Last night the Chaser did their election wrap up show. During the show they aired the clip below. The sad thing about the comedy in the skit is that the message is quite true. Depending on the final count Australia may have elected its first ever indigenous politician. New Zealand elected its first indigenous MP in 1868 and since then has had over 80 Maori MPs (20 in the current Parliament). It is good to finally see some progress in Australian politics, they are only 140 years behind NZ. One can only hope that the rest of the barriers of racism and oppression will fall and Australia will embrace their cultural roots as much as NZ does.

From around 6pm AEST tonight I will be live blogging the Australian Election results in this post.

Updates will be added to the post as the results come in.

My commentary will be from a Kiwi’s perspective with the focus primarily on New South Wales but also a bit of Queensland and Victoria.

Stay Tuned for more.

5.20pm update – Seven News have exit polls by Roy Morgan. First seat Herbet near Townsville is showing a swing to Labor however exit polls are not accurate and with a sample of only 300 people the result is within the margin of error (which 7 News failed to tell the viewers).

5.30pm – Seven News have their second exit poll. Lindsay to go Liberal with a 15% swing. Again massive swing and most likely because the sample size is so small.

5.40pm – Third exit poll. La Trobe, in Melbourne’s South East. ALP to win with 5% swing.

7pm – 7 News is reporting that the swing is going against Labor but instead of going to Liberal it is going towards the Greens. Still very early days with only around 1% of the votes counted.

7.30pm – It looks like The Greens may pick up their first ever House of Representatives seat by winning the electorate of Melbourne. (This is an early prediction). Predictions also showing ALP have lost two seats nationally, and LNP have gained two, so neck and neck.

8pm – With 3 million votes counted nationally on two party preferred LNP is leading 50.5% to 49.5%, so neck and neck, ALP may lose 13 seats on latest predictions. Election is very much too close to call. Sydney may also go Greens, and possibly Denison in Tasmania. Result may not be known tonight.

8.30pm – Greens have almost definitely won Melbourne. Candidate just gave a victory speech. Nationally with a little over 5 million votes ALP is now leading 50.3% to 49.7%.

9pm – A few victory speeches over the last half hour, but still too close to call in many seats.

9.30pm – Still heading for a hung parliament.

9.50pm – Greens have 12% in the Senate. Looks like 9 senators in the new Parliament. “We are seeing the birth of a new political movement” – Bob Brown, Greens Leader. “It is time we moved to proportional representation”

10pm – 7 News is calling it currently at 73 seats each, below the 76 needed to govern. With 3 independents + 1 Green.

10.15pm – Can a government be formed? Labor + Greens will not be enough to govern without two independents on current predictions.

11.15pm – Gillard takes the stage (before Abbott), “Too close to call”, “Every vote must be counted”

11.30pm – Channel 7′s panel is saying Labor lost the plot when they failed to have a backbone and pass the ETS in March or go to a Double D Election over the issue.

12am – Abbott has addressed the Liberal Party faithful. At end of the night hung parliament with 72 seats Labor, 71 seats LNP declared.

Citing the Christian ethos of feeding the hungry, housing the homeless and clothing the naked, just as long as they’ve got the appropriate documentation, Abbott said anyone who had fled a war zone or escaped from a torture chamber without travel papers could jolly well pelt themselves with their own eggs (which no doubt would come from ducks, knowing how weird these foreigners are).

So funny yet it would not surprise me if Abbott actually said something along these lines.

Sources say Abbott had initially insisted that boat arrivals must hold Australian passports. However, it was soon realised that the only people processed under this scheme would be Australian citizens returning from holidays aboard cruise ships and those are the last sort of characters we want to encourage into the country.

Rumours that the Prime Minister is planning to keep out undesirables by processing cruise-ship passengers offshore – to ascertain whether any of them had danced to the chicken dance, giggled while ordering cocktails with rude names or played bingo while on the high seas – could not be confirmed.

The full article is here.

The SMH today is reporting that Inner Party member Conroy is secretly pushing on with plans to filter the Australian internet.

