Australian Politics - a blog

Truepolitik In Recess

2011-08-22T20:42:00.000+10:00

Hi, everyone

Truepolitik is going into hibernation for an indefinite period. It is likely that this will be my last post.

I have been a bit crook lately, with the flu, so I apologise for my lack of posts.

I note, however, that the so-called "Convoy of No Confidence" has a battery of Liberal / National Party organisers & promoters. This includes Mick Pattel, reportedly disendorsed by the Liberal National Party of Qld for the seat of Mt Isa; Alan Jones, former Liberal Party candidate in several seats in NSW; Barnaby Joyce, National Party Senator, and Liberal Party Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

I would like to know the level of involvement of Tony Abbott's staff, paid as public servants, in the organisation. Perhaps a media organisation will make a FOI request.

Meanwhile, Labor MHR Craig Thomson probably has some serious explaining to do to his pregnant wife and the Labor Party, at least. It has been alleged, with copies of credit card statements, that he used a union corporate card for "escort services" from a brothel. Leaving aside that that, in itself is not illegal, the use of a corporate card for personal non-work related items raises the question of ethics. And that is different from criminal. If the police investigate, it might possibly lead to a charge of fraud against teh union for whom he then worked.

Thank you to my followers. I hope that you will pick up the baton of helping to publicise the shortcomings of politicians.

John
XOXOXOX

Deal With Refugees On Our Turf: Fr Frank Brennan

2011-08-11T19:27:00.001+10:00

[the following article is rewritten from a News Ltd story, referenced below. It is designed to show how media write their stories to create a particular opinion]

HUMAN rights intellectual and lawyer Father Frank Brennan says that we should deal with people (refugees by boat arrival) “efficaciously, quickly and on our on terms and on our own turf”. Father Brennan is professor of law in the Institute of Legal Studies at the Australian Catholic University, and professor of human rights and social justice at the University of Notre Dame Australia.
"Given that people will continue to do very desperate things for the most understandable of human reasons, what is the moral bottom line below which we will not descend as a nation in terms of the protection of our borders," he told ABC radio.

Father Brennan, a staunch opponent of the use of Nauru for processing of boat arrivals, acknowledged it worked to some extent in stopping the boats, in conjunction with other measures such as temporary protection visas. However, Fr Brennan went on: "To say that Malaysia is morally reprehensible is not to espouse Nauru. It's to say that yes, Nauru is the lesser moral evil.", but questioned whether it would work a second time around.
The prominent Jesuit priest said people in leaky boats would continue to arrive in Australia. "We should deal with them efficaciously, quickly and on our on terms and on our own turf”, he said.
Under the Malaysia plan, the Government wants to send 800 asylum seekers to Kuala Lumpur in exchange for 4000 already processed refugees. Father Brennan said Labor seemed determined to come up with something even more ruthless than the former government, conveying the message to asylum seekers that they would definitely would never get to Australia.

The Coalition says Australia should reopen the Nauru processing centre. But Fr Brennan said "I think it could well be ineffective. (the second time round)"

Meanwhile, no asylum seekers will be sent to Malaysia until a High Court case has been resolved, Federal Cabinet secretary Mark Dreyfus has confirmed. Mr Dreyfus said the Federal Government would abide by the letter and the spirit of an interim injunction stopping the transfer of asylum seekers. Lawyers for up to 42 people who the Government intends to send to Malaysia have challenged the people swap arrangement.

The High Court will hear the case later in August."We're going to treat (the injunction) as applying to all the people who were to be transferred to Malaysia, even those who are not participating in this court case," Mr Dreyfus told Sky News today.
----

Here is the News Ltd version, with a promotional slant for the Coalition’s Nauru Solution. Note the first line – designed to reinforce Coalition’s policy on Nauru.
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/nauru-lesser-evil-than-malaysia-deal-says-father-frank-brennan/story-e6frfku0-1226112194561

HUMAN rights intellectual and lawyer Father Frank Brennan says the Nauru solution could be considered a lesser moral evil than the asylum-seeker swap deal with Malaysia.

Father Brennan, a staunch opponent of the use of Nauru for processing of boat arrivals, acknowledged it worked to some extent in stopping the boats, in conjunction with other measures such as temporary protection visas.
But he questioned whether it would work a second time around.
"Given that people will continue to do very desperate things for the most understandable of human reasons, what is the moral bottom line below which we will not descend as a nation in terms of the protection of our borders," he told ABC radio.
"To say that Malaysia is morally reprehensible is not to espouse Nauru. It's to say that yes, Nauru is the lesser moral evil."
The prominent Jesuit priest said people in leaky boats would continue to arrive in Australia.

"We should deal with them efficaciously, quickly and on our on terms and on our own turf," he said.
Under the Malaysia plan, the Government wants to send 800 asylum seekers to Kuala Lumpur in exchange for 4000 already processed refugees.
The Coalition says Australia should reopen the Nauru processing centre.
Father Brennan said Labor seemed determined to come up with something even more ruthless than the former government, conveying the message to asylum seekers that they would definitely would never get to Australia.
He said said the Opposition was promising a reopened Nauru processing centre would provide appropriate health and education, prompt processing with proper scrutiny and guaranteed resettlement.
"Then in that situation, the question would be second time round, would it actually work," he said.
"I think it could well be ineffective."
Father Brennan is professor of law in the Institute of Legal Studies at the Australian Catholic University, and professor of human rights and social justice at the University of Notre Dame Australia.
Meanwhile, no asylum seekers will be sent to Malaysia until a High Court case has been resolved, Federal Cabinet secretary Mark Dreyfus has confirmed.
Mr Dreyfus said the Federal Government would abide by the letter and the spirit of an interim injunction stopping the transfer of asylum seekers.
Lawyers for up to 42 people who the Government intends to send to Malaysia have challenged the people swap arrangement.
The High Court will hear the case later in August.
"We're going to treat (the injunction) as applying to all the people who were to be transferred to Malaysia, even those who are not participating in this court case," Mr Dreyfus told Sky News today.
----

Meanwhile Paul Maley, writing in The Australian, wrote:

“Father Brennan … said the Coalition's alternative policy of processing asylum-seekers on Nauru is the more moral option.”

At no stage, ever, did Fr Brennan say, or imply, that the Nauru solution was moral. He did refer to both the Malaysian Solution, and the use of Nauru, as “moral evil”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/jesuit-priest-argues-malaysia-solution-worse-option-than-howards-pacific-solution/story-fn59niix-1226111970896

I believe that both News Ltd pieces from the Internet and from The Australian show sufficient bias and intent to manipulate public opinion that the News Ltd journalists have abrogated their responsibility to report impartially. They have certainly twisted the intent of Fr Frank Brennan’s opinion. Paul Maley, writing in The Australian, is worse, because he attributes the Nauru Solution as moral, when Fr Brennan described it as a “moral evil”. I believe my re-write is a more accurate representation of Fr Frank Brennan's position and arguments in the interview ... and I'm an amateur!

John

Nile’s Unchristian Attack on Ethics

2011-08-07T15:09:00.002+10:00

Fred Nile, speaking while introducing a Bill to remove ethics classes in the Legislative Council on 5-August, said:

''It's relative ethics, which is the basis of secular humanism,'' Mr Nile told parliament. ''I believe this is the philosophy that we saw during World War II with the Nazis and with the Communists.'' ¹

He also asked a Question Without Notice to the Hon. Duncan Gay, representing the Minister for Education in the Legislative Council.² The purpose of the question is to try to undermine ethics classes, which only began in Term 1, 2011. Information about the program can found at
Wikipedia ³ differentiates relative and absolute Ethics in the following terms:

There is a distinction between relative (or personal or cultural value) and absolute (or noumenal) value … Relative value is subjective, depending on individual and cultural views, and is therefore synonymous with personal and cultural value. Absolute value, on the other hand, is philosophically absolute and independent of individual and cultural views, as well as independent of whether it is apprehended or not.
Relative value may be regarded as an 'experience' by subjects of the absolute value. Relative value thus varies with individual and cultural interpretation, while absolute value remains constant, regardless of individual or collective 'experience' of it.

In terms of Rev. Fred Nile’s criticism of relative ethics, and his desire for absolute, God-commanded, morals/ethics, consider the following situation as told by Norman Anderson, and published on biblicalstudies.org.uk ⁴ (pp32-33):

“Imagine that I was standing on a lonely heath, where a single path divided into two―the one branch winding down into a wood and the other running up over a hill―when suddenly a little girl ran along and took the path into the wood, followed, some two minutes later, by a man with wild eyes who demanded to know which path she had taken. What should I do in such a situation? The ideal solution, perhaps, would be to take him home for a cup of tea or coffee; but he might not accept the invitation! The next best thing might be to engage him in conversation until he became calm and rational and the little girl had had plenty of time to get away. But suppose neither of these alternatives seemed feasible. In such circumstances I should myself unhesitatingly point to the path up the hill and tell him that she had gone that way―knowing perfectly well that I was telling him a downright lie. I hope, moreover, that I would realise that to tell lies is to go against a principle of abiding moral validity, and that it is intrinsically evil.”

Fred Nile would, guided by his absolute ethics/morals, be bound to tell the truth, almost certainly to the young girl’s peril. But he would have been ‘absolutely moral’ in telling the truth! Of course, the most moral & the most ethical action is to lie, in order to ensure the girl’s safety, but this relies on Relative Ethics. Rev Nile’s argument that relative ethics is the same as the philosophy used by the Nazis and Communism is nonsense, and unchristian in its proposed treatment of other people, in particular the students and parents. It is worth noting, too, that Rev Nile is bound by a Parliamentary Code of Conduct ⁵, based on … relative ethics! I’m not sure how he feels about that.

As a Catholic, I'm offended by Fred Nile's stance on Ethics, by his attempt to impose a theocratic rules on secular, public education, and by his unchristian treatment of the people of NSW.

You can read more about the NSW Public School School Ethics Program at www.primaryethics.com.au and http://parents4ethics.org
In preparing this post, I looked at:

John

NSW School Certificate Going

2011-08-04T20:25:00.000+10:00

The NSW government has announced that 2010 is to be last year of the NSW School Certificate. It will be replaced by a statement of achievement when students leave in Years 10, 11, or 12. Students who complete Yr 12 and sit for public exams will still be awarded a Higher School Certificate.

The current requirement for students in NSW is that until they reach the age of 17 they must be:

studying at school, including Vocational Education & Training (VET) subjects. Some VET subjects can be studied at TAFE; OR
in “full time” employment of 25 hrs/week or more;OR
in full-time training eg at TAFE

School and VET subjects are approved by the NSW Board of Studies. ¹

The School Certificate has been reviewed several times, but the previous Labor Government continued to support its existence, even as other states recognised the declining value of theirs. Today, the announcement has finally been made. A brief summary about the school certificate can be found on Wikipedia ²

In preparing this post, I looked at:

John

Media Inquiry and Privacy

2011-07-23T21:14:00.003+10:00

The actions in Britain involving News Corp, News International, its newspapers and journalists are mind-boggling in their alleged criminality. Phone hacking allegations already total in the thousands. Indeed, it has been reported that more than 4000 people have had their phones hacked to obtain private messages. Already several former editors have contradicted James Murdoch’s testimony to the British Parliamentary committee, and Rebekah Brooks, in her statement to News Of The World journalists said there were worse things to be revealed. Rupert Murdoch, in his testimony to the British Parliament, said that he could not know everything, and blamed those he trusted. He did not name them.

In Australia, The Greens have called for a Parliamentary Inquiry in to Australian media. the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard has said that Murdoch’s News Ltd has some “hard questions to answer”.¹News Ltd Chairman and Chief Executive, John Hartigan, responded, saying that

“The Prime Minister’s comments seek to draw a link between News Corporation operations in the UK and those here in Australia.
"The comments were unjustified and regrettable.
“There is absolutely no connection between events in the UK and our business in Australia. ” ²

There is certainly an attempt by Mr Hartigan to distance himself from Rupert Murdoch’s British operations, but he does admit that he talks to (Rupert) Murdoch often.³ It has also been reported that Rupert Murdoch does travel to Britain to meet with his executives frequently. Those executives would have included his son James, Rebekah Brooks, and editors of his newspapers.
In Britain, the New Statesman has reported on the meetings of new British PM, David Cameron, and media editors and executives. It notes that Rupert Murdoch was the first media executive Cameron met, and that he met not one BBC (equivalent to our ABC) executive. ⁴
Meanwhile News Ltd and Fairfax media have indicated their opposition to proposed legislation to protect the privacy of individuals in Australia. As reported in The Australian ⁵, it has a heavy emphasis on News Ltd’s position/advice. (The Australian is a News Ltd / Murdoch-owned publisher) There are 3 references to News Ltd, 2 to Fairfax media and 1 to the ABC. Sandip Mukerjea, in the Sydney Morning Herald ⁵ gives a more balanced, but still opposing view.


John Hartigan: News Ltd does not want an inquiry	Roger Corbett: Fairfax does not want an inquiry

So, are there hard questions for Australia’s media, including, but not limited to, News Ltd? Yes, and I believe it should encompass print, TV, radio, Internet, and social media used by media organisations.
Questions should include:

To what extent does any media organisation make, or attempt to make, the news? That is, not just report news, but actively try to create it. For example, what role have media organisations and/or their employees and/or their associates played in organising protests. Anti carbon tax rallies and the Cronulla riots ⁸ spring to mind.
What is the political agenda that drives the reporting of mainstream media?
To what extent have media misrepresented facts to suit their political agenda?
With which politicians, when, and how often have media executives, editors and/or staff met in the last 2 years, including social functions?
Should ‘news’ stories based on a politician’s press release be labelled as such? eg ‘the following story is based on (or is) a press release from XYZ Politician. It might, or might not contain accurate information’
How do media organisations’ Codes of Conduct compare? What are their shortcomings?
Which private investigators have been used by Australian media, and for which of their investigations?
Since 2002, were any of Australia’s Privacy Principles ⁶ violated by either the media, their staff, their private detectives or other associates? The Media were issued with a press release from the Privacy Commissioner in 2001.
Does Australia need to amend the Constitution to provide protected freedom of speech, and protected privacy?

In preparing this post, I looked at:

John

Lord Abbotmort’s Horcruxes

2011-07-16T20:52:00.004+10:00

In the Harry Potter series, Lord Valdemort is the anti-hero. In his quest is to conquer two worlds: the Wizarding one, and eliminate any muggle heritage in the wizard world; and the muggle world. The Harry Potter series has multiple storylines, with multiple themes around good-evil; growing up; relationships; friendships.

Lord Voldemort, also known as “the Dark Lord” has 7 horcruxes: dark, magical objects that hold a portion of a soul. Harry Potter is believed to have the power to kill him for good. The horcruxes retain parts of a soul, and provide life-force for Voldemort.

In Australian politics, Tony Abbott is Leader of the Opposition. He desperately wants to be Prime Minister, and is reported to have told Independent MP’s after the last election that he would “do anything” to be Prime Minister.

To that end, he has set about an endless “election campaign”, most recently centred on his opposition to the introduction of an interim carbon tax, designed to reduce Australia’s greenhouse carbon emissions, before it progresses to an Emissions trading Scheme. Like Lord Voldemort, ‘Lord Abbotmort’ has assembled a number of political horcruxes, to help him in his quest for all-consuming political power.

