Notice: Undefined index: hide_archive_titles in /home2/chesterf/public_html/wp-content/themes/modern-business/includes/theme-functions.php on line 233

Category: Government

31/10/2024

The Effect Optional Preferential Voting had on the 2023 NSW State Election

19 April 2023

Preamble

Preferential voting gives a more democratic system and avoids the electoral distortion of ‘First Past the Post’ which favours those with bigger primaries and can give huge distortions of the vote, such as occurs in the UK where there is an effective north-south division between Labour and the Tories, and a very polarised system, as non-major parties get far fewer seats than their share of the primary vote.

NSW has ‘optional preferential voting’ which is an anomaly in Australia, which Federally and in other States have compulsory (or mandatory) preferential. This simplifies the voting system, but also distorts the results towards a ‘first past the post’ system. It was introduced by Neville Wran in 1980 as part of some excellent reforms, but it might be wondered if the less democratic Optional Preferential was introduced to make it difficult for the Liberals and Nationals when they had ‘3 cornered contests’, i.e. Liberal, National and Labor. If so, it is backfiring now, as on this analysis optional preferential voting has given NSW Labor six fewer seats and an extra 3 Independents would have been elected in the 2023 election.

This paper looks at some seats and tries to quantify what difference a change to the compulsory preferential system would have made to the result of the NSW election.

This analysis suggests that Labor would have gained an extra 6 seats, and Independents an extra three. Labor would have gained Drummoyne, Goulburn, Holdsworthy, Oatley, Ryde and Terrigal. The Independents would have gained North Shore, Pittwater and Willoughby, (though WIilloughby would have been already Independent after the 2022 by-election.)

Method

Where a candidate gets an absolute majority, clearly they have won the seat. If the final margin of victory is less than the exhausted vote, there is a possibility that if the votes had not exhausted, the result may have been different. The question is which candidate would the exhausted votes have favoured. A reasonable guess is that the voters who exhausted would have voted the same way as the voters who filled in all squares for their primary vote.

If this is applied to a number of electorates with close margins, a reasonable estimate of the effect of compulsory voting can be made.

This paper looks at some electorates that have final victory margins less than the exhausted vote number, and multiplies the ratio of known preferences for the last two candidates by the number of exhausted votes. This is then compared to the current margin of victory to see if the result would have been different. These results can then be examined to see the change in the composition of the Parliament that would have resulted from a change to compulsory preferential voting. The seats that would change below are in alphabetical order.

The record for each seat shows the number of Formal Votes (FV), the Final Margin of Victory (FMV) and the number of votes that Exhausted (E).

The tables for each seat show the results for the successful candidate and the second candidate. They show the Primary Vote count (PV), then the Final Vote (FV) count after preferences have been distributed. The difference between these is the number of preferences that the candidate received. The Total Distributed Preferences Distributed (TPD) are added and the ratio between them determined as an index of how the preferences flowed. These ratios are then multiplied by the number of Exhausted Votes to see what the final count is likely to have been if preferences were mandatory.

(A more detailed description of the tables is in an Appendix at the end if it is required).

Drummoyne

Total Formal Votes 51,639. Final Margin of Victory 1,285. Exhausted Votes 2,308.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Di Pasqua Lib	24,526	25,308	782	0.1691	390	25,698
Little Labor.	20,182	24,023	3,841	0.8308	1918	25,941
		FMV = 1,285	TPD= 4,623		E= 2,308	New Result -243

Comment:

If there were compulsory preferential voting, Labor would have won this seat. It is remarkable how few preferences flowed to the Liberals- only 16.9%. 83% of the Exhausted votes would have gone to Labor, winning it the seat.

Goulburn

Total Formal Votes 50,775. Final Margin of Victory 1,170. Exhausted Votes 5,575.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Tuckerman Lib	20,737	23,185	2,448	0.3804	2,121	25,306
Pilbrow Labor.	18,028	22,015	3,987	0.6196	3,454	25,469
		FMV = 1,170	TPD= 6,435		E = 5,575	New Result -163

Comment:

Goulburn would have changed hands from the Liberals to Labor if there had been compulsory preferential voting.

