Wild-assed speculation by me, earlier in this thread:
This has created a symbiosis between the major parties. While ever they continue to take turns in government, they'll continue to control and nurture the system that gives them and their friends a continuous and very lucrative share of the body politic's treasure. Although each of them would prefer the other to be in opposition, it is in neither of their interests to put the cosy duopoly at risk.
From the AFR, 6 May 2016:
Turnbull government makes 103 last minute appointments before poll
Australia has six new ambassadors, a new Reserve Bank governor and 76 new or reappointed members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal as part of a wave of 103 appointments – including former politicians – made in the dying days of the current parliament.
While many of the appointments and reappointments are entirely uncontroversial, the Coalition's enthusiasm for making so many appointments that will run during the life of whoever forms the next government – without consulting the opposition – will raise some eyebrows and runs contrary to the Coalition's own bitter protests about Labor making such appointments in the past.
In the current case, the appointments include appointing judges to the Federal Courts to fill vacancies that haven't yet occurred.
The most enthusiastic appointer in the past week has been Attorney-General George Brandis, who has made 76 reappointments to the AAT including a former Liberal senator, Judith Troeth, a former chief of staff to Scott Morrison, and a former federal Liberal candidate Denis Dragovic.
He has also appointed a counsel assisting the Heydon Royal Commission, Sarah McNaughton, as Director of Public Prosecutions, and former Howard gGovernment health minister Kay Patterson as age discrimination commissioner on the Human Rights Commission.
Senator Brandis has appointed Stephen Burley, SC, to the Federal Court to fill the vacancy left by the retirement of the Hon Justice Annabelle Bennett, AO. He has also appointed Mr Shane Gill to the Family Court to fill one of the positions that will become vacant when two justices "retire in the coming months", while Ms Brana Obradovic is being appointed to the Federal Circuit Court to fill "an upcoming vacancy".
Treasurer Scott Morrison and Communications Minister Mitch Fifield have also been busy making appointments, including to the Productivity Commission – where commission member Karen Chester has been appointed deputy chair – and a range of cultural boards, including the National Portrait Gallery, the National Library of Australia and the National Gallery.
Former Liberal minister Michael Ronaldson has been appointed to the board of Australia Post.
Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has appointed career diplomats as ambassadors to Italy, Vietnam, Iran, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and the Holy See, and as high commissioner to Ghana.
It has become a common occurrence for governments to make a rash of appointments before going to the polls, though the numbers this time around seem particularly large.
The issue of the appropriateness of making such appointments – when a new government may not agree with them – is the major point of contention between parties, rather than necessarily the candidates.
For example, the Coalition was critical of Labor for extended Glenn Stevens' term as Reserve Bank governor before the last election, even though it backed the appointment. The then prime minister said he did not have have an argument with the appointment, but "we just think that it was bad process from a government which is incapable of good process".
"There should have been consultation with the opposition."
Shadow treasurer Chris Bowen was equally critical this week of the lack of consultation on Philip Lowe's appointment as Reserve Bank governor, although he backed the appointment
More wild-assed speculation on my part:
If the cross-bench and opposition Senators are in the way of something a government wants badly enough, the government will give the cross-bench Senators just about anything they want. Note that in these circumstances the merits or otherwise of what the cross-bench Senators want will be of secondary relevance to the government's decision to give them what they want. The decision will be made primarily on the basis of how badly the government wants to get the blocked measure through.
From the ABC, 13 Aug 2015:
Government cuts deal with crossbench, allowing importation of controversial shotgun
ELEANOR HALL: The Federal Government has agreed to allow the importation of a controversial shotgun, in exchange for the support on its migration laws of a crossbench senator.
The Government had banned the Adler lever-action shotgun while it reviewed firearms laws.
But it's now agreed to introduce a sunset clause so the guns can be imported in a year's time.
As Eric Tlozek reports...
But alas: A week's long time in politics, and a year ...well, time for Plan B.
Meanwhile, in CASA land, the Acting Director of Aviation Safety has opened his mouth and proved himself a well-prepared puppet. The bolding of the text other than the names of the speakers is mine:
Mr Carmody: There are a lot of questions there. I can try and deal with a couple of them. I note the point on declining general aviation pilots, and I have seen the statistics. The statistics do not show the growth in recreational pilots, which is very significant. General aviation is characterised by quite old aircraft. The market has actually changed in the last 10 to 15 years. Recreational pilots flying two-seater aircraft have increased exponentially. So, taking the figures in one hit, it is only looking at one segment of the market. That is one point I would like to make.
In terms of the mandates for fitment of ADS-B, there are many, many operators over the last five years— individuals and organisations—that have made a commitment to fit ADS-B. They have fitted it on the basis of the mandate that is in place and the fact that the mandate is coming in. There are a number of operators who would therefore not thank me and would come back at us as a regulator to say, 'You are making it less safe by deferring fitment, when we have already made our investment in accordance with your direction.' We have made very clear directions for the mandate up until 2017. They have invested very significantly, in many cases, in this. So that is a second aspect.
The third aspect, if I may say, is that there is nothing to suggest that the prices will decrease as fitment increases in the United States and elsewhere. In fact, there might be more competition for equipment, and the prices may not decrease. It may be more difficult to get equipment closer to the time. The view from one group of people is that it will get cheaper if we wait until afterwards. The challenge for us is that ADS-B is a safer technology, because it indicates where every aircraft is. That is the safety case we are working towards. My final point on the United States—
Senator XENOPHON: That is not all aircraft and, with apologies, Senator Sterle, ADS-B stands for—
Mr Carmody: Okay, it is not all.
Senator XENOPHON: Automatic Dependent Surveillance-broadcast.
CHAIR: Senator Xenophon, I do not mean to interrupt, but you are coming to the end.
Senator XENOPHON: I am. I am very close. Can I just say that if aircraft fly below cloud cover, visually—if aircraft do not have ADS-B, they have to fly visually—correct?
Mr Carmody: Yes, they have to fly visually. That is correct.
Senator XENOPHON: The point that Dick Smith has made to me just again today is that that poses a risk to pilots. There has never been a case of a mid-air collision in this country involving aircraft in clouds—is that right?
Mr Carmody: I did see a quote to that effect. I assume it is correct; I have heard that.
Senator XENOPHON: He has expressed a concern previously and again today that requiring pilots who cannot afford to install ADS-B to fly visually below clouds itself is problematic from a safety point of view. Is that something you have assessed?
Mr Carmody: Not to my knowledge. I can take that on notice and see whether we have. I do not know the answer to that, I am sorry.
Senator XENOPHON: Could you take it on notice. Is there any possibility—and I emphasise the word 'possibility'—that, given the alarming numbers in respect to general aviation in this country, there may be consideration on CASA's part to consider a stretching out of the date for the implementation of ADS-B?
Mr Carmody: There are no plans at this stage to delay the implementation, but I have only been in place for a week. I would like to look at the possibilities. At this stage there are none, but I will see.
...