&F) to pass legislation through.


It doesn't take a Masters in Politics to foresee the Coalition getting support mostly from the right minority.  This was reflected in the Coalition getting their IR reforms through the Upper house thanks to support from the CDP and S&F (once a few cosmetic changes were sought and granted).


In those circumstances, I thought it a good idea to have a look at the websites of these two parties. Not only is it instructive in considering where the Coalition is likely to find support from those parties, but is also interesting to consider what promises may being made in return for the support.


Christian Democrats

Fred Nile. Photo from SMH.

The CDP's policies can be seen on their website here.


Family Issues: No surprises here.  No gay marriage, no adoptions for gay couples.  


Health: Decentralised control and more funding for nurses to reduce the ratios.  The first is no surprise (being from the right, practically compulsory) but the second is a little out of the blue (and, given the broad motherhood statements contained in most of their policies, perhaps a little more detail focussed than you might have expected).


Education: This section is pretty straightforward.  School vouchers (right wing gospel, especially in the US), a limit on teaching about other cultures (protect "Australian values") and retain religious education (they are a Christian party, after all).


As well as that, they appeal to the voters harking for a "simpler time" - they call for a focus on the 3 "R's" and Australian history, perhaps sensing that people are looking for a party who will bring back the "good ol' days" and who think that this is the way to do it.


Law and Order: Textbook conservative stuff: closing hotels earlier, close the injecting room, and increase police presence whilst facing out "enforcement cameras" - it is not clear whether they mean speed cameras, CCTV cameras, or both.


Pro-life: No euthanasia, no abortions.


Social Justice, Economy and Environment: I won't try and paraphrase this section:

The 2010-2011 budget projected revenue of $57.7 billion.  Of that revenue, payroll tax was $6.2 billion and land tax was $2.4 billion.  I don't know what percent of the $5.5 billion stamp duty total the policy would knock out, but it must be a significant proportion.  That's more or less 20% of the NSW government income the CDP want to knock out.


When taken in conjunction with an increase in social services and an improvement in public transport - well, it's difficult to see how they propose to balance the books.


Islamisation of Australia:

It is interesting to motorcycle helmets lumped in this section.  Either there are a disproportionate number of Muslims riding motor cycles, or otherwise the complaint about face coverings has nothing to with law and order (where any such policy, if genuine, belongs) but is actually all about burqas, with the motor cycle helmets thrown in to try and not look racist.


So, what is there to say about the CDP? Certainly there is little there that we would not expect to see from a right-wing Christian conservative party.


I will be very interested to see what, if any, moves are made in relation to the taxation issues.  I mentioned earlier that the CDP supported the Coalitions IR changes, which should help restrain the workforce spending $24.7 billion (42% of total spending for 2010-2011) but there would need to be devastating cutbacks to fund their taxation cuts.


Shooters and Fishers

Leader of the S&F, Robert Brown.  Photo from here.

Despite coming from the same side of politics, the S&F policies have a markedly different focus, perhaps reflecting the entirely different market that the party is catering towards.


It is worth recognising that the S&F policies go into a great deal of detail - to their credit they have clearly not only put a great of careful and considered thought into their policies, but also have very detailed policy documents on their website that bear further reading.


Natural Resources: The S&F want to "expand the agriculture, mining and forestry industries" but do so in a "sustainable way".


Included is a call for a "state wide water security plan", a focus on rural and regional development and support for recreational fishing.


Essentially, their position is that "natural resource utilisation and biodiversity conservation are not incompatible." Of course, these matters are all a matter of degree - one man's "natural resource utilisation" is another man's "vicious destruction of the environment".


Safeguarding the Environment: This policy includes seeking "Volunteer Conservation Hunting", a moratorium on further marine parks and greater access to national parks.


The policies seem to be focussed on protecting the environment, but not at the expense of access to the said environment for recreational purposes.


It is also interesting to see little mention whatsoever of "pollution".  Under the Natural Resources policy, they support cheap power and suggest that renewable power will not replace coal and gas in the "near term".


Society and Service Delivery: This is a complex policy.  It includes the following:

• Provision of "cheap power"
• Supporting the "cultural beliefs" of indigenous and non-indigenous Australians
• A Bob Katter-style breakdown of the market-power in the fuel and grocery industry
• "truth in sentencing and mandatory minimum sentencing subject to adequate parole rules and policing."

Further, they suggest that government is "overly-centralised" and that rural communities suffer as a result.

Fair Recreation Access: More fishing, more hunting, more four-wheel driving. Boating, bushwalking and swimming is good too.

