EcoRadio

Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • Age Pension | Income and asset tests Income and asset tests

    Your Life Choices Simplifying retirement

    Home
    Retirement
    Age Pension
    Super
    Money
    Travel
    Health
    Tech
    Food
    Lifestyle
    Community
    Fun

    Login
    Register

    Age Pension | Income and asset tests
    Income and asset tests

    Income limits

    You can still receive a certain amount of income and receive an Age Pension. This income can be derived from investments, property rental or as a salary from employment, as well as several other means.

    Exceeding the fortnightly income limit will see your pension reduced by 50 cents for every $1 over the limit, until you reach the disqualification limit for a part Age Pension, at which point your Age Pension payment will cease.

    For those who have reached the Age Pension age but continue to work, the Work Bonus may mean that you still qualify for a part, or even full Age Pension depending on your income. Under the Work Bonus, the first $250 of fortnightly income derived from employment is excluded under the income test. Should your work be seasonal or sporadic, you can ‘bank’ any unused amount up to $6500, which can then be used to reduce your income as and when required.

    Limits for the full Age Pension are indexed on 1 July each year and the limits for part Age Pensions are indexed in March, July and September of each year. Details of the current income limits can be found in the table below.

    Centrelink income test limits for pensions from 1 July 2015

    Situation

    For full pension/allowance (per fortnight)

    For part pension (per fortnight)

    Single

    up to $162

    less than $1882.40

    Couple (combined)

    up to $288

    less than $2881.60

    Illness separated (couple combined)

    up to $288

    less than $3728.80

    For more information on what constitutes income, visit HumanServices.gov.au.
    Asset limits

    Asset test limits are used to determine whether you qualify for an Age Pension and if so, at which rate it will be paid. Your fortnightly Age Pension payment is reduced by $1.50 for every $1000 you exceed the asset limit. Once you exceed the limits for a part Age Pension, your Age Pension payment will cease.

    Your assets, whether held within or outside of Australia will normally be assessed at their market value. Any debt owed against the asset will normally be deducted from the calculation.

    There are certain assets which are exempt from assessment, such as your main residence if you’re a homeowner, certain pre-paid funeral products and accommodation bonds paid when entering an aged care facility.

    You can view what is regarded as an asset by Centrelink, as well as an explanation of what is included in each asset class, and which assets are exempt, at HumanServices.gov.au.

    You also need to be wary of reducing your assets in order to qualify for an Age Pension, as Centrelink considers this a deprived asset under gifting rules, and will assess it as such. The limits for gifting are $10,000 in any financial year, but limited to $30,000 over five years.

    Asset limits for full Age Pensions are indexed each year on 1 July and the limits for part Age Pensions are indexed in March, July and September of each year. The current asset test limits are listed below.

    Centrelink asset test limits for Allowances and full Age Pensions – effective from 1 July 2015 until 30 June 2016

    Situation

    Homeowners

    Non-homeowners

    Single

    $205,500

    $348,500

    Couple (combined)

    $291,500

    $433,000

    Illness separated (couple combined)

    $291,500

    $433,000

    One partner eligible (combined assets)

    $291,500

    $433,000
    Centrelink asset test limits for part Age Pensions – effective from 1 July 2015

    Situation

    Homeowners

    Non-homeowners

    Single

    $779,500

    $928,000

    Couple (combined)

    $1,156,500

    $1,305,500

    Illness separated (couple combined)

    $1,438,500

    $1,587,500

    One partner eligible (combined assets)

    $1,156,500

    $1,305,500
    You can find out more about the income and asset tests by viewing our articles below.
    [Superannuation and the Age Pension]
    Superannuation and the Age Pension

    Frank has a few questions on how his super might affect his Age Pension.
    How much is income?
    Top Stories

    Parental gifting

    Granny flat arrangements

    Changes to deeming rules

    Compensation payments on a pension

    Is Newstart classed as income?

    View all latest news
    [Are offset accounts an asset?]
    Are offset accounts an asset?

    Offset accounts are a useful way of helping to reduce the interest you pay on …
    Structuring your assets and liabilities
    [Deeming rates in detail]
    Deeming rates in detail

    The Federal Government has announced that it will lower deeming rates in March.
    How will the cuts affect you?
    [Will more super affect my pension?]
    Will more super affect my pension?

    Would extra super payments be assessed by Centrelink and affect the Age Pension?
    Is extra super OK?
    [Deeming rules confusion]
    Deeming rules confusion

    John believes many of the rules surrounding the changes to deeming rules are detrimental.
    Are self funded retirees being penalised?

  • Rising above our differences ACF

    lick here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail.   Learn more  Hide
    Something’s not right.
    We’re having trouble connecting to Google. We’ll keep trying…
    More

    1 of 21

    Rising above our differences

    Inbox
    		 x

    Kelly O’Shanassy, ACF Unsubscribe
    11:12 AM (3 minutes ago)
    to me

    Hi INGA

    Have you seen the news this morning?

    ACF is standing together with some unlikely allies because we want change. We want to break the political paralysis in Australia.

    The challenge of pollution and global warming is bigger than politics. It’s bigger than you and me. To get Australia’s climate policy on track, people from all walks of life must be involved. This is bigger than our differences.

    That’s why we’ve come together with 10 major business, industry, environment, energy, investor, research, union and social groups to speak out for strong policy to cut pollution and support clean energy.

