On politicians and South Australia

UNSW Dean, Anthony Mason Professor, Scientia Professor George Williams writes: Re. “Councillors OK (In SA)” (yesterday). Unfortunately, members of South Australian local government standing for the federal parliament do continue to have a problem.

The High Court has held that disqualification in section 44 of the constitution kicks in at the point of nomination. Any person who remains a local councillor at that point (whether or not they are subsequently elected) will find themselves disqualified if the matter is challenged in the High Court, and the Court decides the office is covered by section 44. The result on this last issue is not clear, but there remains a significant risk that the High Court would decide matters this way.

A person would not be protected by section 54 of the South Australian Local Government Act. It does not protect a person from disqualification because under that section a person’s council seat only becomes vacant when they become a member of the federal parliament (ie, after the point of nomination). By this point, a person could already have been disqualified.

Jobs and growth

Marcus L’Estrange writes: Re. “Jobs: hmmm, employment still growing but getting weaker” (yesterday). I am not sure why Glenn and Bernard keep making comment on the monthly ABS “Labor Force”  figures. The use of such figures can only lead to a dodgy analysis and a story based on dodgy figures.

To me it’s like using a Flat Earth Society press release as the basis for studying geographical trends. All governments and most commentators since the 1980s have been dishonest with the public about the real unemployment figures.

The monthly employment figures are based on an International Labour Organisation definition that is so vague and meaningless that it doesn’t even meet the definition of being a definition. Even a dodgy MPs Travel Allowance claim or an Arthur Daley used car warranty has more validity than the monthly unemployment figures. So why use them even for trend purposes analyses?

Glenn and Bernard would be far better off to accept the advice of Roy Morgan Research on the real unemployment figures and/or the ABS survey “Persons not in the labour force” which shows a real unemployment figure of 2 million or 20 per cent or one vacancy for every 20 unemployed.

The consequence of not using the above is that our whole economic growth plan and immigration intake seems to me to be a Ponzi scheme where we require more people to keep the system “growing” and “functioning” but with an increasing number losing income and jobs. The pyramids base of impoverished and vulnerable is broadening and increasing.

The last word should go to former finance minister Peter Walsh when he said: “It is just not sensible to use dodgy figures for a government which lies to delude the public, ends up deluding itself.” Glenn and Bernard (and others) should take note.