Horcrux 1: News Ltd Media. They not only give him favourable coverage, but actively try to manipulate public opinion in favour of Tony Abbott. For its part, News Ltd will have helped secure a right-wing government, for the favour of Rupert Murdoch, and his family. It also shows all the maleficence towards public opinion as the Hound of the Baskervilles. (yes, I know that's a different story, but it it is an apt description)
Horcrux 2: Radio Shock jocks - they breathe with the spirit of the right wing of the Liberal Party
Horcrux 3: WorkChoices. While he tries to hide this one, and says it is dead, WorkChoices, or Industrial Relations power for employers, is deeply ingrained in every Federal Liberal & National Party MP and Senator. With it, Lord Abbormort has secured the backing of the right wing of the Liberal Party for his own position of power.
Horcrux 4: Simple mantras, which are appealing, but when examined are found to be hollow, and devoid of policy. News Ltd and radio shock-jocks are active in repeating the mantras, extolling their virtues, while never examining their shallowness.
Horcrux 5: Immigration, which is wrapped up as ‘security’, but which plays upon, and encourages xenophobia, even racism, among otherwise normal voters.
Horcrux 6: Greed, so often appealed to by the former Liberal-National Government with its personal income taxes, and redistribution of wealth to those with more.
Horcrux 7: The last, and unintentional horcrux, is the Australian Labor Party, and in particular the NSW Branch. It has just lost government in NSW, and its internal power-broking, machinations with developers, and partial privatisation of hitherto state-owned electricity assets made the Labor Party poisonous to voters in NSW.

Many adults have read the Harry Potter books. I hope they, too, can recognise the villains in Australian politics.

It is good, and right, to subject to scrutiny the Government's carbon tax policy, and treasury modelling. But we voters must be very mindful of Mr Abbott's assertions, and the personal greed, and political agendas of those who oppose the government's plan, including those of business and the media itself.
John

Politicians And The Media

2011-07-13T15:29:00.001+10:00

Tony Abbott’s higher standing in the polls is a reflection of a number of things.

The messages are simplistic slogans, repeated often. When he allows his Shadow Ministers to be interviewed, they are given simple answers to questions, and, almost regardless of the question, trot out the answer robotically.
If asked an uncomfortable question, he will stop the journalist, and pick a more “friendly” journalist; or he avoids as much as possible the more probing current affairs programs, opting for the cream-puff shows that ask only soft questions. A straw poll of appearances, taken and reported by Bruce Hawker in both the Courier-Mail¹ and The National Times² shows how Tony Abbott has avoided the inquisitorial current affairs shows, and headed for the conservative shock-jocks. It also shows how Julia Gillard has largely avoided the conservative shock-jocks. (it should be noted that Bruce Hawker is a campaign adviser the Labor Party). The figures show the differences for a range of media up to May 2011:

	Julia Gillard	Tony Abbott
Inquisitorial Current Affairs	12	3
Conservative Shock Jocks	8	42

While these figures are not definitive, they are probably indicative.

Radio Shock-Jocks:
Alan Jones is a Liberal Party supporter, and 3-time candidate at NSW and Federal elections for the Liberal Party. 3
Other conservative shock-jocks used by Tony Abbott include Ray Hadley, Andrew Bolt, Howard Sattler, Steve Price.

Television:
“Current Affairs” shows generally fall into 2 categories: populist, shallow pulp; and inquisitorial. My own classification of some of them is below. The list is not comprehensive.

Shallow Pulp

Inquisitorial

Name	Channel	Name	Channel
A Current Affair 60 Minutes Today Tonight	Ch9 Ch9 Ch7	The 7:30 Report Agenda Q and A Meet the Press	ABC Sky ABC Ch10

Media Donations:
Lawrence Bull, writing for New Matilda, trawled through the Australian Electoral Commission, and wrote on 1-February this year ⁴

“Six-figure donations (from media companies) are common, and the relationships don’t end there - Labor has several major investments in media companies and the close relationship between former Fairfax CEO Ron Walker and the Liberals is well known.”

A Summary of his findings is below:

Donations 2000 - 2007

Media Group / Significant Person	Donations to Liberal	Donations to Labor
News Corp (Murdoch)	$88,500	$15,000
Dame Elizabeth Murdoch	$120,000	-
Fairfax Media	$90,000	$20,000
PBL Entities (Packer)	$800,000	$700,000
TEN Network	$650,000	$400,000
Austereo	$100,000 (2007 Election, as advertising)	$100,000 (2007 Election, as advertising)
Paul Ramsey Holdings (Prime TV & Private Hospitals)	$250,000	-
Prime	$75,000	$58,000
Seven Network	$35,000	$35,000

With the exception of Austereo and the Seven Network, the other media have significantly favoured the Liberal Party. I would expect a rigorous investigation to show that the funding bias reflects their editorial policies.

Summary and Conclusion:
In short, there would appear to be a financial & editorial bias from many media organisations towards the Liberal Party. Furthermore, Tony Abbott’s use of soft, populist media, and supportive shock-jocks, is effective use of the media from a politician reported to to have said to the Independent MP’s that he’d “do anything” to be Prime Minister. He remains, however, evasive of more discerning questions, especially about his lack of policy detail.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s poor polling results reflect her lack of attendance on the shallow, populist current affairs shows, and the aggressive pro-Liberal stance taken by popular shock-jocks. She is lighter on simplistic slogans, being more inclined to rational explanations.

In preparing this post, I looked at:

John

Carbon Tax An Incremental Step

2011-07-10T18:13:00.000+10:00

The (Labor) Federal Government’s Carbon Tax Policy has been released today. Some details were provided by the print media, but the main show began at the midday press conference. The main speakers were Julia Gillard, Greg Combet & Wayne Swan.

Summary:

A flat-rate carbon tax begins 1-July-2012. It changes to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) in 2015.
Carbon tax price is $23 per tonne of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).
Approximately 500 companies will pay the tax. (those producing more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2)
Household fuels are exempt.
Significant changes to the tax system accompany the introduction of the carbon tax. Most taxpayers, and pensioners and self-funded retirees will be compensated.

Comparison with the GST:

	Carbon Tax (Labor Government – to start July 2012)	GST (Coalition Government – July 2000)
Inflation Effect (CPI) ¹	0.7% (Treasury-Predicted)	2.75% (Treasury-Predicted) 3.0% (Measured)
Targets	Big polluters – those that produce more than 25000 Tonnes of CO2 per year.	End-Consumers
Exemptions ²	Facilities that produce less than 25000 Tonnes of CO2 per year. Small Businesses Forestry, Land, Agriculture	Fresh Food Health and Medical Care Health Insurance Educational Supplies and Childcare ”Specified Items”
Compensations 3 (reduce by 1.3% per year from 2013)	Income tax Cuts: Households, amount dependent on income 94.5% Compensation: High-polluting trade-exposed industries (eg steel-making, cement) are more than 90% compensated 66% Compensation: Lower-level polluting trade-exposed industries 50% Compensation: Liquefied Natural gas producers	Income tax Cuts: Households, amount dependent on income

The Politics:
Politically, the government has tied tax reform to the carbon tax. This makes it harder for a future Coalition government to undo. It cannot undo the Carbon Tax / ETS without undoing the tax cuts, increasing rates of tax, or introducing new taxes to replace it.

Meanwhile, News Ltd papers and websites continue their pro-Coalition, anti-climate change, campaign to influence public opinion, possibly with the lack of ethics his media have shown in Britain. Consider the following “Polls” 4:

”Will the carbon tax change your energy consumption?”
It’s a good question, and targets one reason for the carbon tax. (the other reason is as a transition mechanism to a market-based ETS)
A reasonable person, and a person constructing a survey would expect a Yes/No answer only.
Not so, Rupert Murdoch’s media: there are 4 options, the 4th one exists to further their agenda to create public opinion. The 4th option is “No,climate change is a myth”
From a closed question requiring a Yes/No answer, News Ltd has managed to include an option to manipulate public opinion.
“How would you describe the compensation measures”
Again, a fair question, and you would expect responses like: Excellent, Good, Fair, Bad.
Again, the long arm of Murdoch’s political agenda has intervened: the 4th option is “Disgraceful, we shouldn't have this tax at all anyway”.

News Ltd polls are not used to gauge public opinion. Their existence is to help manipulate public opinion in favour of the Coalition.

The Greens, Bob Brown and Christine Milne in particular, have been spruiking their contribution. 5 They have talked about “no new coal-fired power stations” being built. This is a possibility, but equivalent gas-fired power stations will be needed. Hazelwood Power Station in the La Trobe Valley of Victoria uses brown coal and 6 x 200 MW generators to create 1200 MW (1.2 GW) of electricity. Brown coal is a very ‘dirty’ form of coal, and there are significant mines in Victoria. Since its electricity assets were privatised, I understand there has been little investment in power stations.

The Effects:
The intended effects of the carbon tax include: to promote investment in renewable energy sources, to reduce carbon emissions, to move towards an ETS. The initial target is 5% reduction in CO2. This is a small, but achievable, target.

For all the conservative and (some) media furore over the ‘great big new tax’, the bottom line is if you want to reduce your carbon tax, reduce your use of carbon-based energy. Heat your house to 18-20 degrees in winter, and cool to 24-25 degrees in summer. More tips to reduce energy use can be found at: http://www.yourhome.gov.au/technical/fs61.html and http://www.low-impact.net/index.php/20080128/reducing-home-electricity-consumption-simple-steps/

The carbon tax is an incremental change towards changing our environment for the better. The inclusion of tax reform as part of the package is politically smart, making it harder for a future government to undo, and makes the package more significant and palatable.

John

In researching this post, I also looked at:
1) http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1405&context=commpapers
2) http://www.gstaustralia.com.au/what-are-gst-free-supplies/
3) http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/07/10/3265775.htm
4) http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/julia-gillard-unveils-her-plans-for-carbon-tax/story-e6frfmd9-1226091665916
5) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/carbon-plan/better-or-worse-verdict-on-the-gillard-governments-carbon-tax/story-fn99tjf2-1226091746969
6) http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunrise/factsheets/article/-/9816119/kochie-your-guide-to-the-carbon-tax-and-compensations/

End Of The World – To Save Money

2011-07-08T20:03:00.024+10:00

Rupert Murdoch’s son, James, has announced that this Sunday, 10-July-2011, will be last edition of The News of the World (NOTW). NOTW is a British tabloid newspaper which has a prior history of making up the news, and most recently, allegedly hacking phones of up to 4000 people, including: public identities (‘celebrities’ and politicians), actors & actresses, families of men and women killed while serving in the military forces, and murder victims. James Murdoch indicated that closing NOTW was ‘the right thing to do’.

Murdoch is staying loyal to Rebekah Brooks, the Editor of NOTW at the time of many of the alleged phone hacks. She has reportedly said she was “sickened” when told of the phone hack of a young murdered girls phone, including the deletion of voice mail messages so more could be left for the paper to report. As Editor, you would expect that she would have known what her journalists were doing (criminal), or incompetent, if she did not know. Rupert and James Murdoch must believe they have much to lose if she were to lose her job in their empire. Her inside knowledge would be priceless to another media organisation, and invaluable to police or a public inquiry.

But, why close the paper? There are a number of possible explanations:

public anger, which might lead to a drop in sales revenue
loss of advertising revenue, as companies express their anger
Murdoch is ruthless in his business, and his use of journalism. In 2007, Bill Moyers, writing on http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/07/02/the_problem_with_murdoch.php wrote:
(Murdoch’s) accustomed to using journalism as a personal spittoon. In the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq, he turned the dogs of war loose in the newsrooms of his empire and they howled for blood. … he’s not the first to use journalism to promote his own interests. … His tabloids sell babes and breasts, gossip and celebrities.”
closing the paper, and transferring as many assets as possible from News International (the publishing company) to other parts of News Corp, so that any more people who sue NOTW, will be suing a company with insufficient assets to pay. With up to 4000 people/families who might sue, for say, £500,000 it would face a bill of hundreds of millions of ponds, even if News ‘settled’ out of court.

Given Rupert Murdoch’s ruthless business acumen, my money is on option 4.
I believe that closing NOTW is a business decision only, driven by money considerations and the desire to remove a problem. That is, the closure is designed to limit exposure to compensation and punitive damages claims. I believe it has nothing to do with “the right thing”, as James Murdoch expressed it.

John

In researching this article, I also looked at:
1) http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xjsavv_news-of-the-world-closes-amid-hacking-scandal_news
2) http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2007/07/02/the_problem_with_murdoch.php
3) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/behind-ruperts-throne-the-story-of-rebekah-brooks-2307512.html

Abbott vs Economists

2011-07-03T15:49:00.000+10:00

Tony Abbott has continued his politically-motivated aggression against any price on carbon pollution. This time he has attacked Australian, and international, economists. They are in general agreement that a carbon tax is a good, simple, short term measure to reduce carbon pollution, before an ETS is introduced. Speaking at The Australian-Melbourne Institute Growth Challenge conference (of economists) in Melbourne, he said:

“It may well be, as you say, that most Australian economists think that the carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is the way to go. Maybe that’s a comment on the quality of our economists.”

It is classic political “shoot-the-messenger” response. He tried it, with only mixed success, on Ross Garnaut. Of course, it does nothing for public debate, and is merely an assertion to be reported in the media. I’m not aware of any research on Australian media, but with Rupert Murdoch having significant interests in the UK, the USA and Australia, I’d hypothesise that the figures in the chart below would not be too different for the media & public opinion. (the chart also links to the original site)

His figures for climate scientists consensus are supported by Anderegg, W. et al. in Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) (Link 5, below)

The Productivity Commission Report (http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/carbon-prices/report ) made the following points in its conclusion:

“The cost effectiveness of these actions (carbon emissions reductions policies) in achieving abatement, and the amount of abatement actually achieved, also varies widely, both across programs within each country and in aggregate across countries.
– Explicit carbon pricing in the United Kingdom appears to have been a cost-effective way of achieving considerable abatement.
– At the other end of the scale, policies to encourage small-scale renewable generation are substantially less cost effective and have led to relatively little abatement.
…
The relative cost effectiveness of a price-based approach is illustrated for Australia by stylised modelling that suggests that the abatement from existing policies could have been achieved at a fraction of the cost.”

That is, a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme is a more cost-efficient way to use the tax system to reduce emissions than subsidies for small-scale projects, such as household solar panels, for example.

John

In researching this article, I also looked at:
1) http://www.petermartin.com.au/2011/06/impact-of-carbon-tax-will-be-how-small.html
2) http://www.smh.com.au/business/productivity-commission-backs-carbon-pricing-20110609-1fu2j.html
3) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opposition-leader-tony-abbott-defies-economists-on-carbon-tax/story-fn961iy1-1226085675981
4) http://renegadeconservatoryguy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Climate-Change-Infographic1.pdf
5) http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-debate-appalling-20110621-1gdms.html

Reith Lets Genie Out

2011-06-30T19:19:00.000+10:00

Last weekend Alan Stockdale was re-elected as President of the Liberal Party of Australia, despite the 4 vice Presidents supporting Peter Reith.
Tony Abbott is reported, by Peter Reith, to have encouraged Peter Reith to run for the Presidency, but then voted against him, publicly showing his voting card to both Alan Stockdale & his Deputy, Julie Bishop. It precipitated something of a public dummy-spit by Peter Reith, who has hit the media, including radio shock-jocks with his message on IR. The message is: IR is in the Liberal Party’s DNA. He, other members of the Liberal Party executive, Tony Abbott, and Liberal MP’s all want a return to WorkChoices-style IR laws. That is: a deregulated labour market, removal of any ‘safety net’, a return to individual contracts dictated by employers.

Jeff Lawrence, Secretary of the ACTU, writing in The Australian, said:

“(The Liberal Party) remains fixated with removing unfair dismissal protection, undermining collective bargaining and handing employers power to dictate pay and conditions.
It isn't just the presence of former Howard government IR headkicker Peter Reith, or the continuing role on the front bench of the chief Work Choices salesman, Joe Hockey. An entire new generation of Liberal MP's sees nothing wrong with taking away basic workplace rights.” (see link 4, below)

Among Mr Reith’s suggestions for the Liberal Party is a “review” by The Institute of Public Affairs, with his people on the review panel, including Hugh Morgan, and Michael Chaney. Both are Liberal Party members, both supported WorkChoices.

Person	Membership	IR Position	More Information
Hugh Morgan	Liberal Party (Vic) Business Council	Pro WorkChoices	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugh_Morgan_(businessman)
Michael Chaney	Liberal Party Business Council	Pro WorkChoices	His bother, Fred, was a Federal Liberal MP
Institute of Public Affairs		Pro WorkChoices	Liberal Party “think tank”, and one off the founders of the Liberal Party (see Link 5 below)

Given the above information, it will come as no future surprise that the enquiry will recommend a return to WorkChoices-style IR. Peter Reith has acted as a classical politician: you can have an inquiry when you have a pre-determined result.