    We have never come together before, and while we will not solve every problem or agree on everything, we want to show our politicians there is more that unites us than divides us. We want to make it clear that so many people from different walks of life want our country to cut pollution and support clean energy – there is no excuse for inaction.

    It’s all over the news: in the Guardian, the Australian, ABC news, Sky News Australia, The Conversation, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, WA Today and more.

    It’s an unlikely alliance, and an important one. We are ACF, WWF, The Climate Institute, Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Australian Industry Group (AiGroup), Business Council of Australia, Aluminium Association of Australia, Energy Supply Association of Australia and the Investor Group on Climate Change.

    We’ve found common ground on some fundamental goals and principles: Australian Climate Roundtable: Joint principles for climate policy. We all agree Australia must cut pollution and address global warming.

    But we know our country doesn’t yet have the broad political will to make this happen. So we want to break the paralysis and reset the debate. 

    We know this won’t be easy. But delayed, unpredictable and piecemeal action will cost us dearly, and make the job ahead even harder.

    This doesn’t mean ACF will stop exposing the big polluting companies, calling for an end to handouts or passionately campaigning for what we stand for – now or in the future.

    But we share common ground on the fundamental principle that we want our political leaders to cut pollution.

    We think reaching out matters. We can discuss our differences and find solutions. Will you join us? Start a conversation with an unlikely ally you know – a friend or neighbour you’ve never spoken to about why you care. Common ground might seem impossible at first, but you might be surprised. 

    Because this is more important than our differences.

    Thanks,
    Kelly 

    Kelly O’Shanassy
    CEO
    Australian Conservation Foundation

  • VIDEO – Why We Walked On to Abbot Point Port 350 org

    here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail.   Learn more  Hide
    Something’s not right.
    We’re having trouble connecting to Google. We’ll keep trying…
    Errors: 101
    More

    VIDEO – Why We Walked On to Abbot Point Port

    Inbox
    		 x

    Josh Creaser – 350.org Australia <350@350.org> Unsubscribe
    5:20 PM (2 hours ago)
    to me

    Dear friend,

    Last Monday over 100 Australians, led by Traditional Owners and Reef town locals, took a powerful stand at the gateway to Australia’s largest proposed coal project.

    Together we pledged to take part in bold acts of civil disobedience to stop the disastrous Galilee Coal mines and Abbot Point port expansion once and for all.

    Click here to watch a short video from this inspiring moment.

    Adani, Australia’s big 4 banks and our government continue to ignore the community’s call for these senseless projects to be shelved. That’s why Australians everywhere are taking the Reef Defenders Pledge. Will you join them?

    By taking the pledge you are showing the backers of this project that you won’t stand idly by and allow them to get away with climate and reef destruction. You’ll be joining with thousands of Australians who are willing to take bold community actions to stop these projects from seeing the light of day.

    Watch the video to hear the stories of those who have already pledged and then join them here.

    Last Monday we heard from Aunty Carol Prior, Juru Traditional Owner, talk about the beauty and cultural significance of the area around Abbot Point and the Reef. She invited all of us to join her in taking the pledge to stop the destruction of her country.

    As thousands of Australians sign the pledge we will build a powerful network of people stretching across every corner of the country — people who are willing to take part in bold actions to protect our future. This is our warning to Adani and the banks – rule out these projects OR face an unrelenting community campaign.

    Watch the video to share in the power of Monday’s action and take the pledge to be involved in the next wave of actions.

    Thanks for being a part of this movement and this crucial moment.

    Josh and Moira on behalf of the Reef Defenders Alliance and 350.org Australia

    PS Click here to share the video with friends on facebook.

    350.org is building a global climate movement.You can connect with us on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and become a sustaining donor to keep this movement strong and growing.

  • An Early Election? Could there be a Double Dissolution? ANTONY GREEN

    « The Likely Political Consequences of Proposed Changes to the Senate’s Electoral System | Main

    June 25, 2015

    An Early Election? Could there be a Double Dissolution?

    There is some wild speculation around about an early Commonwealth election, but there are several problems for the government in calling an early election.

    First is the Senate. Under Section 13 of the Constitution, it is impossible to issue a writ for a half-Senate election until 1 July 2016. That means the first possible date to hold a normal House and half-Senate election is 6 August 2016, more than a year away.

    The government could call a separate House election at any time by simply asking the Governor-General. A House election would also include elections for the four Territory Senators.

    The Prime Minister would have to give a reason for an early House election, but given that Prime Minister Abbott continues to have the confidence of the House, the Governor-General would be highly unlikely to reject such a request.

    The government would be left with one problem in calling a separate House election. A separate half-Senate election would then need to be held sometime in the next 20 months. This would mean either another House election in conjunction with the half-Senate, or the government running the risk of voters treating a separate half-Senate election as a giant by-election.

    Alternatively the government could try to call a double dissolution, which is possible, but has a few problems of its own.

    The government has one trigger available for calling a double dissolution, the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill. This meets the simple requirement of Section 57 of the Constitution in having been defeated twice in the Senate with the necessary three month gap.

    However, both defeats occurred with the old Senate, before Senators elected at the 2013 election took their seats on 1 July 2014.

    The Constitutional lawyers will tell you this meets the requirements of Section 57 and would allow a double-dissolution to be called.

    However, it is for the Governor-General to decide whether to accept the advice, and previous Governors-General have gone beyond the simple technicality of whether a Section 57 trigger exists.