The S&F are difficult to pigeonhole.  On one level, they appear to be a single issue party, but anyone elected of course has to vote on every issue that arises.

Their core policies appear to centre on support of rural areas, disparaging the Sydney-centric politicking, and making sure the government don't interfere with their "right" to use the land.

Having said all that, their voting on most issues will be with the Coalition.  Despite their focus on particular issues, it is clear that they are a right wing party. Individual liberty and minimising government interference run deep. The slogan on their website sums it up neatly:

So, where does that leave the Upper House?

The Coalition shouldn't have a great deal of trouble getting support for their policies.  Whilst the CDP and the S&F have their own policies and agendas, their DNA is not that different to the Coalition.

It would be surprising, though, if we did not see CDP and S&F policies creeping into the Coalition agenda.  The most obvious example has been the decision to scrap marine safety zones.

It may end up being a difficult relationship for both parties.  The Coalition need their support, but favouring the minor parties will damage their brand with all the voters who changed their vote to the Coalition at the last election.

At the same time, the minor parties need to maintain their independence if they are keep their base, but it goes without saying that without backing from the Coalition they really can't get much of any value.

The Coalition's ability to manage the relationship to their advantage will be essential if they are to hold onto all the first time Coalition voters.

Teething Issues

I saw an interesting exchange on twitter recently.


This conversation came in the wake of Barry O'Farrell rescinding the decision I wrote about here to reduce the feed-in tariff for some solar power systems from 60c to 40c.


The move put to bed what would otherwise have been a lingering discontent amongst those people financially hurt by the move.


It is difficult to gauge the effect amongst the vast majority of voters who are not receiving 60c per kilowatt hour for solar energy. Apparently we will all now pay approximately $7 extra per bill, so there is potential for some anger as a result.


That said, and as I argued in my previous blogpost, this is a problem of Labor's making.  It would have been easy for the Coalition to simply blame Labor for screwing up the implementation of the original scheme, and, in all likelihood, cop very little flack for it.


Anyway, the exchange I saw on twitter was between @SeanNic and @awelder.  


It started with:

Almost immediately after, @awelder responded 

What I was interested to discuss is to what extent a new government is entitled to a few teething problems, and how far that excuse (explicitly argued or otherwise) will get them with an electorate.


It is true that electorates can be very stupid sometimes.  Some people who are barely qualified to run a cake stand end up running countries.  


We constantly see politicians pandering to particular interest groups, and particular groups eagerly accepting what they are told because it is what they want to believe.


That said, I think the public has very little patience for errors arising out of stupidity, rather than genuine implementation difficulties. Moreover, I think the public usually can tell the difference.  


This is perhaps a good example of the where the public is not going to be fooled.  Putting aside the question of whether O'Farrell's move to cut the scheme was good policy or not, it certainly was, in my view, dumb politics.


But to suggest that it can be put down to "teething problems" is, I think, incorrect.


To cut the feed-in rate was always going to enrage a lot of people. It looked sneaky and tricky, and the Coalition used one of lawmaking's dirtiest words: "retrospective".


O'Farrell's poor decision had nothing to do with teething, but rather poor sense for what the public (and, crucially, the industry in question) would tolerate without a damaging kerfuffle.


That's not to say that there are not clearly are some issues that could be put down to teething problems.


A number of positions in the administration are going to need to be filled.  If that process took too long, or if someone of the people initially appointed turned out to have a secret life of some sort, then you can write that off to the vetting process needing to be improved, or perhaps the inevitable chaos of assuming power after 16 years without it.


By the same token, the government is no doubt going to have to replace Part 3A of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act at some point.  As I have said previously, there are some projects that are too significant to be left under the control of one small council, and there needs to be a procedure for that.


It may well be that the first attempt is a dismal failure.  


As a final example, it may be that a new MLA or MLC does something outrageously inappropriate.  Not everyone who is preselected can possibly be the reliable, upstanding person that the relevant parts of the Coalition machine believed them to be, and there may need to be a small weeding out as a member or two is shown to be wholly unsuitable for the task at hand.


But as far as major policy announcements go - areas where the political implications of the move should be plainly obvious - I don't believe that "teething problems" qualifies as an excuse.


O'Farrell has been around the block enough times that he should have known better. 


No doubt his image has been at least slightly soured by the whole experience, and rightly so. To his credit, he was smart enough to admit his mistake and fix the mess once the implications became obvious.