But the IR genie, that Tony Abbott so desperately tried to keep hidden from public view, is now out of the bottle.

Ordinary working Australians will be right to “be afraid, be very afraid”.

John

In preparing this article I also looked at:
1) http://www.smh.com.au/national/reith-plans-think-tank-to-challenge-labour-laws-20110629-1gr1q.html
2) http://www.smh.com.au/national/newsmaker-peter-reith-20110624-1gjiw.html
3) http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-bows-to-reith-on-ir-20110628-1gpf1.html
4) http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-libs-just-dont-get-it/story-e6frg6zo-1226084430812
5) http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/Message.aspx?b=33&m=8734&ps=50&dm=1&pd=3

Abbott: “Tax Cuts are in our DNA”

2011-06-26T17:51:00.005+10:00

Yesterday, Saturday 25-July, Ton Abbott gave his speech to the 55th Federal Council of the Liberal Party of Australia. In it he criticised the current Labor government’s lack of achievements under PM Julia Gillard in the last 12 months, & in the seven and a half months since the last election.
In proposing tax cuts, Mr Abbott said:

“Tax cuts are in our DNA...”

So, What else in in the Liberal Party's DNA? Tony Abbott made 6 references to the Howard government and its policies. Deep in the Liberal Party’s DNA, as implemented by John Howard’s government, of which Tony Abbott was a member, are the following:

Industrial Relations:
- Guards & attack dogs on the wharves to attack a union, under the guidance of John Howard and Peter Reith. Reform was needed, but many question whether it needed guards drawn from military commandos and paratroopers, in black uniforms, wearing balaclavas, and with attack dogs. Peter Reith has just failed in his attempt to take over as President of the Liberal Party of Australia.
- In NSW the (liberal-National) O’Farrell Government has introduced IR legislation to attack public service unions, and their members’ pay and conditions.
- WorkChoices. Tony Abbott said ‘the term WorkChoices is dead’, but IR is still firmly on the agenda to further the cause of, mostly, big business, and the ideology of reducing workers pay to benefit business is prominent.
Tax:
- introduction of the ‘never, ever’ GST. Yes, it replaced a mish-mash of other taxes, but the effect was to increase the amount of tax collected.
- the use of tax cuts, and the 30% Health Insurance rebate, which were of most benefit to middle and higher income earners. That is, it was a redistribution of wealth from poorer to richer people.
Welfare:
- increases in middle-class welfare, and reductions / harsher penalties for those less fortunate. Proposals for business welfare were made at the last election, as a means to be seen to do something about climate change, to the benefit of businesses and farmers.
Lies, mistruths and integrity:
- the ‘never, ever’ GST was introduced months after voters were told it would not happen, and every Liberal member supported the new tax. Tony Abbott would have called it a “great big new tax on everything”, except his party did it, and it was, indeed a new tax on (almost) everything.
- the children overboard mistruths, later shown to be lies, during the 2001 Federal election campaign
- In its first term of government, the Howard Government introduced a Code of Conduct for Ministers, which included having to be truthful to Parliament, and to divest themselves of shares related to their portfolio. Between March 1996 and September 2007, 7 Ministers had to resign: Jim Short, Brian Gibson, Bob Woods, Geoff Prosser, John Sharpe, David Jull & Peter McGauran resigned because of breaches of the Code of Conduct.
- The Code of Conduct was amended in 1999 to allow Ministers to retain shares that relate to their portfolio. So much for ethics and honesty.
Breach of International Law & obligations under UN Conventions:
- the Tampa Affair, where Australia breached its obligations under international maritime law to a ship which had rescued people on the high seas.
- “the Pacific Solution” for refugees was heavily criticised by the UNHCR. It was similar to the current Labor Government’s proposal for its “Malaysian Solution”, which also is not supported by the UN.
Reduction in Government Spending. Cuts were made to:
- The Public Service, and resultant drop in government services to & for people.
- Universities, to the point where they are now dependent on foreign, full-fee-paying students. It has caused ethical problems about student grades and marks at a number of universities, where people believed there was pressure to pass such students because the universities needed the money. HECS debts can be enormous for new graduates.
- Funding to states for public education, at the same time redistributing more public money to private schools. Without wishing to enter into the debate about public vs. private education, there was a real redistribution by the Liberal Party of public money from public education to private entities.
- Welfare: (see 'Welfare' above)

Privatisation of Public Assets:

Telstra: it is widely acknowledged among economists that the infrastructure should have been hived off before sale. ie only the retail arm of Telstra should have been privatised. It caused years of conflict among Telstra, other telcos which wanted access to the infrastructure the ACCC, the government, and the public.
Commonwealth Employment Service: remember that?? It was essentially privatised by disbandment, and its job-finding functions sold off to private entities who wanted not only the cost of the service, but profit as well. It was never done at 'cost-recovery' amounts.
The attempt to sell Medicare Private. It was stalled by political unpopularity, but Howard had a strong history of desiring, and pursuing, privatisation. See: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/media/pressrel/FBYI6/upload_binary/fbyi65.pdf;fileType%3Dapplication%2Fpdf

As much as Tony Abbott wants us to wary of the current Federal Labor Government, we voters should be very mindful of that part of the Liberal DNA he is selectively NOT telling us, and which he wants to keep from public scrutiny.

John

Abbott’s Plebiscite Another Stunt

2011-06-21T20:38:00.001+10:00

Tony Abbott has suggested a National Plebiscite to determine whether Australia should have a Carbon Tax.

Plebiscites and Referenda are somewhat different. In Australia, we use the term ‘Referendum’ when a question of Constitutional change is put to the people. If it passes by a majority of Australian voters, AND a majority of voters in a majority (4 –6) states, then the Government is bound to implement the change. A Plebiscite, or Advisory Referendum, has no requirement for Government action, regardless of the voting result.

Independent MP’s and Senators, the Greens, and the Labor Government have been critical of Abbott’s proposal. They have generally cited:

the $80 Million estimated cost of a vote that does not require Government action
and
it is just a political stunt, being nothing more than an opinion poll.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon (SA) was less critical, saying the question to asked should be “neutral”, avoiding the word ‘tax’. You can almost see Tony Abbott, and his faceless advisers, wince with pain.

There have been only 3 other national plebiscites:

1916	Conscription	LOST
1917	Conscription	LOST, but Billy Hughes introduced conscription anyway.
1977	Change National Anthem	Anthem Changed to Advance Australia Fair

Tony Abbott has produced a media stunt derived purely from his own political pursuit of power. It would contribute nothing to debate about good policy: he wanted a question that effectively would have asked “Do you want to pay more tax? He did, however, admit that he would ignore the voice of the people if the vote went against him, while he would have insisted the Government follow the vote if it went against the Government!

While researching for this post, I came across the following sites. The third one, about Billy Hughes, is an interesting, because he tried to use Plebiscites to change the attitudes of his own (Labor) party, and opposition Senators.

Australian Electoral Commission information, at http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/referendums/Advisory_Referendums/
article from Peter Brent, in The Australian. You can see it at http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/fielding_does_abbott_a_favour/
Information about Billy Hughes’ plebiscites on Conscription at the Museum of Australian Democracy – Old Parliament House, at http://billyhughes.moadoph.gov.au/conscription/

John

Problems and Polls

2011-06-19T17:04:00.002+10:00

It has been a bad few days for the Federal Labor Party: its Primary vote in a poll is down to 27%; Kevin Rudd is preferred PM over Julia Gillard by 60% to 31%; Kevin Rudd had provided multiple media interviews about Thursday’s 1-year anniversary of being dumped as Prime Minister, and there are reports he will have an anniversary party to remember his “assassination”, as Prime Minister. Following the flurry of media stories, a number of Labor people have anonymously suggested he should be sacked as Minister for Foreign affairs & Trade.
Kevin Rudd has been accused of being arrogant, and a bully. Tony Abbott has accused Julia Gillard of being arrogant. Tony Abbott is arrogant and a bully; and so was John Howard. Many leaders, as with many elite sports people, have an arrogant, confident streak in them. However, it would have been in his party’s interests had Kevin Rudd declined all interviews about the events of June 2010, despite media interest. It is certainly not in his party’s interest for him to hold an anniversary of assassination party.
Tony Abbott continues to effectively cause the government grief. His relentless use (misuse?) of the media for negativism has resulted in a significant rise in his, and the Coalition’s preference. The Labor Government’s problems include:

Problem	Concerns
Immigration	Off-shore processing proposals at Timor failed. Manus Island seems unlikely at this stage. The Malaysian Solution, with possibly 800 refugees being sent, with 4000 UN-determined refugees in exchange is seen as a ‘bad deal’, the UN has so far refused to sanction it and Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Human Rights. Nauru is being relentlessly pushed by Tony Abbott, because they used it when in government. This is why Labor will not use it. Abbott also does NOT mention the criticism from the UNHCR on its Pacific Solution. Many voters have a perception that the Coalition is better/tougher on asylum-seekers than Labor, and Abbott's repetition is designed to reinforce that perception.
Carbon Tax	One of the problems here has been the required input from the Independent MP’s Andrew Wilkie and Rob Oakeshott; and The Greens. It means that the government cannot publicly discuss the details, and uncertainty is political poison.
The Economy	It’s not the Government’s fault, with so many external influences, and so much information being made available to people through news reports. However, the Coalition tries to trade on its perceived economic record, even though they caused considerable pain to homebuyers because the last 7 movements in interest rates were increases when the Coalition was led by John Howard.
Factionalism	The existence of Labor’s Left & Right factions is well known. At present, the right faction, which installed left-wing Julia Gillard, still dominates. While the same is true of the Liberal Party, they have hidden their power struggles better. The exception was in NSW in 2007, when the extreme Right, reportedly led by Alex Hawke, caused significant media problems for the NSW Liberal Party. While Labor’s factions are known about, even Tony Abbott acknowledged their use in the Liberal Party, in an interview with the ABC’s Tony Jones. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s2199048.htm The Liberal Party factions are currently showing more discipline than Labor.
Media	While Tony Abbott fronts the media almost daily with tightly-scripted, staged, TV & radio grabs, Labor is NOT responding with their own message, explanations and counters, or certainly not responding with effective coverage. Consequently, people who see or hear any news, hear Tony Abbott, and the message is repetitive. They then see little of nothing from the government, and, understandably, they develop a perception that Tony Abbott is better.

While these are not all the problems facing the Federal Labor Government, they are significant. Members of Julia Gillard’s Government need to display much more discipline, and loyalty to the party. Any chance at good government requires it, and less effort on internal factional business. Tony Abbott is running a small target campaign, with very little policy. It is a tactic that was very successful for Barry O’Farrell in NSW, and he has unleashed a right-wing attack early in his term. Public Servants and the IRC have been the main targets.They also need to work towards solving all of the above problems, else the right faction will lead Labor to defeat at the next election, even though Julia Gillard is from the left faction.

John

In Search of a Moral Compass 2

2011-06-16T17:06:00.000+10:00

If you read my previous post at: http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2011/06/in-search-of-moral-compass.html, you should also see the excellent treatment on The Political Sword.

http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2011/06/15/Is-your-moral-compass-better-than-mine.aspx

John

In Search of a Moral Compass

2011-06-13T11:53:00.001+10:00

The Current Events
Andrew Wilkie, MP, accused Labor of losing its moral compass on live exports (of cattle, in particular) and in its treatment of refugees.

The public backlash after 4-Corners graphic video report on the slaughter of cattle forced the government to impose a 6-month ban on live export of cattle to Indonesia. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, had his hands full managing the new stories about the mistreatment of Australian cattle in some Indonesian abattoirs, and responses from the National Party, and cattle graziers from northern Australia. They depend heavily on live exports. He has not responded to the comments about Labor’s loss of its moral compass, but did respond to the 4-Corners report with a statement that read, in part,

"I asked industry at the beginning of this year for proposals on how welfare outcomes could be improved, particularly after animals arrive in importing countries. I am currently considering these proposals.” Mr Ludwig’s full statement can be read at http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20110530/cattle/docs/statement_ludwig.pdf

If true, this might go some way to answering Andrew Wilkie’s assertion about Labor’s moral compass. However, reports can take an indeterminate amount of time to consider, once in government hands, and the test will be how quickly Mr Ludwig responds, and in what manner.

Immigration Minister, Chris Bowen, was quicker to respond to the assertion that Labor had lost its moral compass. He told The Age

''everyone has got their own moral compass … the government's moral compass is driven by trying to avoid the risk of [people] getting on boats, and to increase our humanitarian intake''.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/malaysian-deal-critics-slammed-20110606-1fpb5.html#ixzz1P3mawXfl

So, exactly what is a “moral compass”?

The terms ‘morals’ and ‘ethics are often used interchangeably. They are somewhat different.
Morals represent the shared beliefs of a group or society about what is 'true’ or right in behavioural terms. Morals are not the exclusive domain of religions, or religious groups. Different societies have different moral codes, sometimes at odds with religious groups within their society.

Ethics refers to a study of what is right & wrong; and how that determines our actions. Some things are deemed to be absolutely right or wrong. For example, murder, rape and child abuse are seen as absolutely wrong. However, in many cases, what is ethical behaviour is much more difficult to determine. Ethical behaviours are commonly written as “professional standards”.

However, what is ethical, need not be moral, and neither might be legal. Extreme legislation such as that allowing slavery, or apartheid, made such actions legal, but almost everyone would say they were neither moral, nor ethical.

The Centre for Defined Ethics says that

“a Moral Compass promotes the intellectual idea of a moral vision that's based on a worldcentric vision and the necessity for care towards each other.” http://www.themoralcompass.co.uk/case.htm

Do Governments & Political Parties Have a ‘Moral Compass’?

If they did, I suggest they have lost it.
Federally:
Members of the ALP’s right-wing factions have said privately to journalists that if they don’t effectively demonise boat people, and send them to long-term detention, or off-shore, they believe they will not win the next election. Our society’s ‘morals’ are that these people do not deserve to be treated humanely, because they arrived by boat, and used people-smugglers to get here. Voters’ morals & ethics are not based on ethics requiring “the necessity for care towards each other”. Labor’s policy is based on matching, or being even harsher than, the Liberal-National Parties’ policy. The policy of both Labor and Liberal-National parties is based on what will get us elected. John Howard’s successful strategy was to demonise refugees, and it changed our society’s morals. Those morals have been reflected in the treatment of other refugees, such as those granted asylum after working for, and helping, Australian troops in Afghanistan. They have reportedly been vilified and subject to racial abuse in Queensland and Victoria. Labor’s policy on those asylum-seekers that arrive by boats is based on political expediency, and the desire to be re-elected, not on any moral compass.

The Liberal-National Parties’ policy contributions, in Opposition, are confined to: ‘No’; and a burning, and largely unstated desire to return to the extremism called Howardism: demonising all asylum seekers; personal wealth at the expense of societal wealth; redistribution of wealth to those with more, and to private companies; and with IR controls in the hands of politicians and big business, not courts.

In NSW:
The previous Labor government passed the so-called Part 3A Planning legislation. It allowed the Minister for Planning to arbitrarily introduce regulations, over-riding local planning laws; environmental and heritage laws; and put a straitjacket on the courts. It allowed approval of for example, the approval of a car park at the Barangaroo site without the developer having to clean contaminated soil; it allowed the approval of coal-seam gas extraction on farmland. There appears to be not much influence of a moral compass there.

The current Liberal-National government in NSW proposes to introduce IR legislation that will straitjacket the IR court. Like the Part 3A Planning laws, a Minister will determine what judgement the court will make. It is motivated by a right-wing desire to attack public-sector unions. That is, it is based on political extremism. There appears to be not much influence of a moral compass there.

Our political parties are not guided by any moral compass. They are guided by ‘spin doctors’ and party power-brokers whose only desire to gain political power, and to keep it.