    The first double dissolution was called in 1913, and the British Governor-General Sir Ronald Munro-Ferguson was permitted to obtain advice from Chief Justice Sir Samuel Griffith on how Section 57 should be interpreted.

    According to Griffith, the power of dissolution should not be exercised simply because the conditions specified in section 57 exist:

    It should, on the contrary, be regarded as an extraordinary power, to be exercised only in cases in which the Governor-General is personally satisfied, after independent consideration of the case, either that the proposed law as to which the Houses have differed in opinion is one of such public importance that it should be referred to the electors of the Commonwealth for immediate decision by means of a complete renewal of both Houses, or that there exists such a state of practical deadlock in legislation as can only be ended in that way.

    Governors-General since have applied this advice, most obviously in the case of Sir Ninian Stephen in 1983, when he requested further information from Malcolm Fraser before granting him a double dissolution.

    Fraser listed 13 bills as meeting the requirements of Section 57. However, twelve months had passed since the defeat of these bills, and Fraser’s sudden political enthusiasm for a double dissolution on the morning of 3 February 1983 was clearly related to a meeting of the Labor Party executive that morning at which it was expected Bill Hayden would be urged to stand down for Bob Hawke.

    Fraser had hoped to call a snap election and catch the Labor Party with Bill Hayden still as leader, or to see Labor spend the first week of the campaign in leadership turmoil.

    Instead the Governor-General requested further information on the request. By the time that Fraser had his dissolution, Hayden’s decision to resign meant that Fraser had to fight the campaign against Bob Hawke.

    In responding to Fraser’s request, the Governor-General wrote that he had satisfied himself that there existed measures meeting “the description of measures such as are referred to in section 57 of the Constitution”. He continued:

    Such precedents as exist, together with the writings on section 57 of the Constitution, suggest that in circumstances such as the present, I should, in considering your advice, pay regard to the importance of the measures in question and to the workability of Parliament.I note that your letter states that the thirteen proposed laws are “of importance to the Government’s budgetary, education and welfare policies”. I also note that in the case of each of these measures a considerable time has passed since they were rejected or not passed for a second time in the Senate. I have considered their nature; the nine Sales Tax measures seek to impose tax on a range of goods now exempt; three of the other measures provide for the limited re-introduction of tuition fees in tertiary education institutions; the last measure, a social service measure, seeks to preclude spouses of those involved in industrial action from receiving unemployment and special benefits.

    As to the importance of these measures, viewed in the context of the extraordinary nature of a double dissolution, I am not myself in any position, from their mere subject matter and context, to form a view about the particular importance of any of them.

    It was in those circumstances that I spoke with you by telephone early this afternoon about the workability of Parliament, seeking further advice from you on that score; this was a matter to which you had already referred, in a prospective sense, in your original letter.

    As a result of your second letter to me, in which you speak of difficulties of the immediate past and described a double dissolution as critical to the workings of the Government and of the Parliament, I am now satisfied that in accordance with your advice I should dissolve the Senate and the House of Representatives simultaneously. I note your assurance as to the availability of funds to enable the work of the administration to be carried on through the election period.

    Sir Ninian noted the ‘considerable time’ between the legislation becoming Section 57 triggers and their use to request a double dissolution. As the letter mentions, Stephen had pressed Fraser for further assurance on the need for a double dissolution, in line with Sir Samuel Griffith’s advice.

    So if Prime Minister Abbott this weekend tried to use the Clean Energy Finance Corporation (Abolition) Bill as a double dissolution trigger, there is a slight problem that the Senate he is asking to be dissolved has never examined the legislation, let alone rejected it.

    A Governor-General might ask for advice on why the government has not attempted to pass the legislation through the new Senate, as the government did with all the other legislation to repeal the carbon tax.

    Whether a Governor-General would reject a pressed request for a double dissolution seems unlikely, but the past precedents point to the Governor-General being entitled to form their own independent decision. A decision on using the Section 57 double dissolution provision is not an issue of accepting the advice of a Prime Minister with the confidence of the House. The Governor-General also has a duty to uphold the Constitution.

    The precedent of a double dissolution based on the Clean Energy Corporation (Abolition) Bill would look very odd when added to the chapters on double dissolutions to be found in both House of Representatives Practice and Odger’s Senate Practice.

    (And can I add on a note unrelated to constitutionality, would anyone want to try and conduct an election for 12 Senators from each state given the current state of electoral law? The ballot papers and preference deals would be even more complex than in 2013!)

    Posted by on June 25, 2015 at 06:36 PM in Election Date Speculation, Federal Politics and Governments, Senate Elections |

    Comments

    Question about the “independent” role of the Gov-General.
    in recent years we’ve seen Royal commissions involving , Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and Bill Shorten, all of which, it could reasonably be argued, were politically inspired to embarrass the Labor party.

    Does the GG have any due diligence to perform before granting a Royal Commission I.e. Can the GG reject a royal commission request if he/she thinks the grounds for the inquiry are dubious?

    COMMENT: No. It is an issue for the Cabinet to decide and the Governor-General to approve through Executive Council.

    Posted by: Paulz | June 25, 2015 at 07:58 PM

    At times of extreme governmental dysfunction, could it be constitutionally appropriate for one or more Australian citizens / Commonwealth subjects to petition the Governor General directly, or indirectly, inviting him or her to unilaterally dismiss one or both houses?

    COMMENT: No. Dissolution is done on advice from the Prime Minister and writs can only be issued on instruction. As I said to people asking the same question about getting the Governor-General sacking Julie Gillard, the answer is no.

