A Paper War

I posted a little while ago about this document from Labor.

Since then I've had no luck getting any references from Labor. I've been told that people employed by the two major parties read this blog - if that is true, the Labor-employed ones have been keeping mum.

I've sent several tweets the way of @NSWLabor and even direct to @jrobertsonmp without success. One shadow minister who promised to chase it up for me then failed to do so.

You can make of that what you will.

In the interim, I contacted O'Farrell's office and asked if they had a response. I was, within a matter of minutes, graced with this document:

I still hope to come back to Labor's document and invigilate it thoroughly - but, for the moment, time forbids. What I can do, however, is weigh the two documents against each other and see if one comes up trumps.

For the moment, I am going to leave aside any issues that are only covered by one of the pamphlets. I'm a little more interested in the divergence between the two pamphlets on issues they both see fit to trumpet.

Workers Comp

Labor

Coalition:

The divergence is clear. The Coalition's changes hurt injured workers, but resulted in (potentially) reduced workers comp premiums. The position you take on that is essentially an ideological one - although it is worth noting that the Coalition has been unable to communicate the positive on this change, perhaps having adjudged that it will never be popular politically.

Homes

Labor:

Coalition:

Yes. Well. This is a difficult one. There is a great deal of opinion out there that suggests that money spent on first home buyers grants and the like is simply wasted, delivering no actual benefit excepting that it relieves many buyers from the burden of saving for a deposit. I am skeptical that Labor could in any way justify the claim that first home buyers are in any way "locked out" of the market.

It is certainly true that pure supply and demand mismatch is one of the major causes of Sydney's brutal property prices - whether new approvals and land releases will have a material effect on price (as the Coalition begs you to infer) is a difficult to say.

At the end of the day, there is no one right way to deal with the issue. I don't believe that Labor's criticism carries any real weight, but equally I don't think that the Coalition can prove that their approach will have a material effect either. Further, there are negative consequences that flow from land releases that complicate the issue.

Public Transport

Labor:

Coalition:

I'm going to put aside some pretty serious problems I have with Labor's statistics here. What is clear for the two documents is the Labor is saying "More Expensive!" whilst the Coalition is claiming "Better." There's no way to resolve that definitively.

Health

Labor:

Coalition:

This is a difficult one. Both parties are guilty of not providing references, and both rely heavily on anecdotes. Labor focusses on overall budget, Coalition focusses on staffing numbers. Which one means better health-care? Who knows.

Budget

This one is a little funny.

Labor:

Coalition:

First of all, Labor is using exactly the same spurious accusation that has been used to such effect by the Federal Coalition.

What I really like is this: the Coalition concedes that the budget position has deteriorated - but their response is "We may be in deficit, but we're in EXACTLY AS MUCH DEFICIT AS WE SAID."

Yeah no.

Environment

Labor:

Coalition:

Both entirely anecdotal. Both prove nothing at all.

So what?

It's impossible to compare the two pamphlets properly. Without references (from either side) I can't check the reliability of the claims. Assuming both tell the truth, each pamphlet simply seems spins the data the way they want.

So we're left with empty assertions and no real evidence. If only we had journalists who had the time and resources to chase up all the details. If only.

Rainbowing on a Parade

The old saying is that no good deed goes unpunished. I think the O'Farrell government has learned that in spades over the last week.

The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras happened, as it does every year, on the first Saturday in March. At some significant (and, it should be noted, controversial) cost, a pedestrian crossing was painted in Rainbow colours.

It was a apparently a real highlight of the parade:

Pic from the ABC

Apparently, the pictures of the crossing were popular:

Of course Greenwich isn't literally quoting a figure - but any assertion that the cost is outweighed by the benefit is obviously a made-up stat. It may well have been boosting tourism - personally I'm skeptical, but there is absolutely no way to test that assertion.

Even before the crossing was installed, it was clear that it was going to be temporary.  This is from Clover Moore's personal website, published on 26 February, the week of the festival:

Even before the festival, a petition to keep the crossing was gathering signatures. At the time of writing, over 15 000 people had signed it.

Notwithstanding that, the crossing is being removed. Why? The below are extracts from a letter (Page 1 and page 2) written by the Roads Minister Duncan Gay in reply to Ms Moore's missive asking that the crossing be retained:

The audit mentioned was a pre-condition of the crossing being installed in the first place, as Moore explained on her blog:

Personally, I suspect that the condition that an audit be undertaken was at least in part to equip the government with an independent assessment of the danger posed by the crossing, having anticipated a fall-out. But maybe that's just the cynic talking.

Anyway, the letter goes on to explain more clearly precisely what it is that was observed on the crossing:

Interestingly, at least one of those incidents was NSW Upper House member (and budding Federal Senator) Cate Faehrmann:

Faerhmann tweeted a picture of the stunt:

No doubt when Faerhmann sat on the street she was sober. There is equally no doubt that many others would not have been, which is likely to have been the cause of the incident mentioned in Gay's letter.