Holsworthy:

Total Formal Votes 48,791. Final Margin of Victory was 331 Votes. Exhausted Votes 4,404.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Ayyad Lib	20,449	22,359	1,901	0.4092	1,802	24,161
Maroney Lab	19,284	22,028	2,744	0.5906	2,602	24,630
		FMV = 331	TPD= 4,645		E = 4,404	New Result 469

Comment:

The result is that with compulsory preferences the 2nd candidate, Maroney of Labor, would have won by 469 votes.

North Shore

Total Formal Votes 48,177. Final Margin of Votes was 3,658, The Exhausted Vote was 6,808.

	Primary V	Final V	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh. V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Wilson Lib	21,308	21,987	1,901	0.0802	547	24,161
Conway Indep	10,308	18,329	7,802	0.9199	6,261	24,630
		FMV = 3,658	8,481		E = 6,808	New Result 469

Comment:

The result is that the Independent, Conway would have won with compulsory preferential voting. Note that the primary of Conway was 21.9%, less than half of Wilson at 44.2%, but the preference flows to Conway were 7,802 votes, 92% and Wilson 697, only 8%.

Ironically, the current 2 Candidate preferred, which favours Wilson by 55.69% to 44.31%. makes it look like a safe seat, but this is because of the Exhausted Votes, as the existing system looks only at the Final Vote Count.

Oatley

The total formal vote was 50,196. Final Margin of Victory 754. Exhausted Vote 3,032

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Coure Lib	22,877	23,959	1,082	0.244	740	24,698
AmbihaipaharLabor	19,851	23,205	3,354	0.756	2,292	25,497
		FMV = 754	TPD= 4,436		E = 3,032	New Result -799

Comment:

The result would have been that Labor would have won. The heavy preference flows suggest that a majority of people do not want the candidate that was elected.

Pittwater

Total Formal Votes 49,511. Final Margin of Victory 754. Exhausted Votes 3,387.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Amon Lib	22,137	23,365	1,228	0.1970	667	24,032
Scruby Indep	17,754	22,759	5,005	0.8030	2,720	25,479
		FMV = 754	TPD= 6,233		E = 3,387	New Result -1,447

Comment

Again, the Independent, Scruby would have won if there were compulsory preferential voting because the Liberal got only 19.7% (667) of the Exhausted Preferences. On the preference ratio Scruby would have got 80.3% (2,720). Since 754 + 667 = 1,421 is less than 2,720, Scruby would have been elected by 1,299.

Ryde

Total Formal Votes 53,840. Final Margin of Victory 54. Exhausted Votes 3,032.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Lane Liberal	24,383	25,431	1,048	0.1933	586	26,017
Howison Lab.	21,004	25,377	4,373	0.8067	2,446	27,822
		FMV = 54	TPD= 5,421		E = 3,032	New Result – 1,804

Comment

This seat had a re-count and aroused a great deal of interest.

Again, the result would be changed and Howison of Labor elected if there were compulsory preferential voting, because the majority of preferences would favour Labor. Few preferences went to the Liberals who in this case were greatly helped by the lack of preference flow due to Optional preferential voting.

Terrigal

Total Votes 50,470. Final Margin of Victory 1,467. Exhausted Votes 2,703.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
Crouch Liberal	23,507	24,467	960	0.2107	569	25,036
Boughton Lab.	19,703	23,300	3,597	0.7893	2,134	25,434
		FMV = 1,467	TPD= 4,557		E = 2,703	New Result – 398

Comment: Boughton of Labor would have won if there were compulsory preferential.

Willoughby

Total Formal Votes 52,830. Final margin of Victory 2,450. Exhausted Votes 5,826.

	Primary V	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh V Added	New Total FV + EVA
James Lib	23,032	24,727	1,695	0.1711	997	25,724
Penn Indep.	14,064	22,277	8,213	0.8289	4,829	27,106
		FMV = 2,450	TPD= 9,908		E = 5,826	New Result -1,382

Comment:

Penn, a well organised Independent had massively more preferences than James, and would have beaten him with compulsory preferential voting. In contests with a strong 3rd candidate, in this case Labor, the preferences are crucial.

Conclusion

If current political trends to minor parties continue, a change in the voting system to compulsory preferential is likely to make an even greater difference in future and this is likely to favour both minor parties and Labor.