John

Minchin–Party Over The People

2011-05-29T15:47:00.000+10:00

In an article published by the Sydney Morning Herald yesterday, 28-May-11, Senator Nick Minchin outlines some serious flaws in our party-dominated system. The first clause in the first sentence is:

“As I prepare to retire from 32 years of full-time service to the Liberal Party, …” (18 of those years was as Senator)

Nick Minchin:
worked for the party

It could be said by a retiring Parliamentarian from any major party. Nick Minchin was elected as a Senator to represent the Constitutional interests of South Australia on 1-July-1993. He has been a Senator for 18 years. From 1977 to 1993, he worked for the Liberal Party's Federal Secretariat; he was Deputy Federal Director of the Liberal Party in 1983 and held senior positions in the South Australian Liberal Party. In his public life, and his 18 years in the Senate, Nick Minchin has always worked for the interests of the Liberal Party.
Senator Minchin goes on:

(Party) “success really lies in getting the balance right between Principle and Pragmatism -between the pursuit of good policy and the need to retain popular support”

This is undoubtedly true, and Principle alone rarely leads to good policy. Even when policy is not good, Party Parliamentarians will still vote for the party, because it is in the Party’s interests. This is true of members from all major parties: Labor, Liberal, National; and minor parties like the Greens. Consider the following:

the policy to deliberately breach International Law (the Tampa Affair) – Liberal Party
the Pacific Solution – using Nauru to hold asylum seekers, and to leave 1 person alone in detention for more than 2 years, and subject to UN criticism. Nauru is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees – Liberal Party
the (proposed) Malaysian Solution – using Malaysia to take 800 asylum seekers, in exchange for 4000 UN-determined refugees. Malaysia is not a signatory to the UN convention on refugees – Labor Party
WorkChoices, a fundamentalist attack on the wages and working conditions on some of the very people the Liberal Party relied on to retain power - Liberal Party
Mining tax, which was poorly considered, and effectively gelded by a big-business-funded populism campaign – Labor Party

In each case the party members did vote, or would have voted, for the policy, based solely on their party membership.

This is where Independent Parliamentarians have a significant role to play. As much as the Liberal Party has tried to demonise Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, their role as Independent, non-party-political MP’s in a Federal Parliament with a minority government is invaluable. It makes the government, and to a lesser extent the Opposition, consider a position or compromise that will prevent or ameliorate fundamentalism and extremism. That is something members of the major parties rarely do on their own initiative.

John

NSW Steps Towards Dictatorship

2011-05-28T15:26:00.000+10:00

NSW Liberal Premier Barry O'Farrell is trying to take NSW one step closer to being a dictatorship. He proposes to introduce legislation which will allow a Minister, under his direction, to introduce regulations that will determine the pay and conditions for public servants, including: public service staff; public teachers; nurses; hospital doctors; carers; public transport staff.

The previous State Government introduced legislation (so-called Part3A Planning Laws) that allowed the Planning Minster to introduce ‘regulations’ approving Development Applications above a certain value. The Minster was able to act as Legislature (instead of Parliament), Executive (Minister) and Judiciary. Those ‘regulations’ were used to allow:

multiple wind-farms around Crookwell, Lake George and Cullerin, close to people's houses.
the development of Barangaroo, which was allowed to bypass City of Sydney planning laws; and environmental clean-up laws.
an approved development at Catherine Hill Bay, again contrary to local council planning laws, and contrary to the Minister's own departmental advice.
coal seam gas extraction without reference to other local or state planning, environmental or heritage laws in the Illawarra, Camden, the Hunter Valley. There were/are plans for drills in the Southern Highlands, near Bowral.

Photo: Groomgreens.org

Many believe that "Government-by-Regulation" is wrong, including me. They are wrong because they diminish, or even reduce to zero, the Principle of Separation of Powers: that Parliament, Government and the Judiciary are independent. Especially the Judiciary.
The current State Government made much of undoing the Planning Minister’s ability to introduce such regulations, and returning planning powers to Local Councils, saying that such regulatory powers were wrong.

Now, it seems those same regulatory powers are OK! Mr O’Farrell intends to use the same “regulatory powers” again. Not for planning, but for Industrial Relations. Mr O'Farrell proposes legislation that will allow a Minister to be able to regulate the pay and conditions of public servants. That is, the Minister will introduce a regulation that effectively directs one or more judges of IRC to make a particular decision regarding pay and conditions. This removes the judicial independence from industrial court decisions. This “Government-by-Regulation” is exactly how the various contentious wind-farms were allowed, Barangaroo and coal-seam gas developments were allowed.

While there is no direct enshrinement of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers - that Parliament, Government and the Judiciary are independent - in NSW’s Constitution, it is worth publicly noting that there are long-standing conventions regarding the Separation of Powers in NSW. Queensland’s Joh Bjelke-Petersen was found to have no concept of it during the Fitzgerald Inquiry, and the corruption in the government he led, and the Police Force he controlled, is well documented. This proposed Act will weaken the Separation of Powers in NSW because a Minister will the Legislature, the Executive, and will effectively make judgements on behalf of the Judiciary, who will be required to ‘rubber stamp’ them. Again, this means that one person, under the direction of Mr O’Farrell and any future Premier, will effectively be Legislature, Executive and Judiciary!

Mr O’Farrell’s proposed legislation clearly breeches the Principle of Separation of Powers by action and intent, is unethical, weakens our democracy, and leaves open the opportunity for corruption by this, and future governments. It must be vigorously opposed.

“Government-by-Regulation” was wrong for wind-farms and other large developments, not because they are wind-farms, or large developments, but because “Government-by-Regulation” allowed at least some inappropriate developments, diminished our democracy, and allowed for possible corruption in future. The same is true for Mr O’Farrell’s “Government-by-Regulation” for industrial relations.

The question for every NSW Parliamentarian is: will he/she be guided by good conscience and the interests of the people and of democracy, or will they let Mr O’Farrell take NSW one step closer to Dictatorship?

Contact as many MLA’s and MLC’s as you can. See http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/members.nsf/V3Home

John

Gillard Defends Carbon Tax

2011-05-22T20:15:00.000+10:00

Julia Gillard has defended the budget, and the proposed carbon tax. Her comments, though, came only at the Victorian Labour Party State Conference.

During her speech she attacked Tony Abbott’s credibility, and his thoughtless right wing agenda. She said:

“We know climate change is real.
We know we must cut carbon pollution.
We know the cheapest, most efficient way to do that is to make big polluters pay.
And we know that when big polluters pay that every cent of that money can be used to help families, protect jobs and fund programs to tackle climate change.
Friends, it’s been said before now but it’s never been truer than of the fight to price carbon:
This isn't a fight between right and left.
It's a fight between right and wrong.”

"We are fighting to price carbon to tackle climate change and to build a clean energy economy which is prepared and strong."

Ms Gillard’s attack on Tony Abbott’s attempt at a climate change populism included:

"We don't have time for politicians and shock jocks who deny the scientific conclusions of NASA and the CSIRO.
We don't have time for made-up figures and shameless fear mongering.
We don't have time to waste on a debate that lacks fact and reason.”
"Our national efforts and energies must be focused...
"We are a nation determined to do our bit to tackle climate change and urgently need to make a start to build the clean energy economy of the future."

The full transcript of Ms Gillard’s speech of 21-May-2011 is at http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/address-alp-victorian-branch-state-conference-melbourne
It seems to me that these are the types of comment that Ms Gillard, As Prime Minister of Australia, should be making often in the media. She might not like that Tony Abbott is effectively running his negative 2013 election campaign in almost daily press releases, radio interviews with largely conservative media and set-up TV appearances, but they have been effective in raising not only Mr Abbott’s profile, but his approval rating. Many unthinking voters will say he’s doing a good job, simply because they do not see Ms Gillard using the media in the same way, with the same frequency, or countering Abbott’s negativity.

Despite any, and all, governments saying they do not worry about the polls, they do. Their media advisers and their party strategists are all over the polls, and regularly and routinely use “focus groups”.

Tony Abbott does not argue policy deliberately – he doesn’t want any policy scrutinised. His campaign is based almost exclusively on negativity. He does not want public debate, he wants perception of a “good job” because he makes frequent noises. But this is not public debate on policy directions, and Ms Gillard does not help the government by not taking the debate to the media daily. She needs to show some passion, even crankiness at Abbott, during any such media grabs.

John

2011 Budget

2011-05-15T16:52:00.001+10:00

This past week, the Federal Treasurer, Wayne Swan, delivered his budget on Tuesday night. Traditionally, the Leader of the Opposition gives a Budget reply speech. By common agreement among journalists, Tony Abbott gave a pre-election speech.

In his 3rd paragraph he said:

Since December 2007, the price of electricity is up 51 per cent, gas is up 30 per cent, and water is up 46 per cent. Education costs have risen 24 per cent, health 20 per cent and rent 21 per cent. Grocery prices are up 14 per cent. Since the middle of 2009, interest rate rises have added $500 a month to mortgage repayments while wages have risen just 7 per cent.

This is spin and needs to be challenged, and questioned:

electricity: for years, all state governments starved their still or then-owned electricity corporations of funds. Consequently, there was grossly insufficient investment in line maintenance and upgrades. Further, both state and Federal governments had an agenda to encourage and reward users who installed home-based solar panels. Some states paid up to 3 times the price for electricity fed into the grid. Increasing demand from new developments, rising population and increasing numbers of electrical appliances have all contributed to the price increases. The latter also applies to gas supply.
Education costs: what costs? The cost of private education has certainly increased, as have their prices. Both public and private schools have had to upgrade IT infrastructure. Tony Abbott has not been sufficiently clear about what ‘costs’ he has used, nor those which he wants us voters to use for our own comparisons.
Interest rates are still lower that when he was last in government. He was part of a government that splashed so much money that the Reserve Bank was forced to raise interest rates 11 times between 2001 and 2007. At the 2007 election when the government of which Abbott was a member lost, RBA interest rates were 2.00% higher that they are now!
Wages: while wages growth has been slow, the wages of Abbott’s target voters were often savaged under the WorkChoices legislation he voted for, and defended, even while executive salaries ballooned.

Tony Abbott targeted the people whose votes he will need to win government: teachers, nurses, police officers. It is entirely reasonable to debate whether a family earning $150,000 per year is wealthy, it is also reasonable to note that the top 2% of income earners earn $150,000 or more; and the top 17% of households have that income or more. That’s 1 in 6 families. Five in six families earn less. The top 20% of people own 60% of the wealth in Australia; the bottom 20% of people own just 1%. Part of the problem for people is that, under the previous Liberal-National Coalition government, they became used to increasing amounts of money being handed to them by the Federal Government. People will adapt to the changes. That is human nature.

It is this type of voter attitude that is partly responsible for the financial troubles of PIIGS in Europe (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain). That is the voters don’t want to pay increased taxes, often actively avoid paying taxes, but still want government handouts, including a government pension.

Some have complained that there’s nothing in the budget for them. There is plenty, including:

Government-subsidised health (Medicare, and other health programs)
Government-subsidised pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, for prescription drugs)
Government funding for social infrastructure, usually provided to the states (public hospitals, public schools …)
Government co-contribution for low-income earners (it means they will be less reliant on government pensions in future). They will also get some of their rebate each pay period, rather than after submitting a tax return.
The child care rebate remains, regardless of income
The baby bonus, or paid parental leave, is still available

But it is not a perfect budget by any means. Some of the savings measures will affect consumer discretionary spending. Yet this includes the area of the economy that is in the ‘slow lane’: retail, entertainment, tourism & hospitality. Tony Abbott has previously said that a Labor Government will never return a surplus. There is no doubt the government will do all it can to return the budget to surplus: it wants to make liar of Tony Abbott. Abbott, meanwhile, will “do anything” to destabilise government in Australia. We will be in for a long 2 1/2 years of Government and Opposition spin.

Many, including the media are rather too focussed on asking ‘What's in it for me, me, me?’ Australian society would benefit from a more positive attitude, recognising that the budget does try to help those less fortunate, while still providing considerable funds for all, including “middle class” people. Like me.

John

Australia's Asian Solution

2011-05-08T20:10:00.000+10:00

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has announced a deal with Malaysia to receive and process 800 asylum-seekers. These asylum seekers have paid people-smugglers to send them to Australian territory by boat, and frequently travel illegally through Malaysia and Indonesia.

The 800 boat people will be processed by the UNHCR, but will join the end of the queue to be processed. In return, Australia will take 4000 refugees from the UNHCR in Malaysia.

The in-principle agreement is designed to

be a public deterrent to people arriving by boat, rather than through established UNHCR programs.
provide a partial solution to the number of asylum-seekers arriving by boat that are self-funded, paying money to people smugglers.
improve populist public perception of the Government's policy on asylum-seekers. This is an important area for the ALP (in and out of Government), and one where it has historically trailed the Liberal-National Coalition.
avoid the Labor Government having to use Nauru, which was used by the former Coalition Government under John Howard, and about which the then Labor Opposition was very critical.

The Coalition has repeatedly called for Nauru to be used as an off-shore processing centre. Labor has consistently refused, but has not argued its case, apart from earlier statements about Nauru not being a signatory to UN Conventions on Refugees. Neither, though, is Malaysia. This gives Tony Abbott and the media the freedom to speculate and question why not, other than embarrassment such a reversal would cause.

Not that Nauru is an ideal country, nor was it ultimately effective for the Liberal-National Coalition government, which included Tony Abbott. ALL of the people they sent there were ultimately granted asylum in Australia, and it cost Australian taxpayers $2m /day even when empty!

Other reasons for it being less than ideal include:

it has had an ongoing history of corruption and incompetence within the government and public service
it had a reported history of allowing money laundering and tax evasion
it is not a party to the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime
it is not a party to the 1988 UN Drug Convention
it is not a party to the UN Convention against Corruption

Julia Gillard's Labor Government learnt from its mistakes with its proposed East Timor processing centre, which was announced during the election without having consulted the Government of East Timor. This time, the Government has reached an in-principle agreement before announcing it. But it has not yet learnt effective communication and how to lead policy debate in Australia.

As with most Federal, and state, politics, there is no debate among the political parties; just press releases and spin from both sides, and negativism from Tony Abbott and the Liberal-National Coalition.

John

Osama Bin Laden Dead

2011-05-02T20:24:00.001+10:00

This afternoon's breaking news story was about the death of al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden. The details - less important to many - seem to be:

The US and Bin Laden had declared war on each other, particularly after the terrorist attacks on the US on September 11, 2001. Since August 2010 the US has been gathering, and verifying, intelligence about the whereabouts of Bin Laden. The US sent in helicopters and troops to Abbotabad, not far from Pakistan's capital Islamabad. Special Forces troops were lowerd to the ground, and Bin Laden, his son, and 2 other men were killed. Bin Laden has been buried at sea, in a method that conforms to Islamic custom. It was all over in about 40 minutes, according to some news reports.

So much for the facts.

Will Bin Laden's death make a difference? It has lifted the spirit of America & its people, many of whom rejoiced in New York, and Washington. To terrorism? Probably not, especially if Bin Laden had a succession plan. Egyptian doctor, Ayman al-Zawahri, reputed to have planned significant terrorist attacks could possible take over. Also, al Qaeda is not just one organisation - there are 'branches' in other Islamic countries, with their own leaders; it is known to have influenced other terrorist attacks, including the Bali bombings in Indonesia.
Will al Qaeda still be active? Yes. But despite the bleatings of leaders under pressure from popular uprisings in Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, and other Islamic countries, these uprisings are not al Qaeda's doing. No-one, in or out of, those countries beleives that. They are popular uprisings by people seeking freedoms, justice and democracy, all of which are an anathema to terrorists.
Did Bin Laden die a martyr's death? His followers and some analysts would have us believe so. But there is another possibility. Bin Laden could have realised the raid was likely to capture him, and determined that he would not be captured, interrogated, and tried for crimes against humanity. In effect, he could have decided to commit "suicide by cop". Islamic law, and Quranic writings, seem to say that a person commiting suicide cannot enter paradise! If Bin Laden determined to die, even by "suicide by cop" then he will go to Jahannum, Islamic hell.