The federal government is hiding controversial plans to force ISPs to store internet activity of all Australian internet users – regardless of whether they have been suspected of wrongdoing – for law-enforcement agencies to access.

The next thing they will try is for everyone in the country to wear a GPS tracker so we always know where people walk, drive, train or cycle so that we can fine them when they jaywalk or fail to indicate.

As every day goes by it seems the Rudd government is becoming more and more successful at achieving the impossible – losing the next election. For me being a computer geek all it means is that I am much more aware of my actions online and wherever possible I am using encryption for data transfer. It is not an argument about having nothing to hide and therefore needing no privacy. It is a matter that the government wants to data mine our every single action, watch our every single step and monitor every little thing we do in our lives.

I have no issue with sharing my browsing habits with people who I opt to share it with; more often than not I opt into anonymous data sharing of software usage. However, this is not what the government intends, what the government intends is complete mind control of its population. This is not censorship, censorship is a public list of banned material and the reason why they are banned which is debatable in court, this is well beyond censorship and amounts of thought control. The government is not telling you what is blocked, why it is blocked, or any way of being able to appeal sites being blocked. All in all it is a very scary idea that you would expect from a mad dictator not a democratically elected government.

Shane Jones needs to resign now; he has already hung on for too long. But so does Phil Goff. If Labour want any chance to win the next election they need to completely rebuild the party from the ground up. This involves a dramatic restructure of their list and they need to shuffle the old pack out of parliament as fast as possible. If they don’t National are guaranteed to win the next election and the Greens will eat a large amount of the vote. Right now Labour are on the verge of being destroyed and they need to act to stop the damage, if they don’t they are gone from power for a very long time.

Loading up the Labour party website it is clearly obvious they are lacking any distinction. All they are is attack the attack National party, and this is a terrible approach to take as a National is so popular in the polls and there is no clear reason why anyone would want to vote for Labour. In fact their website seems to advertise National more than they advertise themselves, the word National is much larger than the words Labour and the only image I see is of John Key!

As part of this rebuilding they need to clear out the old guard. Some of the MPs have dug themselves such big holes they need to go now, others have just been around for far too long and have this terrible odour about them.

A much better line up of Labour would be:
David Cunliffe – Leader
David Parker – Deputy Leader
Maryan Street
Darren Hughes
Clayton Cosgrove
Ruth Dyson
Charles Chauvel
Annette King
Nanaia Mahuta
Lianne Dalziel
Winnie Laban
Moana Mackey
Steve Chadwick
Sue Moroney
Jacinda Ardern
Ross Robertson
Mita Ririnui
Lynne Pillay
Clare Curran
Kelvin Davis
Chris Hipkins
Raymond Huo
Ashraf Choudhary
Darien Fenton
Su’a William Sio
Carol Beaumont
Damien O’Connor
Brendon Burns
Iain Lees-Galloway
Stuart Nash
Dr Rajen Prasad
Grant Robertson
Carmel Sepuloni
Phil Twyford
David Shearer

Gone:
Phil Goff
Parekura Horomia
Chris Carter
Shane Jones
Trevor Mallard
Pete Hodgson
Rick Barker
George Hawkins

Apparently the NZ Budget announced today is the biggest change to the tax system in 25 years. It doesn’t seem like much of a change more just adjusting the dials of an old and broken system.

The key adjustments are:

The personal income tax rate changes from 1 October 2010 are:

• Up to $14K – tax rate goes from 12.5% to 10.5%
• $14K to $48K – tax rate goes from 21.0% to 17.5%
• $48K to $70K – tax rate goes from 33.0% to 30.0%
• $70K+ – tax rate goes from 38.0% to 33.0%

GST will rise to 15% and company tax will drop to 28%.

If you really wanted to make radical changes to the system this is what I would do:

Taxation:

• Flat tax rate – equal for both individuals and businesses
• No GST
• Capital Gains Tax
• No Working for Families or middle class welfare

Transport:

• Build and upgrade highways but introduce tolls on most major roads
• Encourage people onto public transport by building more railways and introducing light rail into busy bus corridors. Make fares much cheaper than driving until a critical mass is achieved and slowly phase out the subsidies once things are paying for themselves.