Put simply, as long as the crossing was there, people were going to do reckless things on and around it. So much is patently obvious.

The government never promised to retain the crossing - in fact, its removal was a precondition to the installation. And yet, this has been the reward (at least on twitter):

But most ridiculous reaction of all?

Shocked, I tell you! Shocked!

Unions United?

So this was a little predictable:

The unions are massive losers in the donations reforms that were brought in early last year. I've said what I want to say about the merit of the changes here and here.

One would like to think that constitutional challenges like this are a waste of time. The government generally gets high quality advice on these matters and would seem well equipped to adjuge what changes are likely to pass constitutional muster.

Sidenote - my all-time favourite Boston Legal quote:

The problem is that legal advice on the constitutionality of laws is often difficult to give, and working out likely position of the courts on such matters is often little more than guess-work. Even the most carefully drafted laws can fall foul.

Even more so (ready yourselves for a bombshell) governments can sometimes take a "Let's just see what happens!" approach to controversial laws.

I don't know enough about NSW Constitutional Law to have an opinion as to whether the laws are likely to be struck down in part or as a whole, and I'm not going to try and offer one. It will be interesting to see what kind of arguments the unions are able to advance as to why they should be able to pay those enormous affiliation fees to the Labor Party.

I think it is safe to assume that the O'Farrell government will be prepared to throw large amounts of money in legal fees at this case to try and make sure the laws survive.

This action demonstrates just how concerned the union movement is about these laws. It was argued during the hearings on these laws that companies will simply encourage their employees to make donations to sympathetic parties (ie the Coalition) - in theory nothing prevents the Unions doing exactly the same thing.

This litigation is going to be expensive for the Union movement - in fact, it will be very expensive. In short, it's pretty clear they are worried.

I imagine this pleases O'Farrell greatly.

Reesing Back in Time

So. Nathan Rees?

I've written before about how Labor should be considering whether John Robertson is the right person to lead them towards the 2015 election. In short, I don't think he is.

There is an obvious second part to that discussion though - who if not Robbo?

Yesterday I saw the first article attempting to answer that very question - kindly spread around by O'Farrell himself:

The article can be found here

It's an interesting proposition. Did Rees get a fair shake the first time round? Can a former Premier be an effective Opposition Leader? More importantly, would be wise for Labor to hark back to their time in government?

Given this is the first piece I've seen suggesting who the next Labor leader could/should be, I was interested in taking a closer look at what Anna Patty had to say on the topic.

One of the more interesting aspects of the ICAC hearings (other than a bit schadenfraude) has seen how various Labor figures have sought to propagate their own version of history. Some have been more subtle than others, but I don't doubt that most have given evidence that sought to ensure their own interests were protected - whether those interests are overtly political or not.

It's no different to what we saw after Howard lost office - people giving interviews and writing books.where they sought to advance their version of history. Of course, when it comes to ICAC one has to be careful, given the very heavy penalties that follow if one is proven to have lied.

Naturally Rees was no exception. In particular, he has been keen to remind the public that he was dumped as Labor leader shortly after sacking Tripodi and MacDonald from his cabinet.

We have also been reminded of his words on the morning he was replaced by Kristina Keneally - "I will not hand over New South Wales to Eddie Obeid or Joe Tripodi". Even more famously, he said that whoever the new Premier was that "they will be a puppet of Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid" - an accusation that dogged Keneally for her entire time in office.

That's all true. The problem has been that, for whatever reason, Robertson has not been an effective opposition leader, for the reasons I wrote about last year.

That may be true. The problem is that, along with the public being able to "see" Rees as leader, they will inevitably connect him to the Labor they kicked out so resoundingly 2 years ago.

Even if Rees is right about his record, the opportunity he had, and who is to blame for Labor's time in office - does the average voter care about that distinction? To be honest, I doubt it.

The biggest challenge for Labor in 2015 will be proving to the public that the Labor who they so hated by the end of their time in power has changed - that Labor is ready to lead again and do so well. And I am sceptical that a previous leader is the person to do that.

A Glossy Outlook

Another "glossy" pamphlet from Labor appeared this week.

The full document can be seen here.

I was hoping to get stuck in and investigate the claims and allegations that the pamphlet makes, as I have done before (and before).

That hasn't happened for 2 reasons - firstly, it has been a mental week for me, and long weekend notwithstanding I just haven't had time.

More importantly though, the document is deficient in one very major area. It is utterly bereft of references for the claims made.

The only references provided are for quotes that the pamphlets rips out of other documents - which makes the absence of references for the allegations all the more obvious.

I'm going to try and provide some sort of words about the document later this long weekend. In the meantime, have a look and let me know what you think - in the comments or on twitter.