    Posted by: Tommy | June 25, 2015 at 10:06 PM

    Antony
    You may be the best one to comment about the implications of the Coalition going to an early election whilst the NSW & WA Redistributions are still in progress.
    If I have understood what you’ve said about elections being called mid-redistribution then I believe that Farrer and Riverina (the 2 lowest-enrolled and adjoining Divisions in NSW) would merge and become one.
    In WA, Canning and Pearce would become 3 Divisions. (Please correct any incorrect assumptions I have made).
    Therefore the Coalition would automatically forfeit either Sussan Ley or Michael McCormack as a seat in the House of Representatives and even though both Canning and Pearce have margins of over 8% there’s no guarantees the Coalition would win all 3 seats from these 2 existing Divisions in the West.
    This, I believe, will be one of the key factors as to why there will be no double dissolution or any other kind of federal election held this year.
    Besides, even though Shorten has had a week from hell, the ALP are still ahead in the polls.
    A DD would only make the Senate even more of a rag-tag of minor and micro-party candidates if the recommendations from the JSCEM are not legislated far enough in advance.
    There are just too many risks for the Coalition to be heading back to the polls so early.
    I can’t see it happening.

    Posted by: Jeff | June 25, 2015 at 10:13 PM

    On the matter of an early election of just the House of Representatives. This has happened before hasn’t it?

    Also even if the senate gets treated like a large by-election would not the current government, if elected again, get the new senate voting rules in place before calling the senate election? Even they did not get elected, could they not use the next half-senate election to boost their own numbers, should politics work against labor leading up to that election? In other words the senate by-election would work against labor and not liberal if it is labor that wins an early election.
    The current government may view these tactics as a win win situation for them regardless?

    COMMENT: The last time a government called a separate House election was Menzies in 1963 and he had only a 2 seat majority. It put the House and Senate out of line for the next decade, something both Holt and Gorton learnt to regret.

    If the government was re-elected at a separate House election it would face the same Senate it has so far declined to test on Senate electoral system change.

    Posted by: Matthew | June 25, 2015 at 10:19 PM

    Thank you, It annoys me when this speculation swirls around and no one actually looks at the consitutional, legislative (let alone political) realities

    Posted by: Geoffrey Ward | June 25, 2015 at 10:38 PM

    The Governor General has an obligation if not a requirement to act on the advice of the Prime minister. A trigger exists and should be used to call a double dissolution.

    The government should introduce changes to the electoral act t remove anomalies in the way the Senate vote is counted.

    The system in place was designed to facilitate a manual counting process and in doing so has distorted the proportionality of the count.

    We need to introduce a weighted transfer system with a reiterative redistribution of preferences where the ballot is reset and restarted on each exclusion.

    The guiding principle being that ballot preferences allocated to excluded candidates should be redistributed as if the excluded candidates had not stood.

    With a reiterative weighted counting system the government could introduce a representative threshold of 25% TO 33% of the quota.

    Above-the-line votes should be equally distributed across all candidates within the group.

    The order of exclusion within a group being the reverse order of the candidates in that group published on the ballot paper ballot paper. This would prevent misuse and gaming of the vote by third parties and give each party equal weighted representation. One vote one value

    A further issue of consideration should be the abolition of the “Droop Quota (X/(Y+1)+1” and replace it withe a pure proportional (x/y) calculation of the quota.

    Following these changes the government should proceed with calling a double dissolution election by the end of the year.

    Posted by: democracyATwork | June 25, 2015 at 11:43 PM

    Is there a provision in our electoral laws (state or federal) for constituents to petition for the removal of a MP from his/her seat on the basis of dishonesty ot other reasons?

    ANSWER: No.

    Posted by: John van Barneveld | June 26, 2015 at 08:32 AM

    As an extension of the question by John van Barneveld, I’ve always wondered what would happen if an absolute majority of electors in an electorate petitioned their Member to vote in a specific way on some issue (which was entirely contrary to the stated intentions of the party which they represent).

    Assuming that person was indeed elected to represent their electorate (fat chance, I know!), it would only be reasonable to assume that they would be obliged to vote in accordance with the petition.

    COMMENT: There is no obligation for elected members to act in any particular way once elected. They might be influenced to vote if they hope to win re-election, but MPs are in no way bound by their constituents’ views.

    Posted by: David Heath | June 26, 2015 at 01:30 PM

    Given that so many of us are effectively disenfranchised by virtue of the fact that we just happen to reside in a demographically politically aligned area, is it not time for electoral reform to amend the voting system to single electorate Proportional Representation, with each State being considered as a single electorate (as defined in the Constitution – original version)?

    Is it possible that such an amendment to the voting system for the Federal House of Representatives could be affected?

    Are there any steps the general voting population can take to hasten such a change away from the outdated, skewed in favour of major parties, ineffective, old Victorian-British, multi-electorate system such has already occurred in so many legislative assembly and parliamentary elections throughout Australia?

    COMMENT: First, you aren’t disenfranchised by living in a safe area as you still have an impact on the Senate. Second, without digging up my old law books to check, I’m sure the draft constitution had nothing about the House being elected as a whole though it did specify this for the Senate. The constitution always left it for the states to determine initial laws with the new Commonwealth Parliament to determine the eventual national law. The 1901 election was conducted under different laws in different states, with SA and Tasmania being the only two states elected at large.