John

ANZAC Day 2011

2011-04-25T14:11:00.000+10:00

Today is ANZAC Day. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Army Corp. It is a day when we Australians, and New Zealanders, commemorate:

the ANZAC landing at Gallipoli Peninsula on 25-April-1915, and the heroic failure that ensued. ‘ANZAC’ initially meant a soldier who had landed & fought at Gallipoli.
the various meanings of war, sacrifice, mateship, larrikinism, loyalty, bravery

During and after WWII, it became a day to remember all Australians who fought & died in wars, peace-keeping and police actions: the Boer war, WWI, including WWII, the police action in Malaysia, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and from all the services.

It is a commemoration: a public display of individual, group and society’s remembrance and respect.
This year, a relative of mine who has marched in Sydney for years, will not march. He is not well enough. He will watch it, and look for his mates on, the ABC’s TV coverage. I rang him yesterday to wish him a good day.

Ode to the Fallen (‘the Ode’)

(from ‘For the Fallen, by Laurence Binyon)

They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old:

Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun and in the morning,
We will remember them.

Lest We Forget.

John

Divisive Abbott In Front

2011-04-18T21:47:00.000+10:00

This week, Tony Abbott was saying that the government should listen to the unions. The context is over the carbon tax and some unions have publicly expressed concerns about their fears. In particular, Paul Howes from the Australian Workers Union, which represents many workers in the manufacturing, steel, aluminium, glass, oil & gas, aviation, agriculture, construction, state public services, local government, health, plastics, hospitality, food, paper, resources, aquaculture, events and racing industries. Many of the industries above will be affected in some way by a carbon tax.

Back to Tony Abbott.

As a Minister in the Howard government, Tony Abbott voted for, and defended, WorkChoices legislation. WorkChoices was designed to lower wages, and prevent unions from representing members in pay negotiations. That is, he wanted to stop unions speaking up for members. This week, he thinks they should, because it suits him politically.
On 9-December-2010, Tony Abbott gave an interview in which he said: http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/12/09/Tony-Abbott-Doorstop.aspx

“The Labor Party is in government but the Greens are in power. “
and
“… we’ve had more WikiLeaks today which demonstrates that the unions are in charge … they’re effectively running the Government”. (most of us would think that, if the Greens were in power, they’d also be in charge. Not, apparently, Tony Abbott, who thought the unions ran the government, and therefore had power!)

Here, he clearly wanted Prime Minister Julia Gillard to NOT listen to union officials.

On 16-April-2011, Tony Abbott thought (http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2011/04/16/Tony-Abbott-Doorstop.aspx )

“I just think it’s very important that the Prime Minister should listen to the people who are at last expressing the concerns of Australians workers.”

Today’s position by Tony Abbott seems to be the exact opposite of what he wanted when in Government, and as Leader of the Opposition last December.

For all of that, Tony Abbot’s short slogans, frequent media “doorstop” statements, and frequent visits to backdrop sites to which voters relate is effective. While it is driven by his need to be divisive – a tactic he believes will eventually make him PM - By contrast, Julia Gillard and Labor seems to want to debate the issue, with no one, certainly not PM Julia Gillard, visiting workplaces with the same frequency as Tony Abbott. No wonder the latest polls show a drop in support for Labor, and for Julia Gillard as PM.
The chart shows the figures from Newspoll.

Back to Julia Gillard. If she wants to counter Tony Abbott’s popularity, she, and her ministers, need to adopt the same tactics as Abbott:

frequent “doorstop” interviews
these interviews need to have a backdrop/setting that voters will connect with.
there needs to be constant repetition of short slogans. eg ‘carbon tax – for the environment’; ‘carbon tax – for our children’
she should not stop proper debates, but, since most voters are unthinking, and respond to the number of media appearances/mentions, Abbott’s techniques are effective. They're not good for public debate, but effective.

John

The Clubs Fight Back

2011-04-13T16:13:00.001+10:00

This week, the Hotel and Clubs industries fight back against the introduction of measures to limit poker machine use. The measures would have poker machine gamblers nominate an amount they are prepared to lose. There are few who benefit directly from the profits: pubs, clubs, the State Government. Individual Hotels, Clubs and their Industry Associations make political donations to the major parties.

New NSW Liberal Premier Barry O’Farrell has come out in support of the Pubs and Clubs in their fight with the Federal (Labor) Government. It is appropriate to ask some questions:

How much did the pubs, clubs, their industry associations, and their lobbyists donate to the Liberal & National Parties in NSW before the election? (this will be available at a later date from the Electoral Commission, but it requires some work to determine lobbyists affiliations)
Mr O’Farrell seems to have issued a press release, but then has not been available for questioning. Why?
How much does the State Government stand to benefit over the next 4 years from poker machine taxes?
Does Mr O’Farrell believe all pubs and clubs conform to the Responsible Service of gambling?

John

What Price A Child's Life?

2011-04-11T20:33:00.000+10:00

There were two news stories about the murder of two children this week. Yet the results of investigations are very, very different.

West Gate Bridge
Source: National Archives of Australia

On 29 January 2009, 4-year-old Darcey Freeman died after being dropped 58m from Melbourne's West Gate Bridge. A lengthy police investigation, prosecution preparation and trial led to the conviction of Arthur Phillip Freeman of murder. He had been involved in a custody battle with his former wife, and, shortly before Darcey was dropped from the bridge, he rang her and said "say goodbye to your children". Darcey's 6yo and 2yo brothers saw him drop Darcey from the top of the bridge. Despite being recovered by people below, Darcey later died. Arthur Phillip Freeman was sentenced to life in prison, with a 32 year non-parole period.

In sentencing Freeman, Justice Paul Coghlan said "Your crime is a most fundamental breach of trust and it is an attack on the institution of the family which is so dear to the community"

Also last week, NT Coroner Greg Cavanagh criticised Northern Territory Police for their lack of investigation of the drowning of an 8yo aboriginal boy in 2009. The boy had been weighted down with rocks in his shorts, and drowned in a waterhole. The case has now been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions after he found a crime had been committed. Police were criticised for: being too quick to dismiss the death as accidental; not protecting and keeping the rocks; not making measurements of, and photographing or keeping other physical evidence; a beer can was not tested for DNA for months after the discovery (the DNA reportedly belongs to a person on remand for child sex offences); the waterhole was not drained and searched; evidence (a pornographic magazine and a singlet) was dismissed as unimportant without being tested. The list goes on.

Any unlawful death hurts society. The killing of a child is especially painful for family, and society. In the Melbourne, Victorian, case, police conducted an investigation which led to trial, and conviction. In the other, it is hard not to conclude that the death of an aboriginal child was deemed not worthy of rigorous investigation by the investigating police. Our society has been hurt twice by this case: once that a child has been killed; and again because the police we trust apparently did not do their job properly.

John

Carbon Tax Debate Hijacked

2011-04-02T22:26:00.000+11:00

The debate about whether Australia should, or should not, have a carbon tax is being hijacked. Today in Sydney there were two rallies: one in favour of a carbon tax, and one opposed to any carbon price.

The anti-tax rally, apparently organized by on Luke Jenkins, boasted the support of 22 organizations. All were pro-conservative media (The Australian, The Daily Telegraph); conservative-media journalists (Andrew Bolt - he of the current controversy concerning his comments about some aboriginal people); political organizations (Menzies House); Jo Nova (she has links to the Heartland Institute, which worked with tobacco giant Philip Morris to try to discredit second-hand smoke as a danger to health); One Nation; ... There website is: http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/ I don't doubt that there are extremists associated with, and driving, the organization. They play on one basic human trait: we don't like paying any tax.

Rallies are organized, and the Liberal and National Party politicians invited. It is as if the no-tax power-brokers are waving the tails of the Coalition politicians! Some of them are willing subjects, for their own political purposes.

The pro-tax, pro-climate change rally was organized by GetUp! - http://www.getup.org.au/ - an organization also known to contain some extremists, and willing to criticise all and sundry that don't meet their "social" wishes, including the Labor Party. Like the No carbon Tax group, they attempt to wag the tail of politicians and political parties.

Both rallies are reported to have had about 4000 participants.

So, should we have a carbon tax?? Yes ... and No.

Here, let me say that I think that people are contributing to rising Carbon Dioxide levels; and that increasing Carbon Dioxide levels are a cause of increasing average temperatures of the earth, rising sea levels and (likely) increasing frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Rational argument doesn't work with climate sceptics / Conservative politics, but:

NASA (Oct, 2010) has a report that concludes

"... industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general." http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

If it comes down to believing the myriad Conservative media & skeptics, or Dr Karl Kruszelniki, I'm mush more inclined to believe Dr Karl

Yes - a carbon tax would work better in a closed economy. That is, one not exposed to, and part of, world-wide economic activity. Taxes, like interest rate movements from The Reserve Bank are designed to change people's behaviour. A carbon tax will help change people's behaviour in their use of carbon-based energy: mostly electricity and petrol. This is because society needs an impulse to change its behaviour, and if people want to not pay the tax, they will change their behaviour.

No - because Australia is part of a 'global economy', and taxes work best in a closed economy, an Emissions Trading Scheme with a capped amount of carbon pollution, or even one that reduces the levels of carbon pollution, is a better option.

A price on carbon is appropriate, the pollution has an economic cost that polluters have not had to pay, and economics says that they should.

John

O’Farrell Finds ‘Black Hole”

2011-03-29T21:07:00.000+11:00

(This post has been updated on 30-March))

New NSW Premier, Barry O'Farrell, has released the typical new government "we found a black hole in the budget" media release.
It was not unexpected - almost every new government does it, whether Coalition or Labor.
Mr O'Farrell released a media statement headlining a "$4.5 Billion black hole".
But where did the $4.5 Billion ‘black hole’ come from? The answer lies in events since the last estimates were released.

the last estimates were released on 15-Dec-2010 and are shown below. the ‘latest estimate’ is reportedly what was given to Mr O’Farrell. The full document is at http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/?a=19225

Budget Results	2010-11 $m	2011-12 $m	2012-113 $m	2013-14 $m
1/2 Yearly Review (Dec-2010)	167	176	432	129
Latest estimate		204	-405	-1,200
Change from 1/2 Yearly Review		28	-837	-1,329

Even with the updated figures the estimates give a TOTAL deficit for the period 2012-14 is estimated at $2.15 Billion, not the $4.5 billion quoted by Mr O’Farrell, which includes a new treasury guesstimate, the basis of which is unknown. Budgets for 2011-12 – 2014-15 will be controlled by Mr O’Farrell and his Treasurer, expected to be Mike Baird.

The estimates only go to 2013-14, BUT … there’s always a ‘but’ … Mr O’Farrell has included a guestimate for 2014-15, not included in the forward estimates by Treasury. The ABC reported

… Claire Curtin from Standard and Poor's says there is no threat to the state's credit rating at this stage.

"A significant proportion of the $4.5 billion number is both outside our outlook horizon and the forward estimates period," Ms Curtin said. …

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/29/3176184.htm

The new budget report will account for the ‘worst-case’ – it’s what Treasury does for incoming governments.
It also accounts for the result of Labor’s sale of publicly-owned electricity assets, the extra expenditure involved, including developing a coal mine for a private company, and the subsequent loss of income from them. Former Labor Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, is responsible for that.

All up – I do not doubt there is a hole in the budget, but I am not sure it’s a big as BOF said.

Perhaps, in the spirit of new ‘accountability’ promised by Mr O’Farrell, he might release the basis of his budget deficit in 2014-15, approximately 42.4 Billion, by his reckoning. Everyone’s allowed one dream per day – I guess I just had mine.

John

Liberals to Rule NSW

2011-03-27T15:16:00.000+11:00

Yesterday's election saw the Liberal-National Parties win government in NSW. The Labor Party (ALP) has governed for 16 years. Barry O'Farrell will be the new Premier of NSW. Outgoing Labor Premier, Kristina Keneally, conceded defeat and congratulated Mr O'Farrell last night.

The result has been largely a foregone conclusion. Even before the election campaigning started, polling showed that voters had deserted the ALP. The following table shows 2-Party-Preferred voting intentions of NSW people surveyed from Dec-Jan to March this year.

Month	ALP	Coalition
Dec - Jan	39%	61%
Jan-Feb	38%	62%
March	37%	63%

The figures I saw last night indicated an approximate distribution of 36% ALP and 64% Coalition
Newspoll (http://www.newspoll.com.au/) states that:

These surveys were conducted on the telephone by trained interviewers among voters throughout New South Wales. Telephone numbers and the person within the household were selected at random. The data has been weighted to reflect the population distribution of New South Wales. The latest survey is based on 1,000 interviews among voters. The maximum margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points

That means that, despite a small difference in actual numbers, the polls have essentially showed no statistical change between January and polling day. This means that the election result was not influenced by either leader, nor by their party advertising. Any claims by the Coalition that its campaign advertising about a carbon tax influencing the result will be, at best, ‘spin’. Spin really refers to political false advertising.

The Coalition, as of this morning, expects to have 66 of 93 seats. Of those 66 seats, 17 are held by the National Party; 49 by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party could govern in their own right. It remains to be seen how much ‘weight’ they will throw around in the joint party room on Monday morning!

Kristina Keneally has indicated she will not stand for the leadership of the ALP in Opposition, saying she believed the new leader should be unencumbered with decisions of the past. Policy and decisions have been made by a few, with their political interests being the driving force. With as few as 19 or 20 Members of the Legislative Assembly, and no new members, the ranks of potential leaders are thin. They include:

John Robertson, who moved from the Legislative Council (LC) to the Legislative Assembly (LA). He has been the most widely mentioned in the media. He has “baggage”. As representative of Unions NSW, he vigorously, and vociferously, opposed the sale of NSW electricity assets. He was ‘given’ a seat in the LC by the ALP party machine, then promoted to Minister for Transport. Suddenly, his opposition to the sale of our (people-owned) electricity asset wasn’t a problem, and he kept quiet during the sale. As Minister for Transport, he oversaw what many voters believed were myriad problems: ferries, trains, busses. At best, he will be a party-machine installed stop-gap, who could kick heads. He will not kick heads in the party machine, although that is what is required! after all, they will largely be responsible for the politicking that might well install him as leader. John Robertson has baggage, will likely remain unpopular with voters, and will not win an election.
Carmel Tebbutt, former Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. She carries less baggage than John Robertson, but hospitals are still a problem area for voters, and she might not have the backroom influence or power that John Robertson is likely to have. This, incidentally, was one of the perceptions about Kristina Keneally. Being personable, hard-working , logical and caring doesn’t count in the current NSW Labor machine, even if those qualities are recognised by voters. Being from the left faction, Carmel Tebbutt will not be popular with the right-wing party machine.
Nathan Rees: – ‘been there, done that’, and was not popular with voters, nor with the right-wing of the ALP.

The Coalition will expect to rule NSW for at least 8 years (2 x 4-year fixed terms). It will likely take that long for the NSW ALP to purge the party machine, give more say to rank and file members, and rebuild policies based on the interests of the people of NSW, rather than the interests of some party power-brokers.

John
PS expect the budget in late May 2011 to 'slash and burn', especially the Public Service, a traditional target for incoming governments, with only token trinkets for some newly won seats in western / south-western Sydney and, perhaps, one or two big-ticket schemes to be announced, but not funded, and with no delivery in 2011-12.