It remains to be seen whether his government will soon be dismissed by a cynical NSW voting public as simply "more of the same." A few repeats of this kind of silliness will have the Coalition well on the road to a well deserved demise.

Looking for a Mandate

What does it take for a party to have a mandate? For that matter - what exactly qualifies as a mandate?  Is winning power enough to have a mandate to make the changes you want?


Do you need to specify every change you want to make?  Or just the ones that will piss some people off?


One thing is for sure - it doesn't make a bit of difference. The party that has the votes will get their way, mandate or not.


If a policy has the votes behind it, then it will be passed.  It's democracy. If the voters don't like it, then the party in question will be answerable at the next election.


There was a great deal of discussion in the various debates over the new IR laws about "mandates". Over the weekend, the Coalition "guillotined" the debate and got the bill through the upper house.


It was a little disappointing to see the Greens bleating over the Coalition's guillotine - the Greens took advantage of the rules in the upper house to filibuster for days on end - the Coalition used the rules to end the filibuster and have a vote.


For the Greens to suggest that the move was anti-democratic - well, it certainly wasn't any more anti-democratic than giving a 6 hour speech to prevent a vote taking place.


The Greens and Labor went on at length during the filibuster about the perceived lack of a mandate, although interestingly David Shoebridge managed avoid the topic almost entirely.


Sen Fazio (ALP): The Government does not have a mandate to introduce this legislation, nor does it have a mandate to implement this policy change.


Sen Cotsis (ALP): The Liberals do not have a mandate. A mandate is gained after taking a policy platform to the people, to the electorate. 


Sen Primrose (ALP): No government should take the decision lightly to interfere in such a dedicated organisation without justification, without consultation and, most critically, without a mandate.


And, my personal favourite:


Sen Kaye (GRN):  The deeper theoretical question is: What does it mean in a bicameral Parliament, a two-House Parliament with an upper House, to have a mandate? There is a small matter of the Constitution. The Constitution states loudly and clearly that for legislation to be passed it has to go through the lower House and the upper House. There is no mandate unless it gets through the upper House. The mandate exists only inasmuch as one can get a majority in the upper House. In a bicameral Parliament supported by the Constitution it must be understood that there is no mandate - no theoretical pinning behind a mandate unless and until that legislation is passed through the upper House.

John Kaye.  Picture from NineMSN

(All quotes from the Hansard)


On which logic, the Coalition now has a mandate.


But did the Coalition in fact have a "mandate" to make these changes?


We've heard endless (and, sometimes, mindless) complaints about Gillard not having a "mandate" to introduce a carbon tax.  She certainly had a mandate to introduce a ETS - it is really only her stupid move in guaranteeing no carbon tax that has gotten her in trouble.


But the move is broadly in line with her policy in seeking to put a price on Carbon.


It is true that the Coalition never said before the election that they would eviscerate the Industrial Relations Commission.  It is probably also true that the Coalition did not advertise the move as it would hurt them at the ballot box.


Such is the good politics/good policy divide.


But can Joe Citizen realy claim to have been unfairly surprised by the move?


First of all, this legislation is straight from the Right playbook.  Reduce the power of unions.  Increase wage control to reduce expenditure.  Require productivity increases to justify wage increases.


This is what Liberal governments do when they are in power.  Last time round Peter Debnam lost, in part, because he promised to slash public service numbers. And who could forget Workchoices?  Or, more to point, will the public ever be allowed to, even for a second?

Picture from here

Secondly, Labor complained incessently about the blank cheque that the Liberal was going to be given because of their failure to "be honest" about their policies.  I wrote about that before the election here.


This was pretty much the theme of Labor's advertising in the final few weeks - O'Farrell is not being upfront, he is being secretive, what will he do when he was in power?

A Labor Leaflet.  From electionleaflets.org.au

The difficulty for Labor is that the response from the electorate was a big "Who cares?  Can't be worse than the other lot."  That may or may not be fair, but Labor have only themselves for that.  Perhaps if the governance under Labor had been a little more competent and a little less scandal ridden people might have paused to think about the consequences of their vote.


But, finally, my biggest gripe with this argument is the fact Labor and the Greens expended a significant amount of energy telling people that the Coalition would attack the public service.


Look at this from davidshoebridge.org.au:

From over here

Now, there was no incontrovertible evidence that O'Farrell would cut public service wages.  But that didn't stop Labor going on about it almost incessantly.  Can Labor really claim that people will now be shocked by this move?  


Who could forget this ad, a contender for the worst election ad ever made:





Everyone knew, or should have known, that the Coalition make changes that would weaken the union movement, and do something to reduce the state's wage bill.