    Posted by: Theo Spinner | June 26, 2015 at 01:48 PM

    Hello Antony, thank you for the opportunity to discuss this very important matter. While you refer to the political / constitutional ‘state of play’ as complicating the likelihood of a DD, you make note of the fact that the Governor General would be ‘highly unlikely to deny such a request’. So, given that no legal grounds of denial exist, what is your gut feeling? Do you think the Prime Minister will throw caution to the wind, for the sake of consolidating his position today (and damn the consequences?). I ask because the behaviour of the Prime Minister leads me to believe that he will disregard the advice of his own party and go for it. What do you think?

    COMMENT: You have quoted me completely out of context. I said the Governor-General would be ‘highly unlikely to reject’ a request for a separate House election. The article makes the point that unlike a House election request, the Governor-General has much more power to say no to a double dissolution for the reasons set out in the quotes from Sir Samuel Griffith and Sir Ninian Stephen in the article. A Prime Minister who ignored his party’s view is one that may find a Governor General questioning the offered advice. Governors-General don’t have to act on advice from Prime Ministers who may lack the confidence of the house, which usually means their own party.

    Posted by: Ron Harrison | June 26, 2015 at 03:18 PM

    Antony, what is the last date a standard House and half-Senate election could be called?

    COMMENT: The parliament expires on 11 November 2016 and from that date the maximum allowable election campaign drags the last election date out to 14 January 2017. It won’t happen that late.

    Posted by: Robert Crew | June 26, 2015 at 11:15 PM

    It looks as though a double dissolution is really a sort of emergency provision within the constitution to ensure that the process of governance is able to continue, and is not strangled by inter and intra-party factionalism.

    Given that both Labor and the Coalition have been beset by factionalism in recent times, is it not likely that a double dissolution would play into the hands of the more extremist factions in and around each camp?

    Presumably there is no point in a double dissolution, from the electorate’s point of view, unless it is highly likely that the outcome will be more functional, less volatile, representative democratic governance, of the type that the people of Hong Kong aspire towards.

    COMMENT: The double dissolution power of the constitution is an extra-ordinary power. It was designed to deal with a conflict at the very heart of the Constitution, that between a government responsible to a House of Representatives expressing the popular national will, and a powerful Senate with equality of state representation. The one thing a double dissolution is not is an easy excuse for an early election. The double dissolution power was designed to resolve significant deadlocks.

    Posted by: Tommy | June 26, 2015 at 11:58 PM

    Antony
    You mention above that an elected member has no obligation to act in any specific way once elected.
    Surely there is some obligation to represent the philosophies of the party under whose “auspices” they were elected.
    I am continually frustrated by the increasing number of times that members are elected as representing Party A and then deciding that they will sit as an Independent. This happens in Federal,State and Territory Parliaments and by all political parties.
    Would it not be better that if they have a change of heart they should be replaced by a member of the same party(As occurs in the Senate) and then face the electors as an Independent at the next election)?

    COMMENT: There are ‘moral’ obligations, but there are no obligations that can be enforced in any way apart from defeating a member at the next election.

    Posted by: Patrick Blackall | June 27, 2015 at 07:13 AM

    Antony,
    Do you think that online voting would alieviate the cost and turmoil of out of synch houses of parliament?

    COMMENT: There will not be any online voting for Federal elections for several years yet.

    Posted by: Paul Hirayama | June 27, 2015 at 07:54 AM

    Will anyone please tell me;
    -How did we end up with not having a fixed term of office for the elected government?
    -Why does the power of setting the date of a Federal election rest with the Government of the day?
    -There are obvious political advantages to the Government in having the power to set the date of an election. What are the benefits to the electorate, the ordinary voter?

    Or, can anyone point me somewhere that I can research this?

    COMMENT: The British Parliament right back to the middle ages always had flexible election dates. The Australian colonial parliaments inherited this tradition in 1856, as did the Commonwealth in 1901.

    The first Australian state to fix election dates permanently was NSW ahead of the 1995 election, since repeated in South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and the Northern Territory.

    The recent UK election was the first in history to have a fixed date, as will future UK elections unless the fixed term parliament legislation is repealed. Canada currently has fixed term parliament legislation but with numerous get out clauses. New Zealand has an election date determined by the Prime Minister, as is the general rule around the world.

    Rigid fixed dates for elections are the exception rather than the rule around the world. Fixed date elections are much more a feature of presidential rather than parliamentary systems of government.

    Posted by: Seth Sulaiman | June 27, 2015 at 12:05 PM

    Antony, sorry for an off-topic question, but you don’t seem to have a “general questions” section.

    Harold Blair stood for Mentone at the 1964 Victorian election. My current belief is that he was the first Indigenous parliamentary candidate. Do you (or does anyone else) know of an earlier one?

    COMMENT: I have no idea.

    Posted by: Adam Carr | June 27, 2015 at 02:41 PM

    Thank you Antony. This, and the previous 3 or 4 posts, are incredibly informative. Apart from the question of whether there are grounds for a DD (and note that we have drifted towards a rather more “presidential” role for the Prime Minister and a more passive role for the G-G than in Sir Ronald Munro-Ferguson’s time), there is also the question of whether it would do the PM and his party(ies) any good.

    At an election for the whole Senate the quota (in the States) is 7.7%. On likely voting figures this would guarantee the ALP 4 seats in each State, and possibly a fifth in some, the coalition 5 seats in each State with a remote possibility of a sixth in one or two, the Greens one in each State with some, but not much, chance of a second here or there, and a whole lot of minor parties getting one or two per State depending on the ballot-paper draw and the flukes of who is eliminated before who.