Incoming NSW Government Tasks

2011-03-20T20:50:00.000+11:00

Sometime next Saturday, 26-March, many expect there will be a new NSW Government, one led by Barry O’Farrell of the Liberal Party. the National Party will his Coalition partners in government. As a voter, I have a list of things that will need his urgent attention. These tasks will help prevent members of his government behaving in ways about which he, the media, and many voters have been critical. I believe that whoever wins government, Barry O’Farrell, or Labor’s Kristina Keneally must:

Kristina Keneally

Barry O'Farrell

Remove Ministerial discretion in planning matters. Current legislation gives the Planning Minister the opportunity for personal discretion, and provides an atmosphere, and fosters a culture where, decisions that would otherwise be deemed unethical or corrupt are allowed; even encouraged, by relationships with other politicians, lobbyists, and developers. Witness, for example, the spate of approvals given by Tony Kelly in the day before the government went into caretaker mode. Most of those decisions concerned the development at Barangaroo, to the benefit of Lend Lease. One of those allows Lend Lease to develop a car park without having to remove toxic chemicals from the ground. Legal? Aapparently. Ethical? ?
Ensure ethical standards. All other sections of the “public service” are bound by ethical standards and Codes of Conduct, but apparently, politicians are not. The current Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ethics is toothless. It can do nothing to reprimand, nor take any action against, any MP who acts unethically. Indeed, there appears to be no Code of Conduct which explicitly outlines expected and prohibited behaviours of Parliamentarians. That means, provided a NSW Parliamentarian does nothing illegal, they cannot be found to be corrupt, regardless of how unethical their conduct might be perceived.
Restore political neutrality to the Public Service Senior Executive Service. The current SES has a number of people, including Directors-General, whose appointments are perceived as tainted by political connections. Not all, but some of them. It is likely their contracts will be either terminated, or not renewed. The incoming Premier must act ethically,and disallow the practice that has politicised the public service, solely to give Ministers a highly-paid “Yes, Minister” underling. Any political appointments hinder free, but honest advice, and degrade our democracy.
Restore the esteem of our social infrastructure. Public Schools, Public Hospitals, Public transport, TAFE, Community Services all need to be promoted, and seen to be valued by Government. Only then will the public’s esteem grow.
Restore Standards of Question Time Behaviour. People call our Parliament “the Bear Pit”. Many don’t respect Parliament, nor the politicians that give it the bad name. Enough said.
Retain Public Assets in Public hands. Public School land is not, for example, an asset to be sold to developers, or to private schools. It would be sensible, and appropriate, for example, to include a caveat excluding public school land sold to private entities being used for educational purposes. (see also Points 1, 2 and 4 above)

If all the above sounds fine, but terribly idealistic, even naive, then think about this:
“If you don’t aim to hit the bullseye, you’ve got no chance”

Let’s annoy and harangue our politicians and leaders till they do what the ought to do.

John

NSW Ethics Shmethics

2011-03-15T21:14:00.001+11:00

The last Liberal-National government in NSW was led by Nick Greiner. In 1992 the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which he established, found him to have acted corruptly. This was later overturned in the courts, because what he did in offering Terry Metherell a senior Public Service position was not illegal, and there were no ethical standards for politicians.

“Ian Temby found Premier Nick Greiner had acted corruptly. Greiner had offered a place to Terry Metherell with the purpose of removing him from Parliament to the advantage of the governing party. Eventually, the courts found in Greiner's favour. The court's reasoning was that Greiner had not acted illegally. The sole basis for a finding of corruption was, therefore, if he had breached a code of behaviour by which he was bound. The courts found that, although public servants and other officials were bound by well established codes of behaviour, politicians were subject to none of them. In effect, unless they break the law, politicians can’t be corrupt in NSW because they have no ethics.” (Chis Hurley, 2004) http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/0406rmethicsch.pdf

The irony was that Nick Greiner had campaigned partly on the alleged corruption of the previous, Labor, NSW Government, led by Neville Wran.

NSW voters, individually and collectively, have a good sense of what is right and wrong. Many see the last-minute changes to regulations by Planning Minster Tony Kelly, to the benefit of Lend Lease, as being unethical, even if not unlawful. So, too, the allegations of document shredding by Labor Ministers and staff will be seen by many as corrupt. It has been reported that current Labor Premier, Kristina Kenneally, has ordered the destruction of “thousands” of potentially damaging sensitive documents, and that she “expect(s) all public servants, be they in the bureaucracy or government advisers, to be following that direction”

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/greens-concerned-at-labor-shredding-documents-before-nsw-election/story-e6frfku0-1226020642333#ixzz1GezirtsZ

There is a NSW Parliamentary Ethics Committee. The NSW Parliament website says:

“This Committee has the function of carrying out educative work in relation to ethical standards applying to Members of the Legislative Assembly as well as providing advice on the standards. The Committee can also consider matters of privilege referred by the House.”

However, the Committee can not take any action against any member, even if the member is deemed to have acted unethically! It is toothless.

Many people believe political ethics have taken a beating under the current Labor Government. But will an incoming Liberal-National government change the rules if those rules mean its own members & Ministers must adhere to a set of standards not previously achieved in NSW? Remember, too, that elements within the Liberal Party are opposed to ethics classes in NSW public schools.

Will anything change? Ethics, Shmethics, if you ask me.

John

Carbon Costs

2011-03-06T21:10:00.002+11:00

Let’s be clear: All our political parties, The Greens, Labor, Liberal and National Parties believe climate change is occurring. This is despite Tony Abbott’s well-publicised comment about the science being “crap”, and despite some nay-sayers. Most of the nay-sayers are from the Liberal & National Parties. It is a politically convenient position, allowing big-polluting supporters to continue to pollute.

What IS different is the politics. The Liberal & National Parties have abandoned the policy of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) their former leader & PM, John Howard. Labor, having promised action on climate change under Kevin Rudd, and now Julia Gillard, have been unable to resolve the details of ETS to satisfy the Greens and Independent MP’s & Senators. The result is a proposed interim carbon tax, to be replaced by an ETS in 3-5 years. So, how do the policies compare?
The Greens (main points)

binding national emissions targets for 2012, 2020 & 2050, with a 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020

detailed strategy to reduce emissions from energy, transport, industry, waste & land management

future energy needs to be met by sustainable, renewable energy sources
an equitable transition to a low carbon economy through a range of market-based and regulatory mechanisms reflecting the real costs of greenhouse gas emissions
address the social impacts of the transition to a low carbon economy
establish a national system of energy efficiency targets

See: http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/climate-change-and-energy

Labor Party (current policy)

5%-15% reduction on 2000 carbon dioxide emissions by 2020
carbon tax (details to be advised), with a transition to an ETS in 3-5 years.
“businesses with the highest levels of pollution will have a very strong incentive to reduce their pollution.”
“The Government will then use every cent raised to:

Assist families with household bills
Help businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy
Tackle climate change”

See: http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/environment/carbon-price-mechanism/

The Coalition (Liberal / National Parties)

5% reduction on 2000 carbon dioxide emissions by 2020
“direct action” involving:

an Emissions Reduction Fund (funded by taxpayers)
“incentives” for businesses
penalties for businesses that pollute beyond “business as usual levels”. Penalties to be set “in consultation with industry”.
plant trees, but not on useful land for farms
solar & biofuels

See: http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy.ashx

Comments:

policies from Labor and Liberal-National Parties have been subject to change to suit particular political climates at the time.
the economics of a carbon price are complex.

Electricity use might be more economically “elastic” than previously thought. See http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/conspicuous-conservation-means-less-is-much-more-cool-20110118-19v75.html People in Sydney have REDUCED their “average electricity consumption in Sydney fell by 6 per cent between 2005-06 and 2009-10”, while the price increased by 50%
Petrol, though, seems to be rather “inelastic”. That is, people will continue to buy, almost regardless of the price. But they can exert significant political resistance. remember, John Howard reduced the tax on petrol after it first hit the $1/litre mark because of the political backlash from motorists. He couldn’t, and wouldn’t, continue to reduce it, though,and petrol is well over $1/lire now.
Taxes, including a carbon tax or ETS, are designed to force a change in people’s behaviour. Think of the effect of increasing interest rates on household spending – the effect is similar if people pay more tax.

Consumers will pay one way or another: a carbon tax / ETS means they will pay pay as they use, and change behaviour accordingly; an Emissions Reduction Fund means they will pay through other taxes, and will not associate the (mostly income) tax with carbon pollution.

Summary

	The Greens	Labor	Liberal / National
Quality / Idealness	9 / 10	6 / 10	5 / 10
Practicality	5 / 10	5 / 10	6 / 10
Effectiveness	8 / 10	6 /10	4 /10
Cost to Energy Consumers	Very High	High – via “cost”	High – via tax

Whatever the politicians do, I believe we should all strive to reduce our carbon emissions. We should do so because it is a good thing to do, because it will reduce the rate of increase in our costs, and because it will improve our environment.

See also: http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2011/03/07/Tony-Abbott%E2%80%99s-Great-Big-New-Tax.aspx
John

Climate Change Compromised

2011-02-24T20:03:00.000+11:00

Compromise usually means that no one gets what they want, and the compromise is accepted by all because they realise that no one is completely happy, but everybody got something.

So it is with today's announcement that, from July 2012, there will be a fixed price on carbon (pollution), with an eventual move to an Emissions Trading Scheme in about 3 years. (2015) Business, especially big business, wanted, and lobbied both Coalition & Labor Governments for it. Then Labor PM Kevin Rudd acceded to this, and former Coalition Minister and then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, supported it. The right wing of the Liberal Party shafted him, and installed Tony Abbott as Leader of the Opposition. Abbott promptly labelled climate change as 'crap', in direct opposition to Australia's Chief Scientist, and the CSIRO.

Last year's Federal election resulted in a hung Parliament, and Julia Gillard only became Australia's current Labor Prime Minister after gaining the support of Independent MP's. The result included a multi-party Committee on Climate Change. The Committee members are listed at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/multi-party-committee/members.aspx Prime Minister Gillard Chairs the Committee. No Coalition members are listed, although the Coalition was invited to nominate 2 members of the Committee.

The compromise reached by the Committee is a fixed price on carbon for 3 years, then a transition to an ETS. All parties have compromised:

The Greens wanted an ETS, including on-farm activities.
Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor wanted an ETS, not including on-farm activities. They represent rural and regional voters.
Labor wanted an ETS, but different from that, and it had twice lost a vote in Parliament.

So, all parties wanted an ETS, except the Coalition which chose not to have members on the Committee. However, none could agree on the form of the ETS. Hence, a compromise, fixed-price on carbon, that shows they want to do something about climate change, but none have got what they really wanted. If it is introduced, I hope that imported goods are also subject to it, including the carbon-cost of transport to Australia. Otherwise, companies manufacturing in Australia will be further disadvantaged.

Politics is sometimes defined as 'the art of comprommise', but it seems to me that it often compromises good public policy.

John

Healthy Change From Gillard

2011-02-12T12:09:00.000+11:00

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced proposed changes to the Health Funding agreement to be discussed, and possibly agreed, at the COAG meeting on Sunday.

The proposed changes include:

Dropping the proposed loss of 30% of GST to the Federal Government. Ms Gillard referred to it as a "merry-go-round of GST money". It was to be used to raise the Federal Government's funding from 40% to 60% of health funding.
the proposal for the Federal Government to fund 100% of out of hospital health services.
direct funding of hospitals has gone. This is a good thing, I think. Direct funding by bodies under the control of a Prime Minister, Premier, or Minister removes some transparency, and allows for politically-driven funding. Think WorkChoices, where the independent Industrial relations Commission was disbanded, and a federal pay authority established under the effective control of former Prime Minister John Howard.
The Federal Government will commit to funding 50% of future increases in health funding, subject to "performance targets" being met. This is less than the 60% under the previous model, and indicates to the states, especially those led by Liberal Party Premiers, that the cost of retaining control over all their GST is that the Federal Government will commit less.
Funding will be paid by Federal & state governments to a new Health authority, to be independent of Federal & state government interference, similar to the Reserve Bank. This is a much improved policy to the direct funding model previously proposed by Kevin Rudd.

The changes are largely politically driven to gain the approval of states which have a Liberal Party Premier, including Barry O'Farrell who is expected to be NSW Premier after the 24-March election. Politics is, after all, the art of compromise.

Liberal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has, predictably criticised the changes, calling them "the biggest backdown since the surrender of Singapore" (in WW2). Abbott has a history of criticising absolutely everything from the Federal Government, so his comments are no surprise.

It was disappointing that no journalist, not one, asked Abbott the following questions:

Mr Abbott is this new proposed policy 'bad policy'? [Abbott would have effectively answered 'Yes']
If it is such bad policy, why will 2 Liberal Premiers, and one Premier-in-waiting, agree to it?

Also disappointing was that no journalist asked Ms Gillard:

Ms Gillard wasn't the direct funding model, proposed by former PM Kevin Rudd just bad policy, because it opens the possibility of future governments funding hospitals for their own political ends, and isn't it better that state governments be given a pool of funds to allocate to hospitals through their Health Departments? [this would have been awkward, because it would require criticism of Kevin Rudd's proposals, something she was at pains to try to avoid]
GST revenue to states will fall during some future economic downturn. How will health funding be affected by future economic downturns, given that the states use GST money to partly fund health?

John

Abbott's Levy Too Far

2011-02-03T20:19:00.001+11:00

Tony Abbott has sent an email to Liberal Party supporters, at the end of which he asks for a donation to fight the (proposed) flood levy. It will really be a short-term addition to the rate of Medicare Levy. Both sides are playing politics with this.

The email bears Tony Abbott's signature, and will have been approved by him, but would have been sent by a political staffer.

Notwithstanding the words of the email, Tony Abbott has no bipartisan cooperation in mind, and has, indeed, been pressuring the Independent MP's to support him and bring down the government.

The post script plea for donations to campaign against flood levy is rather tacky in its implication. That is, that there should be no levy, and perhaps that taxpayers should be more self-centred and contribute less to society. It is Liberal Party philosophy that "user pays" ... unless there is political capital to be made for them.

Abbott's plea seems to be backfiring. It seems that some older members/supporters of the Liberal Party actually think using an income tax levy to rebuild infrastructure is entirely appropriate, and Tony Abbott risks alienating not only Liberal supporters who hold such beliefs, but many Queenslanders, too. Queensland is a state vital to both parties' electoral success.

For its part, members of the current Labor government have hit the media with criticism of the email, again for purely to score political points. Abbott tried to laugh it off, saying he believes Labor emails also solicit donations. But it's what he doesn't say that's important here - that Labor has not asked for donations to fund ads opposing a mechanism to rebuild infrastructure after a natural disaster. It was just tacky and rather cheap politics by Tony Abbott & the Liberal Party. So is the "point-scoring" by Labor.

John

The Politics Of Rebuilding

2011-01-29T21:12:00.001+11:00

This week saw a return to normal partisan politics.

Having flown the kite in the media, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the proposed addition to the Medicare levy to fund the reconstruction of public infrastructure, especially in Queensland. The levy will fund about 30% of the reconstruction and will be collected for only 1 year. It will levy an extra 0.5% of income over $50000 and less than $100000; and 1% for incomes over $100000. You can see the proposed weekly effect at http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-the-flood-levy-will-affect-you-20110127-1a69i.html

Politically, Julia Gillard wants to ensure the budget surplus as promised in 2012-13. It will be her first surplus, with the previous and current Labor Government having rightly gone into deficit to ensure Australia did not slide in recession during the Global Financial Crisis, but she also needs to prove wrong Tony Abbott's assertion that Labor would never deliver a budget surplus. Never mind the extenuating global financial and exceptional flood-induced circumstances.

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey have been relentlessly pursuing the "great big new tax" line in as many 5-second media grabs as possible, rather like Chicken Little's "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". His solution to finding the extra money is to cut government programs and other spending. Again, for political purposes, he suggests dumping the National Broadband Network. This is despite his alternative plan from the election being generally regarded as slower, and creating more congestion in the Internet wireless bandwidth.

Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have been critical of the levy, because it's an income tax levy. But they supported the levies introduced and imposed by former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard: the gun buy-back levy after the Port Arthur massacre, and the airline flight levy to pay employee entitlements after Ansett went broke. They also both proposed an income tax levy to fund a paid parental leave scheme at the 2010 election. A levy on income tax is not a philosophical problem for them; the problem is that they are not in government, and they therefore see the need to whinge about it.

Meanwhile Abbott has also applied political pressure to the Independent MP's, with whose support Julia Gillard remains Prime Minister. There's nothing "bipartisan" about that, despite any public comments to the contrary by him.