Education:

• Free public education until the age of 25 including university or polytech study
• Universal Student Allowance to everyone in full time study in public post secondary education living away from home
• No funding to private schools – if parents want to send their children there they can pay for it entirely
• Increase funding for Research

Healthcare:

• Free doctors visits and hospitals
• Remove ACC
• Introduce Private Health Insurance for accidents with various options around cover but ensure everyone is eligible to be covered

State Owned Enterprises:

• Sell all SOEs operating in a commercial environment such as TVNZ, and Air New Zealand.
• Other SOEs do not pay tax as overheads in giving money to an SOE and then taxing it back is just silly.

Defense:

• Focus on Search and Rescue and Peace Keeping
• Increase funding for equipment to ensure state of the art equipment is used

It is amazing how much technology can change the shape of history, can shape our future, and can shape the outcome of elections. A little over a year ago we saw the election of Barack Obama to the United States Presidency off the back of a massive campaign using new media. Now thanks to two televised election debates we are seeing a mini revolution in UK politics. The only problem is this mini revolution may be the biggest political revolution that never happens because with the UK still using the First Past the Post voting system the party that wins the most number of votes may fail to govern.

Like Australia, the United States, and many other countries the UK has traditionally had two major political parties, the left leaning Labour Party, and the right leaning Conservatives. For a few parliamentary terms the Labour Party will rule and once the voters get sick of them the Conservatives will rule until the cycle reverses. The way in which these governments are elected comes down to local electorates rather than voting for the party you want to win you vote for your local MP. The party that has the most number of electorate MPs elected will get to govern. This is different from NZ politics where under MMP you have two votes one for your local MP and one for the party you wish to govern with the parliament being made up with a mixture of local MPs and party list MPs.

Now the reason a mini revolution has occurred in England is because for the first time Nick Clegg, the leader of the Social Democrats a small minority party, has been included in two televised leaders debates alongside the leaders of the both the Conservative and Labour parties. And in both of these debates Clegg has won. This has seen the Social Democrats rocket up the polls on the popular vote to a position where they are beating Labour and in some poles even leading the Conservatives. This has also thrown the May 6 election wide open with the real possibility of a hung parliament.

The biggest problem with all this analysis though is it may amount to nothing all because of the way FPP operates. The NZ Herald puts it this way:

The really surprising thing about the Nick Clegg surge is that almost nothing has changed.

That may seem an odd thing to say after 10 days in which Labour has been forced into third place in the opinion polls and the Liberal Democrats have broken through for the first time since the formation of the Social Democratic Party nearly three decades ago.

But the way votes translate into seats means that, unless the Lib Dems get up to 36 or 37 per cent of the vote, they remain the third party in seats.

And while Clegg’s party remains the third party in the House of Commons, the outcome of the election is decided by the gap between the Conservatives and Labour.

The shape of politics will be transformed on May 6. That may be the beginning of the end for the Labour Party. And yet the outcome of the election remains surprisingly unchanged.

The reason is that Clegg’s surge has been uncannily even-handed in its effect on the other two parties. The Conservatives have fallen 4.5 points in the polls, on average, since the first debate, and the Labour drop has been the same.

The gap between the two is therefore unchanged, at about 6.5 points, which suggests the Tories would be the largest party in a hung parliament – which is where the country was before the Cleggshell was dropped on this campaign.

The voters are likely to end up, therefore, with David Cameron as prime minister, leader of a minority Conservative government.

All of this screams out that the who democratic process of FPP is wrong, for a party to be able to gain the most number of popular votes and not govern is wrong, for a party to be able to govern on only 30% support is wrong. And focusing on New Zealand for a second this is the exact reason why we should not move back towards FPP or change away from MPP. It is often argued that MMP gives small parties too much power, but I would rather have good, cross party support for well written laws than be ruled by a minority forcing their sole thoughts on the nation.