    Add in one from each Territory for each of the ALP and the coalition and we could end up with totals not too different from the current coalition 33, ALP 25, Greens 10 and others 8 – though they could be very different “others” from the current lot. I wonder if the PM would think it was worth the bother.

    Of course if he wants to risk dissolving the Reps, a DD would at least make it easier to keep the elections of the Houses synchronised in future – and (unless the LDP flukes a good column in NSW again) we could find out whether a lot of people really voted for them thinking they were the Liberals, or whether there really are a lot of libertarians in NSW. But still I wonder, would even an impulsive chap like our PM think those small benefits were worth the risk and the public expense?

    COMMENT: The point I come back to with the double dissolution power is that it is constitutionally designed to break deadlocks by delivering a new Senate as a resolution to the deadlock. The current trigger has never been presented to the new Senate that took its place in 1 July 2014, so why does the government need a new Senate to resolve a deadlock with the current Senate that doesn’t actually exist? It is certain that an attempt to use the current trigger would lead to an attempt by current Senators to injunct the dissolution and issue of writs in the High Court. The Court might not agree to issue an injunction, but it might hear the matter, which would potentially embarrass the Governor-General.

    Posted by: John Pyke | June 27, 2015 at 02:43 PM

    Antony,
    In your answer to Robert Crew (11.15pm on 26 June) you say that the current Parliament expires on 11 November 2015 and the latest election date is 14 January 2016. Don’t you mean 11 November 2016 and 14 January 2017?

    COMMENT: Yes. There comes a point in life where you begin to forget what year you are living in.

    Posted by: John Taylor | June 27, 2015 at 04:30 PM

    Antony
    I understand the state Premiers/governments issue the writs for Senate elections. Can a state Premier block or delay the process of a double dissolution by refusing to issue writs at the time the Prime Minister wants them?

    COMMENT: A double dissolution would dissolve the Senate first . Then the election would be set for a specific date and communicated to the states for the issue of Senate writs. If one of the states then bickered over the date for an election that is being paid for by the Commonwealth, they would end up looking pretty silly. The election would have to occur.

    Posted by: Scott Brodie | June 28, 2015 at 12:38 AM

    Antony why would we listen to you. Your expertise as a political commentator has been torn to shreds after your disastrous predictions regarding the UK election. You touted yourself over there and came back humiliated. Only the Abc would give you a platform which speaks volumes for accuracy. None.

    COMMENT: The complete failure of the entire UK polling industry and it is my opinion ‘torn to shreds’? If you choose on that basis to ignore the detailed explanation of current election possibilities for Australia that are set out in this post, it is entirely your right to do so. But I think you will be less well informed for doing so.

    Posted by: bron | June 28, 2015 at 06:23 AM

  • The John James Newsletter 66 Inbox x

    Click here to enable desktop notifications for Gmail.   Learn more  Hide

    Something’s not right.

    We’re having trouble connecting to Google. We’ll keep trying…

    Errors: 101

    1 of 23

     

    The John James Newsletter 66

    Inbox x

    John James
    		1:41 PM (16 minutes ago)

    The John James Newsletter 66
    27 June 2015 – north of Paris

    The evils of government are directly proportional to the tolerance of the peopleFrank Kent

    Isn’t this where we all should be?https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/vnVuqfXohxc?rel=0&amp%3bshowinfo=0
    Why Hardly Anyone Dies From a Drug Overdose in PortugalPortugal decriminalised the use of all drugs in 2001. Weed, cocaine, heroin, you name it — Portugal decided to treat possession and use of small quantities of these drugs as a public health issue, not a criminal one.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42166.htm
    India Just Upped Its Solar Target Five-Fold, Will Install More Solar This Year Than GermanyWith this India will become one of the largest green energy producers in the world, surpassing several developed countries,http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/17/3670558/india-makes-huge-solar-commitment-100-gigawatts/
    Egypt’s Quiet Social RevolutionThe generation that launched the Tahrir Square revolution in 2011 is changing the country again.https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/18/egypts-quiet-social-revolution/
    California Has Never Experienced such a Water Crisis – And The Worst Is Yet To Come Not just in California, but all over the world, underground aquifers are being drained rapidly. 21 of the 37 largest aquifers in the world “have passed their sustainability tipping points”.http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/california-has-never-experienced-a-water-crisis-of-this-magnitude-and-the-worst-is-yet-to-come ‘Warm Blob’ in Pacific Ocean to BlameIn the fall of 2013 and early 2014, we started to notice a big, almost-circular mass of water that just didn’t cool as much as usual. By spring of 2014, it was warmer than we had ever seen it for that time of yearhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)

    ‘Iraq is no more’: Congress, Pentagon coming to terms with 3-way splitThe nation could be split into a Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite territory if Iraq’s central government cannot convince Sunnis and Kurds they will be an inclusive and protected part of a unified Iraq.http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/iraq-is-no-more-congress-pentagon-coming-to-terms-with-3-way-split/article/2566481
    US Strategy In Turkey: Causing The Problem to Provide “The Fix”Promoting Kurdish independence has become a key piece of US grand strategy for the Middle East. http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0611/S00158.htm ). Can Assad’s regime survive the onslaught from Isis and Jabhat al-Nusra? The Syrian army, outgunned and at times frighteningly outnumbered by its Islamist enemies, is not about to collapse. But here are a few grim facts. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syrian-civil-war-can-assads-regime-survive-the-onslaught-from-isis-and-jabhat-alnusra-10317350.html Trapped Between Assad, Israel, and al QaedaSyria’s million-strong Druze minority  forced into a no-win choice to secure its survival. The Druze are a secretive Islamic sect that number about 700,000 in Syria, 215,000 in Lebanon, and 140,000 in Israel. http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/06/22/druze-syria-assad-israel-netanyahu/