Tony Abbott's negative politics, which reinforces the selfish "why should I pay more" and "I already donated to the flood relief" attitudes will be a challenge for Gillard, and Treasurer Wayne Swan, to overcome. We have just celebrated Australia Day, and given ourselves a pat on the back for wanting to help our society. To now whinge about a 1-year small levy to help rebuild our flood-ravaged physical and social infrastructure is, perhaps, hypocritical, selfish, and not the kind of Australian we say we want to be.

John

Australia Day 2011

2011-01-26T14:20:00.001+11:00

Today is a public holiday, Australia Day. It's a day when we Aussies:

celebrate being Australian
remember the arrival of 11 convict ships, on 26-January-1788, under the command of Arthur Philip.
recognise the achievements of many Australians, at National, State, and local levels. Significant numbers are receive Australia Day Awards. The official Australia Day Awards. There are also Australia Day honours. We often refer to them irreverently as "gongs", as in "She/He got a gong for ..."
have a BBQ with mates, or go to a cricket match (involving Australians vs an international team) in a one-day game.
we welcome people from overseas who have chosen to become Australian citizens.

But our society is not perfect. Politicians, of both sides, continue to develop politically-expedient policy, rather than good public policy. On occasions they act unethically, even if not unlawfully. Perhaps the most recent example is the suspension (proroguing) of NSW Parliament in December. An election is due in late March, but it is widely viewed as an attempt to hinder or stop a Parliamentary Inquiry into the sale of NSW electricity supply and generation companies. We need to tell our politicians that we require higher standards of behaviour from them. We have groups of people whose purpose is to marginalise, or intimidate other people: there are Asian and Middle-eastern gangs; criminal motorcycle organisations; organised crime (think of the Underbelly series about both Melbourne & Sydney); far right wing, neo-nazi, racist groups. We still have poor & disadvantaged people in our towns and cities, and in remote areas of Australia, whose welfare and health are similarly below the national standards.

Australia Day is a time when we are proud of our achievements, recognise particular individuals, and encourage and show our mateship. I hope we also vow to work for an even better Australia. Goodonya! I'm off to watch the cricket (Australia vs the Pommies. we lead 3-0 in a best of 7-game series)

John

Insurance Inquiry Needed

2011-01-19T21:17:00.001+11:00

As many people in multiple states are suddenly finding, what constitutes a flood changes with almost every insurance company. Some insurers, Suncorp among them, have said they will honour claims for flood damage, which is a nice piece of PR in a disaster. However, some of the companies it owns, AAMI among them, have already denied claims for flood damage using the “fine print” definitions to argue a “rising river event” is not the same as a flood!

Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has indicated aggrieved policy-holders might be allowed to give evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Queensland floods.

The Federal Government has already expressed some concern about the fine print definitions of what constitutes a “flood”, and, while the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) proposed a standard definition in 1998, it was rejected by the ACCC, because of a number of concerns it had. (www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/841725 )

The ACCC left open the possibility of approval for a new common definition from the ICA: none appears to have been forthcoming. So, the insurers continued to use their fine print and differing definitions, and rely heavily on the fact that many (most?) consumers don’t read the contract, but rely on the explanations given by a sales person, who might, or might not, be intent on meeting a sales target and achieving a bonus.

If you want to contact APRA about insurance, go to http://www.apra.gov.au/contact/form.cfm

It would seem timely for a full and open inquiry by APRA into all aspects of insurance policies to be held. I think it should be held concurrent with, or very soon after, the Queensland Government’s inquiry into the floods. I suspect that the Insurance Council of Australia and an assortment of industry lobbyists will now be in politicians’ ears trying their best to prevent such an inquiry, or at least try to dilute any terms of reference. It should examine all definitions of various events: flood, fire, storm, and other events.

I hope that the following does not represent the typical insurer of people in Queensland, or anywhere else in Australia.

John

Aussie Floods 2011

2011-01-15T20:56:00.001+11:00

I cried this week – more than once.

I cried at the devastation wreaked by the floods in Queensland. Much of southern Queensland (Qld) has been affected, but it is not the only region. The mid-northern city of Rockhampton was inundated by floods on New Year’s Day, 2011. Today’s news said that roads to Rockhampton were only just opening. The floods have affected 3/4 of Queensland. They are the worst floods since 1974. Each blue balloon below is a town or city affected by flood.

I cried at the images of the “inland tsunami” centred on Grantham, in the Lockyer Valley, and Toowoomba, west of Brisbane.

I cried for the people who died, and for their families and communities. I particularly cried when I read the story of Jordan Rice. He, his mother and younger brother were swept away in their car at Toowoomba on Monday. When a rescuer, tied to a rope, came to drag them to safety, James insisted they first take his younger brother, Blake, who is 10. When the rescuer came back, James, and his mother Donna Rice, were swept away from their car, and died. Jordan Rice was 13 years old. He gave his life, so that his younger brother could live. Read the full story in The Brisbane Times.

I was, and am, angry at the 10 people who have been arrested for looting. It is a despicable act to steal from people, but more so when those people are affected by a disaster of this magnitude.

I cried again today as I watched the multitude of volunteers who came to help the people of Brisbane and other areas affected by floods. More than ~~7000~~ 55000 people turned up, and registered as volunteers, just today. TV images showed all sorts of people: skilled trades people; truck drivers; unskilled people with buckets, brooms, shovels; young, middle-aged, and children all came to help people they didn’t know. One young woman, asked why she was volunteering, said she was not affected by the floods, and .. “I’m Australian”. Cue the Australian chant:
“Aussie! Aussie! Aussie"!”

“Oi! Oi! Oi!

“Aussie!”

“Oi!”

“Aussie!”

“Oi!”

“Aussie! Aussie! Aussie"!”

“Oi! Oi! Oi!

Across the country, people have donated money (very important after the immediate recovery), clothes, food, services, time to help people they don’t know, and likely never will. The outpouring of community spirit from emergency services, charitable organisations, ordinary community members is not only inspiring; it is the glue that strengthens our community, our nation.

See:
www.qld.gov.au/floods
www.vinnies.org.au/Qld-Floods
http://www.abc.net.au/emergency/flood/ (has many links)

I went to the Blood Bank this week to donate plasma. It wasn't as busy as it is normally. While many of you have contributed, I read today (http://www.donateblood.com.au/news-events/qld-news-events/queensland-floods-affect-blood-collections )that Queensland’s blood collections are down, because of the floods, and because donors have more important things to do. So, if you’re not in Queensland, not affected by floods in other states, and you can, give blood. In AUSTRALIA, see http://www.donateblood.com.au/ , or call 131495 (Australia only)

And let's not forget people in other states affected by floods: NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania.

John

Australia's 2011 Challenges

2011-01-03T17:06:00.000+11:00

Belated Happy New Year. I've been holidaying with family, so haven't posted. Nor did I looked at work emails, or use a computer between Christmas and New Year. I didn't miss them, even though, like many people, I consider them "tools of trade/life".

For 2011, Australia and its people have much to work on. While politicians will set the direction we take, each of us has both a personal and social responsibility to work towards a fairer society, and to help our communities - local, state and national.

Our politicians must address the following:
Tax reform - the Henry Review
Superannuation reform - the Cooper Review
Climate Change - Emissions trading Scheme or simple, but effective, Carbon Tax. Business lobbied for an ETS, believing they (or some of them) could make money from it. Also important are plans to protect coastlines, infrastructure and possibly restructuring some food-production industries.
Health and Education - Health funding and responsibilities for the myriad health services are still a dog's breakfast covering mostly State & Federal Governments. For hospitals there are proposals giving control to local boards. For Education, Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard has already flown the kite for direct funding of public schools, with Principals responsible for budget, hiring and firing, and "performance bonuses" to teachers selected by the Principal. Principals would be accountable to a local board, as with hospitals. Such approaches will only enhance the perception of "bean-counter" reluctance public health & education. Such a penurious approach will limit health and education services, based almost solely on local budget considerations. I do not believe these are good policies.
Economics - recent floods in NSW and Queensland, in particular, will require significant relief funds from governments, will lead to higher food prices for at least 6 months, and will adversely affect regional, state and the national economy. The effects of global economic conditions will also have an impact, especially from the US, European and Asian economies.

Individually, each of us must start, or continue, some form of service to our communities. Sometimes that is through aspects of our work, or donations to charity, help with local community organisations, such as Lions, Apex, Rotary, SES, Theatre, sporting clubs, local Church ...

For 2011, I'd like you to consider donating blood or plasma. Not everyone can, but I'm a regular donor - it's one of my community contributions. I've made about 100 donations, but there are people who have donated more than 250 times! In Australia, blood donations are freely given, and are provided free to people who need them. Many employers, and awards, allow some time off for employees to give blood. IN AUSTRALIA, see, http://www.donateblood.com.au/ , or call 131495 (Australia only)

While you're at it, consider becoming an organ donor - IN AUSTRALIA, see www.hic.gov.au/organ, or call 1800777203, or see your Medicare Office.

John

Merry Christmas 2010

2010-12-24T10:43:00.000+11:00

As we prepare for Christmas with family: children, parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, in-laws; and/or friends and strangers, it is good to reflect on the reason for Christmas.

For Christians, it is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ; a time to remember the messages of hope, redemption, peace, love and generosity of spirit.

For a secular society, it is a time of hope, for wishes of peace, love, family, and generosity.

The messages are remarkably similar.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

For a modern, digital, take on the story of the nativity, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHNNPM7pJA

John

NSW Suspends Democracy

2010-12-23T14:45:00.001+11:00

The NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, has effectively sidestepped democracy. The NSW Governor, Marie Bashir, has prorogued (suspended) Parliament at the Premier’s request. It was not scheduled to be prorogued till late February. Writs for the election are scheduled for about the 4th March, 2011. The NSW Parliament will not now sit until April 2011, after the election. However, because the government is not in caretaker mode , the Premier is still free to make major policy announcements.

The move means that any meetings and deliberations by a Legislative Council inquiry, from today, are unlikely to be recognised. The inquiry was to examine the sale, the involvement of individuals and possibly the legality/ethics of the sale. By suspending Parliament two months early, Premier Keneally and others hope to avoid official public and Parliamentary scrutiny of their actions.

The last few months have seen the NSW Government, led by Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, move to sell NSW taxpayer electricity assets.

Following are some of the facts that are known:

Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, and some Treasury officials, are known to ”treasure” the state’s AAA credit rating, and have been reluctant to invest in electricity infrastructure for many years.
NSW Treasury expects to gain more than $5 Billion form the sale of taxpayer-owned assets.
The transactions are expected to take over 2 years.
11 board members of Eraring and Delta Electricity resigned, believing the sales of their trading rights were not in the interests of the NSW state-owned companies.
NSW Treasurer Roozendaal replaced the 11 board members at night with political yes-men.
Tony Maher, who resigned from the Board of Eraring on 14-December has described the sale as “a mad dash for cash”.
The NSW Government is creating privately-owned companies that will form an oligopoly of electricity suppliers.
Origin energy gains Country Energy and Integral Energy (retail suppliers) and the output from Eraring (power generation)
TRUenergy, a Hong Kong company, gets EnergyAustralia, and the output from Delta West and some smaller generators
Elizabeth Knight, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald on 16-Dec, wrote that “the purchase of the long-term supply contracts with gentraders Eraring (acquired by Origin) and Delta Electricity (bought by TRUenergy) went for bargain-basement prices”
The Sydney Morning Herald reported, 16-Dec-2010, “A UBS analyst, David Leitch, said: "NSW households are in for higher electricity tariffs and more people at their front door, trying to get them to change electricity supplier." Note: he said more people, not more suppliers.

Speaking to the ABC about the 11 directors who resigned, Roozendaal said “They were not looking at the public policy objectives of the government. They were not looking at the benefits to the taxpayers; they were looking narrowly at what they believed was interpreting the responsibilities for their organisations." But aren’t company directors supposed to act in the interests of the company, and shareholders?
ASIC sets out the duties of directors thus:

be honest and careful in your dealings at all times
know what your company is doing
take extra care if your company is operating a business because you may be handling other people’s money
make sure that your company can pay its debts on time
see that your company keeps proper financial records
act in the company’s best interests, even if this may not be in your own interests, and even though you may have set up the company just for personal or taxation reasons, and
use any information you get through your position properly and in the best interests of the company.

Given the above, especially point 6, there might well be serious questions asked of the directors so hastily appointed by Eric Roozendaal, whose only task, it seems, was to act in the political interests of the Treasurer, and Treasury.

The Legislative Council inquiry, so swiftly sidestepped by Premier Keneally, might well be the public inquiry we need to have.

John

Different Welcomes

2010-12-19T13:41:00.000+11:00

For two of the last three weeks, Australians welcomed, gushed and had periods of personal hysteria during the “Oprah Winfrey’s Ultimate Australian Holiday”. She was gracious, generous, almost gushing in her praise of Australia, and Australians. Journalists, and media outlets, covered the minutiae of her movements. I heard one journalist say words similar to ‘We believe Oprah is in her car. Oh, my God’. It was, after all, a promotional tour organised by Tourism Australia. She appears to be a nice lady, well-known, wealthy, and we welcomed her with open arms. We spent considerable amounts of money to pay for her tour, including adding a big “O” to the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Contrasting this, was the most terrible crash of a boat-load of asylum-seekers on Christmas Island, on Wednesday. Boat arrivals, and the treatment of asylum-seekers have been the subject of UNHCR criticism. Under former (Liberal) PM, John Howard, the UN was critical of the harsh regimes in detention centres, especially Baxter Detention Centre in central Australia, and of the ‘off-shore’ processing centre at Nauru. (Labor) PM Kevin Rudd, and now Julia Gillard, have been criticised for the length of time it takes to repatriate people whose asylum claims have been denied.

The photo at right shows a woman’s t-shirt that says “bomb the boat” at a community meeting in Northam, WA in November. I do hope she’s not gloating at the loss of 30 or more men, women and children on Wednesday 15-Dec-10 when the boat sank at Christmas Island. Similar meetings and sentiments have been held in the Adelaide Hills, SA.

Australia should not have an open-border policy. But there are people in Australia, and elsewhere, who want to take the ‘Christ’ out of Christmas. Our politicians, of all sides, have led the race to the lowest point, in the quest for a vote, as they try to buy the votes of xenophobic and racist voters. That is our shame, and theirs.

Merry Christmas. I just hope you’re not seeking asylum.

John

Swan Parries at The Banks

2010-12-12T19:43:00.001+11:00

Treasurer Wayne Swan has announced measures to increase competition in the banking sector. In Australia, the big banks - Commonwealth, National Australia Bank, Westpac/St George and ANZ – hold most of the market. They also effectively own a number of second-tier banks and mortgage providers. For example the Commonwealth Bank own Bank West, Wizard Home Loans and has a 33% stake in Aussie (Home Loans)

The banks act a a classic economic oligopoly. The mortgage market is effectively controlled by only a few large corporations. They have increased interest rates on loans above the increases announced by the Reserve Bank, are largely unaffected by political “pressure” statements of the current (Labor) government, and the previous (Liberal-National Coalition) government. They have not increased rates on their savings accounts, and have reduced the rates on some term deposits in the second half of 2010.

The measures announced by Mr Swan include:

banks to issue a one-page fact sheet detailing repayments, total amount repaid, and URL’s of websites where rates can be compared
exit fees to be abolished
ACCC to be given power to investigate price collusion. In an oligopoly such as run by the banks, public comments about ‘we need to raise interest rates’ also acts as a signal to other banks, and softens-up the public before the almost simultaneous rise by the banks. The practice is called ‘price-signalling’, and stifles competition.
credit unions and building societies will be allowed to issue ‘covered bonds’.
former Reserve Bank Governor, Bernie Fraser, will be asked to investigate how technology can be used to make it easier for consumers to switch mortgages, and savings accounts.
credit card reform will limit or ban over-limit fees, unless the consumer deliberately allowed it.

The announcement was orchestrated as a full press conference, with the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer & Minister for Financial Services & Superannuation, Bill Shorten, and the Treasurer’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury. It was, by any measure, a media “event”, designed to maximise publicity about taking on the banks, and improve the government’s approval rating. Former (Liberal) Treasurer, Peter Costello used to put on such shows, at which he also revelled in his displays of sharp wit.