Appendix:

Definitions:

1st (Successful) Candidate’s Primary Vote = 1CP

2nd Candidate’s Primary = 2CP

After distribution of preferences

1st Candidates Final Vote = 1FV

2nd Candidates Final Vote = 2 FV

Final Vote Margin of Victory FMV = 1FV – 2FV

Exhausted Vote = E

If E > (1FV – 2FV), then the seat must be considered as able to have had its result changed by having the Exhausted vote preferences considered if preferential voting were compulsory.

The number of preferences P which went to each of the last 2 candidates are:

Ist Candidate 1FV – 1CP = 1P

2nd Candidate 2FV – 2CP = 2P

Thus Total Preferences Distributed 1P + 2P = TPD

The ratio of preferences received will be:

1st Candidate = 1P/TPD

2nd Candidate = 2P/TPD

So if the Exhausted votes followed the primaries of those who gave preferences the extra votes received by the candidates (EVA) would be:

1st Candidate 1EVA = 1P/TPD x E

2nd Candidate 2EVA = 2P/TPD x E

If the Exhausted Votes Added (EVA) to the second candidate is greater than the Final Margin of Victory, FMV (=1FV – 2FV), then compulsory preferential voting is likely to have changed the results. This is noted as a New Result, with a negative sign if there is a change to the existing result.

So the key to the tables becomes:

	Primary Vote	Final Votes FV	Pref Rec’d	Ratio of Pref	Exh. V Added = Ratio x E	New Total FV + EVA
Successful 1st Candidate	1CP	1FV	1P	1P/TPD	1EVA	1FV + 1EVA
2nd candidate	2CP	2FV	2P	2P/TPD	2EVA	2FV + 2EVA
		FMV = Final Margin of Victory = 1FV – 2FV	TPD= Total Preferences Distributed = 1P + 2P			Result = (1FV + 1EVA) – (2FV + 2EVA)

08/08/2024

A Realistic Assessment of the Middle East Situation

8 August 2024
None of the Anglo Countries will say ‘No’ to Israel.
https://johnmenadue.com/the-awesome-power-of-the-israel-lobby/

21/07/2024

DVA Still Screwing Veterans

21 July 2021

A recent article shows that the Dept of Veteran Affairs is still making it hard for injured veterans to get redress.

This is entirely consistent with the way that governments try to minimise all welfare payments.

Centrelink is a bureaucratic nightmare. They will not pay until you have absolutely no resources, and the amounts are not enough even to pay rent in capital cities. Morrison claimed that he had cut the rate of people being granted the Disability Support Pension by two thirds. All the people refused have to keep sending off job applications as part of their ‘mutual obligations’. I see these people. They have virtually no hope of a job and are wasting their own and employers’ time.

I work in the State area of workers compensation and CTP injury. SIRA (State Insurance Regulatory Agency) is chiefly concerned that insurers do not pay out too much, so that the government can boast that premiums are low. There’s not much danger of insurers overpaying. They refuse a large number of investigations and treatments that are standard elsewhere.

Veterans Affairs used to be a special welfare system for returned service personnel and was set up after the world wars as a system to look after heroes. But wars lately have been neither popular, nor in Australia’s interest. The Vietnam war was unpopular, as were the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vietnam was a mistake, but the more recent ones were merely done to please the USA, who also should not have been there. Our troops have lots of PTSD and because negative media coverage was stopped after Vietnam, the veterans cannot really talk about what happened to anyone who understands. Their suicide rate has been high. But consistent with the lack of willingness for any sort of welfare, the veterans also have a bureaucratic nightmare, which delays payment as long as possible, often till their death by suicide.

The market-obsessed late capitalist system in which we live simply creates greater inequality, and the only way to maintain a harmonious social fabric will be to support disadvantaged people, whatever the cause of their disadvantage. It has been said that the Left tries to lessen inequality and the populist Right tries to defend privilege or finds scapegoats. As we watch the US unravel or see our government and opposition blame migrants for the housing shortage it is hard to argue with this proposition.

In the meantime, the veterans need help against the government’s lawyers. And the population should try to stop us being drawn into very silly wars. Taiwan looks like the next danger.

Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide confronts lawfare, cronyism and a bureaucratic nightmare

21/07/2024

Israeli Parliament votes down Two-State Solution 68-9

21 July 2024

Israel has been settling people, largely poorer folk from Eastern Europe on hilltops on former Palestinian occupied land since 1948. Because they did recognise land title before the declaration of the State of Israel, they can claim that no one owns this land, which is of course nonsense, as the Palestinians had been occupying and farming it.

They have continued to pretend that a peace could be negotiated as they gradually took more and more land, and built roads to all the settlements so that the army could come and help the occupiers if the Palestinians resisted. They called the Palestinians terrorists, basically to undermine their legitimacy.

Now there is no land that could be a Palestinian state- there are about 750,000 Jewish settlers in the West bank in fortified villages, and they are educated in Hebrew only, so they cannot go anywhere even if they agreed to.

Israel has pretended for years that there could be a two-state solution because it has been playing for time to make it impossible. Now, because the world is calling out for a peace solution, the Knesset has said that it will not have a two state solution. The Palestinians obviously have nowhere to go. Gaza is rubble and the land on the West Bank is largely Jewish-owned.

Jeff Halper in his book ‘An Israeli in Palestine’ recognised this problem more than a decade ago and said that there would have to be a one-state solution with and post-Apartheid type of reconciliation similar to South Africa’s. Good luck with that now!

It is hard not to believe that the hard right who control the Israeli Knesset wanted the Gazans either to die or to flee to the Sinai, but Egypt did not allow the latter, as they knew that they would be refugees there forever. The Gazans knew it too, though we might wonder what they would choose now as Israel bombs them and blockades them till their children starve.

This is colonialism and genocide more obvious than it has been in public memory, and the Knesset has just shut the door on the peace process that Australia and many other governments have been vainly clinging to.

https://johnmenadue.com/israeli-lawmakers-vote-against-palestinian-statehoodpic-zeev-elkin/

07/06/2024

Anglo Democracies- What a Mess. We need a New Constitution

7 June 2024

If a mob stormed Parliament, overcoming the security system, causing great fear, killing one person and injuring others, we would regard that country with suspicion; South American tin pot democracy? If a few of the rioters were charged, but the instigator was not charged 4 years later, we would regard that as a farce. If the instigator then got a fine for irregularity in the bookkeeping of his election funds 4 years later and got a fine that was a tiny fraction of his election budget, he might as well have had a parking ticket. If the instigator then with total impunity stood again for election we would say that the tin pot nature of a quasi-dictatorship was confirmed. Yet this is exactly what has happened in the USA, where Trump will get a non-custodial sentence, i.e. a fine or some charitable work. Photo-op in a soup kitchen perhaps?

The Republicans will win if Biden becomes unpopular because the economy turns down, or he supports Israel too much because of the power of the Jewish lobby, or if the scare campaign on his age is successful enough. This is because there are only two options, Democrat and Republican. The leaders in the Republican party do not want to criticise Trump because if he succeeds their fortunes will suffer and if he fails, they want to run in 4 years. In a Big Party, it is all about climbing up their hierarchy- tough luck about the country’s welfare. Even Nikki Haley, who criticised Trump in a desperate effort in the Republican primaries has endorsed him. So we have a President who is too old and should step down standing against Trump who has a criminal record and for some reason cannot be brought to book within 4 years; his past failures, ignorance and appalling policies almost irrelevant in the scheme of things.

In Britain, with First-Past-the-Post voting, the electoral system is similarly distorted to favour only two parties and the inequities are such that you can almost draw a line across the country. Conservative Blue in the South, Labour Red in the North. Other parties and opinions are a dot here and there, they get far more votes than seats. Post-Brexit the economy has tanked, which is what one might have expected since most their trade was with the EU. The Conservatives will get a caning, putting in the lack- lustre Labour party, the only alternative, of course.

Back, in Australia, Labor is criticised for doing so little and being Liberal-lite. They had agreed not to raise taxes and even to give tax cuts because Shorten had been defeated by scare tactics in 2019, so having no policies was a safer, small target option. The Conservatives rule from beyond the grave.