    UN Suggests Top Officials Sanctioned Israel’s War Crimes Against GazaDuring a single attack on a residential building, 742 people lost their lives, while “at least 142 families lost three or more members.” During the 51-day war, 6,000 airstrikes and approximately 50,000 tank and artillery shells killed 1,462 Palestinian civilians, one third of them children.http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/22/un-suggests-top-officials-sanctioned-israels-war-crimes-against-gaza
    ‘Not Here, Not Now, Not Ever’: Reef Defenders Rise Up in AustraliaDozens walked onto the Abbot Point Coal Terminal lands to protect the Great Barrier Reef. The protest ‘foreshadows a sustained campaign of civil disobedience’ against Abbot Point coal projecthttp://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/22/not-here-not-now-not-ever-reef-defenders-rise-australia Adani halts engineering work on controversial Carmichael minehttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/24/adani-halts-engineering-work-on-controversial-carmichael-mine-sources?CMP=ema_632 Galilee Basin – Unburnable Coal http://www.climatecouncil.org.au/galilee-basin-unburnable-coal
    We are sawing off the limb we are sitting on.’The planet is entering a “sixth great extinction” that even the most conservative estimates show is killing off species at rates 100 times higher than it would have been without impact of human activity.http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full Earth ‘entering new extinction phase’ – US studyhttp://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33209548
    12 Signs That The US And China Are Moving Toward WarThe Chinese are working feverishly to develop new offensive weapons systems that would only be used in such a war.  We are moving in that direction.  And this is how wars typically happen as events build up over time.http://endoftheamericandream.com/
    The Injustice Handed Out To Julian Assange Must EndThe US criminal investigation against him and WikiLeaks — for the “crime” of exercising a right enshrined in the US constitution, to tell unpalatable truths — is “unprecedented in scale and nature”.http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42183.htm
    Russian sanctions threaten 40,000 Swiss jobsif the sanctions are continued, Germany would lose 465,000 jobs, Italy 215,000 jobs, Spain 160,000 jobs and France 145,000 jobs, and the UK 110,000 jobs.Tit-for-tat retaliations by Russia are another part of the explanation for the negative economic impact.http://www.thelocal.ch/20150619/russian-crisis-threatens-40000-swiss-jobs
    Not ‘If’ But ‘How’: New Study Shows Why All Extreme Weather Is Climate RelatedThe environment in which all weather events occur is not what it used to be. All storms, without exception, are different. Even if most of them look just like the ones we used to have, they are not the samehttp://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/06/23/not-if-how-new-study-shows-why-all-extreme-weather-climate-related Computer model of what’s really warming the world –  Graphic.http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
    Near-term “acute disruption to the global food supply.”The global food system is “under chronic pressure to meet an ever-rising demand, and its vulnerability to acute disruptions is compounded by factors such as climate change, water stress and heightening political instability.”http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/files/news%20and%20insight/risk%20insight/2015/food%20system%20shock/food%20system%20shock_june%202015.pdf
    First Five Months of 2015 Hottest on Record; El Nino is Still Ramping UpThese temperatures are 1.05 degrees Celsius above 1880s. They exceed maximum Holocene values making current warming similar to the Eemian of 150,000 years ago. This pace of greenhouse gas accumulation has never been seen in all the Earth’s deep history.https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/
    What Saudi Arabia’s War in Yemen and Iran’s Regional Strategy Are Really AboutRiyadh’s war in Yemen marks a dramatic escalation in its efforts to roll back Iran’s rising influence in the Middle East.  A strategy fuels a new Saudi-Iranian or Sunni’-Shi’a “Cold War” in the Middle East.http://goingtotehran.com/what-saudi-arabias-war-in-yemen-and-irans-regional-strategy-are-really-about
    Australia morally bereft – the new world viewAustralia’s global reputation has taken another drubbing, with reports far and wide that have highlight ‘bribery’, ‘democracy undermined’, ‘abandonment of good government’ and ‘Australia plumbing new depths’.https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australia-morally-bereft–the-view-worldwide,7847 Coalition details strategy to boost solar at expense of windhttp://reneweconomy.com.au/2015/coalition-details-strategy-to-boost-solar-at-expense-of-wind-36595
    The Most Outrageous Responses To The Pope’s Encyclical On Climate Changehttp://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/19/3671144/the-pope-freaks-out-climate-deniers/  IS Plans to Blow up Syria’s Ancient City of Palmyra The IS militants have planted explosive devices in the most ancient part of Palmyra,http://www.newindianexpress.com/world/IS-Plans-to-Blow-up-Syrias-Ancient-City-of-Palmyra/2015/06/21/article2879059.ece ISIS Plans To Launch Terror Attacks Across India:http://inserbia.info/today/2015/06/isis-plans-to-launch-terror-attacks-across-india/
    Was Stalin To Blame For World War II?http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/was-stalin-to-blame-1.228553 A Thoughtful Look at the German-Soviet Clash – Could Hitler Have Won?http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n6p38_Bishop.html
    A generation caught in the attrition trapResearch by the Brotherhood of St Laurence finds those aged 55 and over account for just 8% of the unemployed, whereas those aged under 25 make up more than 40%.http://www.smh.com.au/comment/young-frozen-out-of-the-job-market-when-times-are-tough-20150623-ghv4kb.html