This morning the Green Party posted a good video about the problems with the UK election to their blog:

It is a great shame that the National Government along with the support of the Act, Maori, and Progressive parties tonight voted down Keith Locke’s Head of State Referenda Bill.

The sooner New Zealand becomes an independent nation the better. I do not mind if we become a state of the larger nation of an independent Australia or if we become an independent nation in free association with an independent Australia. But there is one thing I feel strongly about and that is New Zealand should no longer be a colony of Great Britain.

Some may argue that we already have independence through the Statute of Westminster however this is not full or true independence.

What has particularly got my back up tonight though is the arguments of the Maori Party in the debate. Below this post is the full speech given by Rahui Katene in which she argues that any move towards becoming a republic would run foul of the Treaty of Waitangi.

What a missed opportunity this is. The Treaty of Waitangi has been a source of much argument and problems for years, the founding of the Maori party was birthed in a disagreement over the Treaty of Waitangi on matters to do with the foreshore and seabed. There are a number of factions within Maoridom who do not agree with the treaty and some iwi who did not sign it and to this day do not want to!

A move to a republic gives the nation of Aotearoa New Zealand a chance to make things right, a chance to get a second go at creating a nation. However, the very politicians who represent a party that was born out of a disagreement over the interpretation of a badly worded treaty do not even want a discussion on the issue at a select committee.

I want to know if the Maori Party was forced by the National Party to vote against the bill, or if it did so on its own merits. In either case I have lost a lot respect I had for that party as a party of free thinkers. You can’t always fix the past, you certainly cannot hang onto the past, the best way forward is to always do what is best for the future and that is an independent republic of New Zealand.

Submissions on the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill closed earlier today. This is the full text of my submission and why I do not support the introduction of Voluntary Students’ Association Membership.

To the Education and Science Committee

Introduction

This submission is from Bradford Heap. I am a PhD student at the School of Computer Science and Engineering, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. From 2005 – 2007 and 2009 I was a student at Massey University’s Albany Campus. During 2006 – 2008 I was on the Executive Committee of the Albany Students’ Association Inc. In 2008 I served as the President of the Association and as the internal students’ association representative on Massey University’s Council.

I do not wish to appear before the committee to speak to my submission.

I can be contacted at:

Summary

I oppose the intent of this bill because:

• Freedom of Association is already secured through section 229A clause 5 – 7 of the current Education Act 1989. There is no need to remove compulsory automatic membership of students’ associations when there is already a working and effective mechanism for students to object to membership.
• This bill will result in the loss of student representation on both a local and national level. Currently at a local level many students’ associations organise and run independent student representation through such mechanisms as class/paper representatives, college boards, university committees and ultimately the Council. On a national level students’ associations work together through the likes of the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations Inc., University Sport New Zealand Inc. and Student Job Search Inc. to provide representation and lobbying for students in a unified manner.

If compulsory membership of students’ associations is removed this unified and centralised organisation of representation will be lost. At this point there is no guarantee that the university will have an independent body of students to consult with. In lieu of this there are two outcomes:

1)                        Universities will no longer consult students. The outcomes of this would be very bad for good decision making, or

2)                        Universities will consult focus groups of students. However, there is no guarantee that these students will not be handpicked by the university to represent the views that the university wants to hear.

Most importantly there will be a loss of an independent student voice. If tertiary institutions have to start directly funding student representation groups there will be a perception of collusion over the outcomes of that representation and engagement that is not currently present.

• There will be a loss of advocacy. Not all problems faced by students are representative of all students or need to be dealt with at a university committee level. Many issues faced by students are at relatively small scale and can be resolved through speaking to a particular lecturer or head of department. Unfortunately most students do not know the correct means for raising an issue, or if any issue is raised and there is not a satisfactory response how to take the issue to a higher level. Independent advocacy services provided by students’ associations help to deal with these issues and ensure that issues are resolved as quickly and effectively as possible, student advocates both employed and volunteers are trained in problem resolution and know the processes of the university and who to deal with to resolve problems. If Voluntary Student Membership is introduced the loss of funding from a decrease in student levy income will put these vital services under threat.
• The most important service that students’ associations provide is clubs. Student Clubs are the lifeblood of student life and culture in New Zealand. There are many established clubs within universities that have stretched back many decades. However, these clubs are under threat with the introduction of Voluntary Student Membership. The primary source of funding for the continued running of these clubs is through the allocation of club grants provided by the students’ associations. Without funding many of these clubs would become the realm of the rich who can afford high membership and equipment fees while ordinary students will be locked out of the true university experience.
• Most importantly I oppose this bill because of the direct effects it will have on all students as already seen through the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism in Australia. It is this last point that I would like to address in detail.