The problem is that the people have handed the power to a two party system. When Churchill wrote the post-WW2 German constitution he wrote it so that no party would ever get an absolute majority. There would have to be negotiation about forming government and about each piece of legislation; no ‘winner takes all’. The Swiss constitution has 3 levels of government, all but 7 politicians are part-time and limited to 2 terms, with their jobs protected so that when they leave they go back to them full time. This means there are no party hierarchies to climb up and no jobs for the boys and girls at the end. Also there are quarterly referenda where if citizens get enough signatures they can overthrow even Federal government decisions. This is what Australia did not copy when our constitution was written in 1900 (though it was considered). Our 1901 constitution was a heroic effort to stitch 6 squabbling colonies into a nation. It was not all wisdom for all time.

Anglo countries may have been early in creating democracy from autocratic kingdoms, but better things are now known and we need to move up and on.

02/06/2024

Religious Update: 2 items from Secular Australia

2 June 2024

Wording of the Census

A battle is brewing between Catholic Church leaders and secular groups over the religion question in the Australian census. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) is currently testing whether it would be better to ask “Does the person have a religion?” rather than “What is the person’s religion?”, after 9.8 million people (approximately 40% of responses) indicated in the 2021 count that they had no faith. The new question would have a mark box for both “No” and “Yes (specify religion)”. The bureau is also testing the use of a write-in box for respondents who wish to indicate more detail on their faith, rather than simply picking from a small list of common religions.

The Lord’s Prayer in Parliament House, Victoria

Liberal upper house member Evan Mulholland has placed a motion on the Notice Paper in support of faith leaders who wrote to all members of parliament earlier this month demanding that the parliament continue to observe prayers, including the Lord’s Prayer, at the opening of each sitting day.

It has been 1034 days since the state Labor government promised to replace prayers with something more reflective and appropriate for Victoria’s diverse community.

Victorian Attorney-General Jaclyn Symes has acknowledged the government’s “unmet commitment”.

The flurry of activity – the letter from faith leaders and motions on the Notice Paper – may be a sign that the government is ready to deal with the matter.

Earlier in the year, Mr Mulholland declared that the Liberal Party would “fiercely oppose” any attempt to remove prayer.

Census data show that Christianity has plummeted from 85 per cent of the Victorian population in the 1970s to 41 per cent in 2021. The percentage of people who identified as having no religion at the 2021 Census was 39 per cent.

https://secularism.au/

23/05/2024

EV Batteries are the Answer to Australia’s Electricity Storage Problem

23 May 2024

Everyday we hear about Australia’s energy problem. The government wants to be re-elected because it gave the electricity companies $300 for each of us to offset our power bills.

Less than a fortnight ago, the Government announced a new gas strategy. Gas had to be a ‘transition fuel’ because we could not transition to renewables fast enough. Fracking with its associated damage to the rock strata, environment and greenhouse gas targets notwithstanding Last week the Liberals announced a nuclear future. This week Erarang coal fired power station closure has to be delayed. And, hey rooftop solar is too much in the day time, so owners will have to pay to have the power taken off their hands as grid prices go negative.

Meanwhile it costs $50,000 to buy an EV in Australia, despite the fact that China has an EV overproduction problem and BYD can produce a model called a Seagull for $US10,000 (about $A15,000). An EV has a battery that stores about 50 kilowatt hours, whereas the average home battery is less than 10kWh. The spot price of electricity varies and it would be easy to charge the EVs on solar in the daytime and use their batteries to power the houses in the evenings. Why does this not happen? It does require standard plugs and meters that would allow electricity to move from the car to the grid. Electricity already goes from the grid to the cars- it just has to be able to be reversed.

Why has this not happened? The small number of electricity suppliers, who are arguably gaming the system by withholding supply at critical times to raise prices, do not want supply diversified. They are building solar as fast as they can and wanting to control the solar input. They even offer to put solar on your roof as long as they can control when it is used. If individual households could store solar in their EVs, and either use it or sell it into the grid at peak times, this would directly cut into their oligopoly profits. Why does the government not have the courage to take them on? Probably because solar owners and people who want to profit from the EV batteries in their cars have not made enough noise to make it a political issue.

So lets shout:

‘We want cheap EVs and we want to be able to use their batteries to store power for Australia, lessen greenhouse gases and make some money at the same tim.

When do we want it- NOW!’

23/05/2024

Building Regulator Toughens Up- Joke?