    to John

  • Next Australian federal election WIKIPEDIA

    Next Australian federal election

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Next Australian federal election
    Australia
    2013 ← On or before 14 January 2017
    All 150 seats in the Australian House of Representatives
    76 seats needed for a majority
    40 (of the 76) seats in the Australian Senate
    Opinion polls
    Tony Abbott Bill Shorten
    Leader Tony Abbott Bill Shorten
    Party Liberal/National coalition Labor
    Leader since 1 December 2009 13 October 2013
    Leader’s seat Warringah Maribyrnong
    Last election 90 seats
    45.55%    		 55 seats
    33.38%
    Seats needed Steady Increase21
    2013 TPP 53.5% 46.5%
    TPP polling 49% 51%
    BPM polling 41% 38%
    Richard Di Natale Clive Palmer
    Leader Richard Di Natale Clive Palmer
    Party Greens Palmer United
    Leader since 6 May 2015 April 2013
    Leader’s seat Senator for Victoria Fairfax
    Last election 1 seat
    8.65%    		 1 seat
    5.49%
    Seats needed Increase75 Increase75
    Bob Katter
    Leader Bob Katter
    Party Katter’s Australian
    Leader since 3 June 2011
    Leader’s seat Kennedy
    Last election 1 seat
    1.04%
    Seats needed Increase75
    Incumbent Prime Minister
    Tony Abbott
    Liberal–National coalition

    The next Australian federal election will elect members of the 45th Parliament of Australia. The election will be called following the dissolution or expiry of the 44th Parliament.

    Elections in Australia use a full-preference instant-runoff voting system in single member seats for the lower house, the House of Representatives, and single transferable vote group voting tickets in the proportionally represented upper house, the Senate. Voting is compulsory.

    By Westminster convention, but subject to Constitutional constraints, the decision as to the type of election and date on which an election is to take place is that of the Prime Minister, who ‘advises’ the Governor-General to set the process in motion by dissolving the House of Representatives and then issuing writs for election.

    Contents

    Election date

    Section 13 of the Constitution of Australia requires that in half-Senate elections the election of State senators must take place within one year before the places become vacant. As the terms of half the senators end on 30 June 2017, the writs for a half-Senate election cannot be issued earlier than 1 July 2016, and the earliest possible date for a simultaneous House/half-Senate election is 6 August 2016.[1] While there is no constitutional requirement for simultaneous elections for the Senate and the House of Representatives, both the government and electorate have long preferred for Senate elections to take place simultaneously with those of the House of Representatives. Nonetheless, half-Senate elections only have taken place in the past.

    A House-only election can be called at any time during the parliamentary term. Whether held simultaneously with an election for the Senate or separately, an election for the House of Representatives must be held on or before 14 January 2017,[1] which is calculated under provisions of the Constitution and the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (CEA). Section 28 of the Constitution provides that the term of a House of Representatives expires three years from the first sitting of the House. The last federal election was held on 7 September 2013, and the 44th Parliament of Australia opened on 12 November 2013,[2] and its term would expire on 11 November 2016.[3] Writs for election can be issued up to ten days after a dissolution or expiry of the House.[4] Up to 27 days can be allowed for nominations,[5] and the actual election can be set for a maximum of 31 days after close of nominations,[6] resulting in the latest election date of Saturday, 14 January 2017.

    A double dissolution cannot take place within six months before the date of the expiry of the House of Representatives.[7] That means a double dissolution must be granted by 11 May 2016. Allowing for the same stages indicated above, the last possible date for a double dissolution election is 16 July 2016.[1]

    Constitutional and legal provisions

    The Constitutional and legal provisions which impact on the choice of election dates include:[8]

    • Section 12 of the Constitution says: “The Governor of any State may cause writs to be issued for the election of Senators for that State”
    • Section 13 of the Constitution provides that the election of Senators shall be held in the period of twelve months before the places become vacant.
    • Section 28 of the Constitution says: “Every House of Representatives shall continue for three years from the first sitting of the House, and no longer, but may be sooner dissolved by the Governor-General.”[9] Since the 44th Parliament of Australia opened on 12 November 2013, it will expire on 11 November 2016.[10]
    • Section 32 of the Constitution says: “The writs shall be issued within ten days from the expiry of a House of Representatives or from the proclamation of a dissolution thereof.” Ten days after 11 November 2016 is 21 November 2016.
    • Section 156 (1) of the CEA says: “The date fixed for the nomination of the candidates shall not be less than 10 days nor more than 27 days after the date of the writ”.[11] Twenty-seven days after 21 November 2016 is 18 December 2016.
    • Section 157 of the CEA says: “The date fixed for the polling shall not be less than 23 days nor more than 31 days after the date of nomination”. [12] Thirty-one days after 18 December 2016 is 18 January 2017, a Wednesday.
    • Section 158 of the CEA says: “The day fixed for the polling shall be a Saturday”.[13] The Saturday before 18 January 2017 is 14 January 2017. This is therefore the latest possible date for the election. However, it is unlikely that the election would be held this late, as schools would be closed for summer holidays at this time. Governments tend to avoid holding elections during school holidays, since schools are often used as polling places.[14]