The Current Australian Situation

In 2010 I have begun my PhD and have been studying on the University of New South Wales Kensington Campus in Sydney for the previous two months. During this time I have become a member of the students’ union, a number of clubs, and been elected a postgraduate student representative for Computer Science and Engineering.

I should state clearly that the sky has not fallen in through the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism in Australia. However, it is clear that there has been a dramatic loss of representation, advocacy, and services provided by the student union.

The only representation provided by the student union is through the Student Representative Council, effectively the same as the Executive Committee at most New Zealand students’ associations. This committee is democratically elected each year and each member of the committee has a portfolio role – e.g. women’s rights, environmental issues, etc. This committee liaises with the University over issues, but there is no legal or guaranteed framework for any representation or dialog.

Furthermore any representation at a college/faculty level is not organised by the students’ union. Within the School of Computer Science and Engineering, where I am studying, there is a committee of student representatives, this committee while voted for by students, is organised by the university, and operates on an ad hoc basis advocating for students by bringing issues to the attention of the school but there is no framework in place for how issues are dealt with.

On the student services side of the union there are not many services that are provided free to students. The big events held like bands, dance parties, and other student night type stuff are all user pays and run on a competitive basis against other local venues. But more importantly it is the student clubs that have suffered. All clubs charge a membership fee and in the past where a lot of funding has come from students’ associations, instead there are heavy membership fees upfront and additional funding is provided to some clubs by university faculties. Again the biggest problem with university funding of student bodies is that they are at the whim of the university for continuation of this funding from year to year and for the most part there is little in the way of set policy or openness surrounding the allocation of these funds.

Conclusion

At the end of the day the issue of voluntary verses compulsory membership of students’ associations comes down to two components, money and ideology. One ideology says that students’ associations should be entirely voluntary and user pays, the other is those who see the benefits of a compulsory system where the collective greater good is advanced. The largest problem with a user pays argument in students’ associations is what about those who get up against the wall with their finances at university and are not able to pay the bills and face the prospect of being forced out of university or their accommodation, when they go to their students’ association for financial or food help; is it expected that they be asked to pay for that help up front when they can’t afford to pay anything more?

Ex-Act Party MP Deborah Coddington gives the current leadership of Act a roasting in today’s Herald on Sunday

But Hide never did get angry. His mind went to dark places and he could sulk, but current MP David Garrett, for instance, should have been roasted alive long ago, so his sterilisation remarks remained just ideas in a peculiar mind. Now Garrett has destroyed the Act brand.

Because what 21st-century liberal would vote for a party whose caucus supports a man who makes lewd remarks around the office, justifies that behaviour by saying it was okay in Tonga, then advocates bribery and sterilisation as a means to control child abuse and the population of the underclass?

Does Act stop to think that the 21st-century liberal is both an economic and a social liberal? We want low taxes and small government, but we’re not redneck, pro-smacking, tough-on-crime unforgiving mutants.

Why didn’t someone have the forsight to not select David Garratt? For a first term MP he has managed very easily to destroy half a party.

The other half has been destroyed between Hide’s handling of the Auckland Supershitty Supercity and his own contradiction over spending. And do we even need to mention his partner in crime Roger Douglas.

If Act get knocked out at the next election there could be an interesting change in NZ politics. An extreme right wing party is needed to keep pushing National towards the centre. Act represents everything that the majority of NZ doesn’t want and by reacting to that it keeps National from doing stupid things. Without Act there National could easily go further right and this would not be a good thing.