House collapses, the builder is charged with 9 offences and flees. When he turns up, is tried and convicted he is fined a total of $5,450. He calls it minor and continues working for a friend. None of the convictions were for the collapse.

May 23 2024

A house collapses, the builder is charged with 9 offences and flees. When he turns up, he is tried and convicted and fined a total of $5,450. He calls it minor and continues working for a friend. None of the convictions were for the house collapse.

Is this some sort of joke? No. It is another example of our legal system in action- in this case the ‘beefed up’ NSW Building Regulator. Building Minister Anoulack Chanthivong says the charges reflected the new powers of the Building Commission.

See SMH article below:

On the run for months, builder of collapsed home convicted of fraud

By Anthony Segaert and Olivia Ireland

May 23, 2024

The man whose company built a Condell Park home that collapsed in the dead of night last year has been found guilty of a string of fraud-related charges.

Thirty-five-year-old George Khouzame, director of Hemisphere Constructions, was on the run from authorities for nearly two months at the beginning of the year, before he handed himself in to NSW Police in March.

Khouzame, from South Hurstville, pleaded guilty to nine offences relating to using an unlicensed contractor and the fraudulent lodging of insurance applications on three different worksites, but Building Commission NSW and the state’s police failed to secure any prosecutions relating to the Condell Park home collapse.

When asked about the charges, Khouzame told the Herald that, after having his building licence cancelled shortly after the collapse, he had paid out “every single home owner” who had contracted him for work and his fraudulent insurance claims were “just negligence from my office”.

“It was a very, very, very, very low-end fraud. It was literally an honest mistake from my staff in the office,” he said of the nine convictions: three charges of publishing misleading material to obtain financial advantage, two charges of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception, three charges of making false or misleading statements in an insurance application, and one charge of engaging an unlicensed contractor.

Investigation began before the collapse

Attention turned to Khouzame and his company on Good Friday last year, when a young family renting the home built less than 12 months earlier was woken at 4.30am by the sound of the ceiling collapsing.

Neighbours described hearing what sounded like an explosion as a portion of the house in Sydney’s south-west fell down, hitting several cars parked underneath. A previous tenant of the property said one room had earlier “completely flooded”.

But the collapse was less surprising to authorities, who had launched an urgent investigation into Hemisphere Constructions a month earlier. Only a day before, NSW Building Commissioner David Chandler had made an unannounced visit to a worksite in Concord operated by Hemisphere Constructions and found what he described as “pretty obvious” unsafe work practices.

“There is a strong correlation between unsafe worksites and the potential for serious defects to be incorporated in the project,” he told the ABC.

After cancelling Hemisphere’s building licence the following month, Fair Trading, the predecessor to Building Commission NSW, and investigators from Bankstown Police spent the year looking into the company. By January, they were ready to arrest Khouzame.

On visiting multiple homes connected to him, they encountered a problem: Khouzame was nowhere to be found.

After another month of searching, NSW Police obtained an arrest warrant and appealed to the public to find the wanted man.

“George Khouzame, aged 34, is wanted on an outstanding warrant in relation to fraud offences,” NSW Police posted on social media. “Anyone with information into his whereabouts is urged to not … approach him but to call triple zero (000) immediately.”

He handed himself in at Bankstown Police Station at 5.30am on March 6, and was arrested on the spot.

‘You should be saying thank you’

The builder in May pleaded guilty to the offences relating to his management of homes in Punchbowl, Macquarie Fields and Chester Hill.

At two of the three sites, Khouzame significantly understated how much his building projects were worth on insurance applications.

For a Macquarie Fields dual occupancy construction project worth $900,000, Khouzame was accused of writing in his Home Building Warranty Insurance that it was worth $520,000.

“Had the correct value of construction been stated on both insurance applications the value of the insurance premiums would have totalled $14,799.00 creating a deficit of $7517.94,” the facts tendered to the court read.

For a home renovation in Punchbowl, Khouzame listed the construction value to the insurance provider as $150,000 instead of $400,000.

He also pleaded guilty to engaging an unlicensed contractor to install windows and doors at a site he was renovating in Chester Hill.

Khouzame, who called the Herald on Wednesday from a private phone number after numerous attempts to contact him for comment, said the offences were “all they [the investigators] could come up with over a 10-year investigation and 350 homes”.