No mandate?  Perhaps.  But an unfair surprise? No way.

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.

Spray-on Justice

Another day, another Coalition "Law and Order" announcement.


I've written previously about the push for mandatory gaol sentences for cop killers (and David Shoebridge MLC posted an excellent criticism of the policy here).


Today O'Farrell announced that there would be expanded, stricter penalties for graffiti vandals.

Photo from here

I have no problem with graffiti being taken seriously.  It is a vandalism, it is a serious matter, and I don't doubt the figures quoted in this Herald article ($100 million spent per year, $50 million of that by CityRail).


The offence carries gaol as a maximum penalty and, for repeat or very serious offenders, that is an appropriate penalty.


That said, graffiti is, for now, usually punished by an on-the-spot fine.  Repeat offenders can be brought before the court on Malicious Damage charges, and receive the appropriate criminal penalties.


Today it was announced that all offenders will now have to attend court to be sentenced.


I wouldn't have a problem with this if the courts were not already stretched to capacity.  Most local courts struggle to deal with the quantity of work they already face, so it is going to be a challenge if there are now to be a whole new tranches of alleged offenders to be dealt with.


Another gripe with the move is the fact that these "law and order" policies seem to fly in the face of the government's stated policy to direct young people away from the court system.


Shoebridge said today "Less than a month after the Attorney-General called for less young people in the justice system, Greg Smith has announced a measure which is going to force more young people before the courts." quoted here.


Before the election, the then shadow attorney General called for an end to the unedifying "law and order auction" that took place every election.  Given the move towards mandatory sentencing and now this "crack-down" on graffitti, it would appear that the only reason the auction was ended was that the Coalition knew they could win without it

Attorney General Greg Smith, photo from here

That's all a side-point, however, to the really baffling part of this move: according to the Tele, "the courts will have the power to suspend a driver's licence, extend the period they remain on their learners or provisional licence or limit the number of demerit points accrued."


This idea is pretty stupid, for a number of reasons.


First of all, i question whether has anyone got any reason to believe that this will reduce offending other than "Yeah, that sounds like a good idea"?


I doubt it will.  O'Farrell said today "We know that too many of those involved in graffiti are young boys, but we know that young boys enjoy their cars and drivers licences - that's why we think this is an effective policy."


It just seems like something that might work. Or it might not.  But whatever, let's just inflict it on the community and see what happens!


I don't know how many convicted graffiti artists actual have drivers licences, let alone how many are 17, how many actually have accumulated demerit points, or how many people will therefore lose their licence.


I suspect the Coalition government doesn't really know either, because no one has actually had a close look at the issue to work out whether it will work.


Further, does an act of graffiti make a person any less fit to hold a driver's licence?  Why don't we also ban them from the CBD, forbid them owning a mobile phone, force them to get a haircut, or make them say "I must not ruin other people's stuff" 100 times whilst standing on one leg? Why are we taking their licence off them?


None of the reports I have read have any information as to whether these licence consequences will be mandatory on conviction, or whether they will be part of a magistrate's discretion.


As someone who works in the criminal law and deals extensively with licence issues, I'm pretty sure this is going to a massive headache for everyone involved.


There are already a large number of offences that can result in a loss of licence, including:
- Drink Driving
- Dangerous Driving
- Driving Whilst Suspended/Disqualified/Cancelled
- Driving Unlicenced


Of course, people can also lose their licence for having accrued too many points.


The system is complex.  Penalties and disqualifications increase if an offence is a second offence in a 5 year period. Disqualifications can be concurrent or  consecutive.


People who commit 3 major offences in 5 years are automatically given a further 5 years off the road, but this can be quashed at a later date.


Depending what kind of licence you have, you can accumulate different numbers of demerit points before you lose your licence.


Now we are going to start changing the number of points people can get, start extending their time on their P's, or even start suspending licences. And all for what?  All because "we know that young boys enjoy their cars and drivers licences - that's why we think this is an effective policy."

This is not dissimilar from the SDRO having the power to suspend driver's licences for non-payment. Yes, it is a useful enforcement, but we shouldn't be going about taking away privileges everyone else has without good reason.


If you are a drink driver, or if you drive recklessly, if you speed or if you talk on your phone while driving, you deserve to lose your licence.


But to start taking people's licence away for reasons entirely unconnected to a person's driving - it's arbitrary, it's going to be administrative nightmare, and there is no evidence (at least that I have seen) that it will work.


So what's the point?