The Other

I had a minor revelation about the changes to the right to silence today. I think it's also something that reflects more generally on the entire populations attitude to the criminal laws, and is why politicians get away with the stuff they do.

But let's start at the beginning.

As I have said before, our law and order legislation is a mess. It is a piecemeal, arbitrary, poorly thought out and implemented system. That is no surprise, given the hot-button topic that the criminal law is in the media.

It's also true that most people don't really care about the rights of people who are before the criminal justice system. Why? We'll come back to that.

Earlier today I was listening to the podcast of Friday's PM, a transcript of which you can find here.

It was an interesting story about the right to silence changes, and includes a brief interview with Federal member for Greenway, Michelle Rowland, herself a former lawyer. She had this to say:

There's a few problems with that. First of all, thanks to the amendment meaning that the warning has to be given in front of a lawyer (read here if you don't follow that) the indigent are unlikely to be caught by changes. The second paragraph is, in light of this, non-sensical. I suspect that Ms Rowland has simply not read the laws as they were actually passed, relying rather on what was originally proposed.

Ms Rowland also says that she is seeking advice on whether the Federal Government might be able to override the laws. I'm no constitutional expert on whether that is possible, but regardless I think it is unlikely that any such legislation could be passed.

Anyway, her comments got me thinking about the community's attitude to these changes. I've been blogging and tweeting about this, as well as appearing on Something Wonky and PETW (that episode not released yet). Me aside however, there has been surprisingly little reaction other than one day of headlines and the usual levity on twitter.

The attitude, for the most part, is best summed by this tweet from Brad Burden, O'Farrell's media guy:

The obvious inference he wants you to draw? This is a law that affects only the real bad guys.

A similar attitude was on display during the Legislative Council debate. This from John Ajaka:

What nonsense. For the reasons I have explained previously, no sophisticated or organised criminal will ever be subject to any such warning. They will have lawyers who will shield them from that.

As for the suggestion that these changes have anything to do with the recent "community, police and government concern" - the only issue has been the alleged spike in shootings, and the concern on that front was victims and their families not speaking. It was nothing to do with silence from the accused persons.

More important, though, is this. The government is using the criminal gangs information to emphasize everyone's usual assumption about law and order policies - they only affect "other people".

On one level, that's true. I don't know what your chances are statistically of being interviewed by police, but it must be a pretty small percentage.

The problem, however, is that people who are charged with offences are often not guilty of them. Moreover, just being a law-abiding person does not insulate you from, one day, being arrested and charged with something.

The public take a very black-and-white attitude to these matters. It goes to the question "If you have nothing to hide, what are you afraid of?"

There is a fundamental attitude, I believe, that these changes will only affect people who have done something wrong. Even more fundamentally, it will affect "other people".

And who really cares about them?

Torbay or not Torbay

High drama in NSW parliament today.

The big story from a legislative point of view is the passing of the right to silence and case statement legislation - but I'm going to put off that blogpost until the Hansard is released (and, to be honest, until I'm a little less furious about what happened).

The shock news today was Richard Torbay suddenly announcing that he was resigning as the member for the Norther Tablelands seat.

In order to appreciate what is going on, it is necessary to step back and look at the history. Therefore, timeline:

1991: Appointed Chief Executive of University of New England Union

1991: Elected Councillor in Armidale

1996: Elected Mayor of Armidale

1998: Surrenders Labor Party membership and, allegedly on advice from Eddie Obeid, decides to run as an Independent in the seat Northern Tablelands

1999: Elected as Independent for Northern Tablelands, defeating the sitting Nationals member

2007: Appointed speaker by Morris Iemma

2009: Offered/is asked to become Premier (depends who you believe). Either way, it doesn't happen, and Kristina Keneally is elected by the Labor caucus.

2011: Upon the election of the Coalition government, is deposed as speaker

2013: Pre-selected to contest the Federal Seat of New England for the Nationals. That seat is held by Tony Windsor. Becomes a member of the National Party

20 March 2013: Asked to resign membership of the National Party after allegations surface that the Labor Party helped fund his 1999 campaign

Later on 20 March 2013: Resigns as member for Northern Tablelands saying "given the events of recent days and the toll it has taken on my family I feel the time has come to consider other options"

It was also revealed that the Nationals themselves had passed information relating to the Obeid connection onto ICAC.

It remains unclear what has happened, and why it has happened. No doubt in the days to come all parties will be speaking to journalists both off and on the record to try and ensure that history comes down on their side.

Precisely why these matters have been referred to ICAC is unclear. The fact that this has been done by the Nationals when the person in question is a member of the National Party is particularly surprising. No doubt many will be wondering whether Barnaby Joyce, the person tipped to seize the nomination, had anything to do with it.

It is equally unclear what may happen in the Northern Tablelands seat, although that is a blogpost for another day.

What is clear, in my view, is that there is a lot more to this story that we presently know. It should be fund seeing it unravel in the days to come.