“The charges were dismissed in relation to the fraud and I pled guilty to only one charge for the home warranty application,” he said. “OK buddy?”

But after the Herald read out his nine offences, to which he pleaded guilty and was fined a total of $5450, Khouzame repeated his claim that it was “very minor fraud”.

“We failed, our staff failed, to update the home warranty to reflect the variations [in project costs] … It was just negligence from my office, and I did accept it, and I apologised.

“So we had existing 24 open projects when the house collapse happened and the licence was cancelled, and we paid out every single home owner and every single client.

“I didn’t run away from the problem. I approached the problem head on and I [had] done what I had to do to make sure that every client and every home owner has been supported by me personally.

“You should be saying, ‘Thank you, good work’.”

In its first six months, Building Commission NSW has cancelled, suspended or disqualified 136 construction licences.

“We’re starting to see the dividends of the expansion of powers the NSW government provided to the Building Commission,” Building Minister Anoulack Chanthivong said.

“It now has an expanded tool kit to improve build quality and weed out those who don’t play by the rules.

“Already this year, we’ve had a nearly 100 per cent increase in the number of building work rectification orders issued, helping to deliver compliant, safe and trustworthy homes.”

Chanthivong did not respond to questions about why charges had not been laid over the house collapse.

With his licence suspended, Khouzame is now working as a labourer for a friend’s food company.

20/04/2024

Cheaper EVs?

20 April 2024

Here is an article praising China’s Electric Vehicle industry and noting that Apple gave up trying to do EVs and China has successfully taken up the slack.

It also boasts that Chinese EV technology is excellent and that they have not lowered prices, and it warns that trade tariffs to stop Chinese exports will be counterproductive.

More conventional views are that China has a glut of EVs and a coming economic crisis due to their property bubble.

Australia has no tariffs on EVs and is currently paying too much for them. Despite the tone of this article, China must want to dump EVs somewhere.

I am still not sure that EVs are good for the environment in that the carbon footprint from mining and processing their components is much greater than the simpler components of internal combustion engines, and the factories that manufacture them are mainly powered by coal-generated power. It takes many km of petrol saved to overcome this initial deficit. Hopefully this situation will gradually improve in time, but in the shorter term, will Chinese EVs be cheaper here?

What does China’s electric vehicle rise mean for the global market?

20/04/2024

Labor’s Policy Drift

20 April 2024

Albanese won the Federal election 2 years ago, but he has been very disappointing.

Australia wanted real change after a decade of Liberals doing nothing except giving money to their mates, offending China and pursuing the dubious AUKUS strategy, (a $360 billion photo op for Scott Morrison).

Labor was very dejected after a bold policy platform from Bill Shorten fell to a characteristic Liberal scare campaign from Scott Morrison in the 2019 Federal election, so they pursued a ‘small target’ strategy (i.e. minimal policies) in the 2022 election.

But when they won the 2022 election, they have still been scared to do anything, behaving like Liberal-lite, as if they are still scared of any Liberal criticism. It seems that they believe that negative political campaigning is so much more successful than actual policies that they are best served by giving the Liberal little to criticise, i.e doing very little. The Liberals are ruling from beyond the grave.

Labor did not undo the Liberal follies of the AUKUS pact, the kow-towing to the US with their bases here and silly behaviour in the South China sea. (How would the US feel if China took a few aircraft carriers for trips around the Caribbean just to emphasise freedom of navigation?) They even kept the Stage 3 tax cuts, which were a desperate Liberal measure; a future promise to win a present election. Labor promised no tax increases, so Medicare remains doomed, and the long-term privatisation contracts that the Liberal installed in Centrelink remain, with our welfare system behaving like a suspicious private insurer as jobs and job security become more tenuous. They were petty with the Teals, taking their staff when they should have supported them both because they are more aligned to Labor in many policy areas, and because they are all from Liberal seats and it is in Labor’s interest that the Teals have them rather than the Liberals.

Now we have dubious rumblings about subsidies to Australian manufacturing with lots of patriotic tub-thumping.

My own view is that Albanese is quite safe in his job until at least after the 2025 election, but Labor may lose seats to Greens or independents if he does not do more of what is needed.

Dutton plays to his base while Albanese neglects his