It remains to be seen whether the Liberal-National Opposition will support the legislation, designed to increase competition, and give more power to consumers, or support the big banks in their opposition to competition. The history of the Liberal-National opposition since losing government in 2007, and the 2010 election, has been to support big business and oppose, or obstruct, most legislation introduced to Parliament by the government. I suspect it will try its best to obstruct and delay as much as it can.

John

I Love A Sunburnt Country

2010-12-07T20:23:00.001+11:00

The following is the 2nd verse of a 6-verse poem called 'My Country'. It was written by Dorothea Mackellar

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!

It is the best-known verse of this poem, a poem that spends 5 of its 6 verses professing the author's love for different aspects of Australia. Following are some images that I hope reflect some aspects of that amazing verse.

In December 2010, many parts of the plains of NSW are experiencing flooding, with every west-flowing river between the Namoi R. in the north to the Murrumbidgee R. in the south having flood warnings. Some people will be lucky to be allowed home in time for Christmas, let alone have a habitable house.

If you're in Australia, please consider a gift to a charity that will help people at Christmas. Try The Smith Family, St Vincent de Paul, The Salvation Army as a start.

I love a sunburnt country ... but geez, she can be hard on us.
John

Drought...


... and flooding rain


rugged mountain ranges

the wide brown land

NSW Drinking Age

2010-11-28T21:40:00.001+11:00

Today’s news carries the suggestion that NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, that she believes we should have a public discussion about raising the drinking age in NSW to 21. It is currently 18, has been since the early 1900’s.

So, should the state, or Australia as a nation, raise the drinking age to 21?

For	Against
Medical reasons: many doctors suggest that the teenage brain does not cope well with anything more than small amounts of alcohol	Effectiveness: it is unclear how effective the measure would be. It could just shift binge-drinking 18-20 year-olds into parks and residential streets
It could reduce violence near trouble spots.	Violence could be shifted to parks and residential streets
Reduction in vehicle accidents & deaths	Does this simply cause a corresponding shift in the ages where injuries & deaths occur to 21-24, instead of 18-21?
NSW, and Australia, has a high rate of alcohol abuse (binge-drinking) and alcohol-related violence, especially among young people 15-24.	Earlier lock-out (no entry) & closing times have lead to a reduction in violence, without lowing the drinking age.

There are more arguments if you want to do an Internet search.

Other Considerations that might affect the rate of alcohol abuse & related violence, and which we should also discuss in public forums:

If the drinking age is raised, will in be in 1 step, or staged over 3 years, with a 1-year increase in the legal drinking age each year?
If we go for a “Lora Norder” (law and order) response:
- does it include earlier lockout & closing times for pubs & clubs, as SUCCESSFULLY trialled in Newcastle?
- does it include more police licencing operations?
- does it include police action every Friday & Saturday night in known trouble areas, such as George St and Oxford St Sydney?
- how many extra police will the law and order response need, and what will be the cost?
- how much more are you prepared to pay in state taxes to fund the law and order response, or what extra state taxes will you pay?: higher GST, higher licencing costs, higher car registration, other? This is important because you will have to pay more. An increase in the rate of GST would require approval of all States & Territories.
Should alcohol advertising be banned?
should we consider reintroducing the offence of “public drunkenness”? (it was decriminalised in March 1980, but police do still have powers to detain a drunk if they present a danger to themselves, or others. Apparently they are used only in more extreme circumstances, to prevent overloading police resources.) See points 4-5 under “Lora Norder” above.
Should future licencing consider the density of licenced premises, the total number of patrons who could be served, the alcohol-related history of the area, and the likely effect on the number of alcohol-related incidents?
Should political donations from alcohol (& tobacco) interests be prevented from pedalling political influence by donating to political parties? mmm… for that matter should we have publicly-funded elections, with no organisations being allowed to donate and strict limits on personal donations? The alcohol industry, in particular pubs and clubs associations are significant donors to the political parties that will make the decisions.

Abbott Wants Elected Judges

2010-11-21T17:04:00.001+11:00

At a community forum in Brisbane on 10-November, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that if courts continue to give “lenient sentences” then Australia will probably move to a system of elected judges. Judges are elected in the US, for example. He indicated that too many judges are handing down sentences that do not reflect community anger at the crime.

I don’t know about you, but I had alarm bells ringing in my head, as follows:

elected officials are, by necessity, political animals. That means that actions will be directed to suit a re-election strategy. As political animals, they will have political friends, and there will always be the possibility of governments exerting undue influence on the judiciary.
is Tony Abbott suggesting this, at a community forum, because it sounds politically popular, or does he, & the Liberal Party, want that political influence on the judiciary? The risk with an elected judiciary is that that type of corruption becomes more likely than with appointed judges. It tears at the Separation of Powers, which is fundamental to an independent judiciary. (Joh Bjelke-Peterson, former Queensland Premier, undermined that tenet for his own personal and political advantage, by influencing and using corrupt senior Police.)
who is Tony Abbott to advise judges on what sentences they should impose? What qualifications does he hold to do that? Should ANY politician be advising judges on sentencing matters? Who should? I certainly believe the best people to judge, are the judges. They have the legal experience, the legal knowledge, the legal resources in case histories,and know the case they are hearing.

Mr Ian Gray, Chief Magistrate of Victoria, in a presentation to the Sentencing Conference (February 2008) addressed the issue of “Sentencing in Magistrates’ and Local Courts in Australia” to the National Judicial College of Australia.

In it, he presents arguments:

against elected judges (by Chief Justice Gleeson)
for greater independence for prosecutors, especially Police prosecutors in Magistrates’ Courts, and more resources to achieve that
that question those who would publicly give sentencing advice to judges
that focussing on the result of a particular sentence, without understanding the intricacies, similarities and differences with other cases would be departure from principles of justice. (a statement by the majority of the High Court of Australia)

It is these last two points that really are the telling points against Tony Abbott’s suggestion. It would be best if politicians, and governments of all persuasions argued against a suggestion that might well have been driven by political opportunism and populism.

You can read the full text of Chief Magistrate Ian Gray’s presentation at:

http://njca.anu.edu.au/Professional%20Development/programs%20by%20year/2008/Sentencing%20Conference%202008/papers/Gray.pdf

John

Political Vacuum

2010-11-15T21:40:00.000+11:00

As Stephen Conroy defends the National Broadband Network (NBN) from criticism by an OECD report, there are also other things to consider.
The OECD has criticised a number of policies. The Federal Opposition is beating its slogan drum, and both sides of politics have much to work on.

The policies comments on Australia by the OECD include:

Response to the global financial crisis: Tick. Good for Labor, unhelpful to the Liberal/National Parties' Coalition.
GST: Cross - the OECD believes it's too low, and we should tax (fresh) food. Not good for either Labor, or the Coalition. Flat taxes are regressive, and hurt those with lower incomes more. Neither side wants to raise taxes, even if they should to fund the services taxpayers demand.
NBN: Cross. The OECD believes it's anti-competitive. Unhelpful for Labor, good for the Coalition, which doesn't want it. The Coalition wants the private Internet and phone companies to build a spaghetti network of copper and wireless. But wireless is already overcrowded, not likely to get any better, and none of the companies want to invest in new infrastructure.
Emission Trading Scheme: Cross. the OECD believes we should have one. Not good for either Labor, or the Coalition. The criticism stems because Labor has not implemented this policy, or even a simpler carbon tax. It was spooked by voters' acceptance on the Coalition's sloganeering.

Meanwhile Tony Abbott has been spruiking his "stop the boats" slogan in Parliament. He does this knowing that he doesn't have to. Indeed, he doesn't even have to have a policy - just a slogan. Meanwhile the UN has expressed its concern about "off-shore processing", including Labor's Timor solution, and the Coalition's "Pacific Solution" on Nauru.

The fact is that many of the OECD's criticisms, but not all, stem from the fact that our politicians, and their parties, do not, and will not, determine good public policy and run with it. They simply spend too much time palying politics, and paying 'media advisers' with taxpayers' money.

John

Social Evils Hide Behind Behind Sports Skirts

2010-11-14T13:49:00.002+11:00

It’s been more than a week since Canberra Raiders Rugby League player,Joel Monaghan, fronted the media to resign from the club as a player. The NRL had also been reported as considering deregistering him as a player.
The images of alleged bestiality with a dog that had been released onto the Internet and reported in the media had finished his career. Much was written about the alleged bestiality, and that it was a drunken prank that occurred as part of ‘Mad Monday” – annual binge-drinking events tolerated by Clubs, and the NRL.
The NRL, QLD, NSW and Australian representative teams, and Brisbane and Newcastle RL clubs are sponsored by beer companies. These entities have a vested interest in not reducing the alcohol consumption of players, nor of the public who go to see the sponsors’ ads … err ..game.
An acquaintance talked about the “the devil” in the drink, and the actions of players who were present, and did nothing, and of those who took and publicised the photo, or photos. I agreed that it was certainly unethical and morally wrong for Monaghan’s “mates” to stand around watching the alleged act, but doing nothing, and to take and release photos. In its derivation “devil” comes from ancient Greek (& later, Latin) words which mean “accuser” & “slanderer”.
Joel Monaghan, and other sports professionals who have suffered public embarrassment or humiliation, has paid a very public price for his binge-drinking and alcohol-induced stupidity. But there are devils within his team, and his group of “mates”. They are culpable because they did NOTHING to stop actions they knew to be wrong; took photos of it; and now remain anonymous. Those reactions are, truly, “devilish”. For its part, Canberra Raiders club has said it would not try to identify the player who leaked the photo. They are happy to retain the “devil” and do nothing about him.

Canberra Raiders and the anonymous “devils” they are protecting demean the player, his family, the NRL, and our society. They are allowing anonymous people involved in the incident to get away with no consequences, no responsibility.
John

Big Brother Pollies tracking You

2010-11-08T21:10:00.000+11:00

Today's news carried a story about the websites of politicians using cookies, including so-called 3rd party cookies to track the web movements of visitors.

Most politicians have websites. The politicians named include: NSW Premier Kristina Keneally (Labor); NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell (Liberal), Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (Liberal), and teh website of The Greens. All the websites reportedly placed 3rd party cookies. ie cookies from anther website not related to theirs. None of the websites indicated they used them. Some of the cookies were Adobe Flash cookies: these are NOT deleted when you use the "delete cookies" setting in your browser.

Flash cookies can be removed. See the following sites:
http://www.itworld.com/internet/118784/how-murder-a-flash-cookie-zombie
http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager.html

More worryingly, these politicians, from all parts of the spectrum, are, I believe, unethical in their use of such tracking cookies because they do not inform visitors to their site that they use them, and do not offer an option to turn them off. They will not be alone in that: many companies, including the target-de-joeur banks, use flash animation in their sites. Personally, I've never much liked Flash: it is more likely than other software to crash any of my browsers, and their cookies seem largely aimed at generating business income, and not user convenience.

At the macrommedia site (link above), work through each of the Settings Manager links on the LHS. (see below)

Cut the politicians, corporations, and others that want to track you. If they collect enough data about you, it could be used to identify you!

John

Federal Politicians Work Too Hard

2010-11-01T20:31:00.000+11:00

Do they? Last weekend, Federal Liberal MP, Dr Mal Washer, said that the longer working hours for current MP's and Senators are "unsustainable". The argument is that the tight numbers in the House of Representatives mean that MP's have to be available to rush to the House if required by their Party.

Previously a number of MP's from either side of politics could mostly absent themselves from the House or Senate without any great consequence. there was also a "pairing" arrangement, which meant that if a member were absent on Parliamentary or government business, a member of the other side would either absent themselves, or abstain from voting. (Liberal) Opposition Leader tony Abbott refused this practice as a routine matter, and has only decided on a "case-by-case basis". this increases the uncertainty, and the requirement for members to at least attend Parliament House.

The second thing that has increased over the last 10 years is the amount of time politicians spend on "party-political" duties. That is, using work time, and taxpayer-funded advisers, to perform work for their political party.

Thirdly, the time spent on seeking advice about, preparing, rehearsing, and finally presenting the 3/5/10 second media grab has increased exponentially. These mostly consist of untested political assertions, short slogans (remember, I discussed 'sloganeering' during the recent election) designed to get attention, but contribute nothing to any debate on issues. While there is undoubted pressure from sections of the media for a media grab, politicians are not bound by duty to be media tarts. And rather too many of them are. 'The media' is seen as something to be managed, to be used for party political advantage, and for self-promotion. Too often whether a story will look good in local news, News Ltd papers, Sky News, or other media is more important than working towards good policy and contributing to sensible, rational debate.

I don't doubt that politicians work long hours. I just question how many of all the hours, and taxpayer dollars, are spent on the job we employ them to do, and how many are spent on party work, and self-promotional work. I do think that, if the thoughts of Dr Mal Washer are valid, politicians need to restructure their work, to focus on their work as representatives (of either voters, or states), and to have better defined times when they are available to the media.

John

Hockey Alone on Economics

2010-10-27T21:21:00.000+11:00

Joe Hockey is alone on economic policy. Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, was stunned into silence this morning when asked if he supported Hockey's 9-point plan to control the banks. Twice he was asked if he supported Hockey's plan; twice he gave an unrelated response. Later, he was asked if that was all just a bit of a misunderstanding withe 9-point plan. His reported response was "Umm ...", followed by a longish silence.

Later still, Abbott made phone calls to radio stations with essentially pre-prepared statements and answers.

Meanwhile, Jon Howard said that Hockey is "not in the same league" as (former Treasurer) Peter Costello. On 22 October, The Australian reported: "Senior Liberal MPs, including frontbenchers, told The Australian yesterday they did not agree with the position Mr Hockey had taken on the banks and said it demonstrated lack of judgment. "This is certainly not Coalition policy," one frontbencher said."

Among the ideas were:

legislation to regulate the interest rates banks can charge.
An investigation by the Prudential Regulation Authority to investigate the risks banks take.
More pressure from the ACC on alleged price-collusion the big 4 banks
other points in the plan are more difficult to find, but legislative regulation of the banks is definitely contrary to the Liberal Parties free-market policies.

For all the bagging Hockey has received, a new Banking Inquiry might not be such a bad idea. They make noises about rising costs of funds (ie overseas interest rates,because about 2/3 - 70% of their loan funds are sourced overseas. However, they quite deliberately left out the bit about the high $Aus benefiting them enormously while they (re)negotiate their 3 and 5 year loans!

Deregulating the banking sector created an oligopoly: the big 4 banks control the vast majority of home loans, and they flex their individual & combined market power. Their repetitive statements about the need to increase interest rates is classic consumer softening by repetition and frequency. It should be resisted, especially in light of the significant increases in their profits, and profit margins! An inquiry is one way, but not the only way, for more people to be aware of this information, and counter the banks advertising-by-repetitive-statement tactic.

For all that, I believe Joe Hockey is rather alone in the Liberal Party on economic policy, and the "amended", watered-down plan taken to Shadow Cabinet and ultimately approved by them was really them saving Hockey's backside. They won't do it too many more times.

John

Hockey's Bank Bashing Blooper

2010-10-24T11:40:00.000+11:00

This week saw Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey indulge in a little bank-bashing as he tried to score a few political points and be seen as 'hero' to those with a mortgage. It seems to have backfired, on a number of levels.

First, he proposed legislative controls on bank interest rates. That is, he has proposed either aan extreme socialist policy, or an extreme right policy. It is certainly a policy that seems contrary to Liberal Party policy and beliefs, which say that "we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise". Legislating interest rates is contrary to both of those beliefs. Malcolm Turnbull, perhaps the Liberal Party's only moderate with any public profile, did his best to distance himself from the comment. Tony Abbott said nothing. (Aside: John Howard and Peter Costello would have publicly decried the suggestion and privately carpeted the perpetrator, while making public statements about banks not needing to raise rates.). Liberal backbencher Don Randall said it was a "typical lunatic fringe idea", not realising it had come from a member of his own party with leadership ambitions.

Second, he proposed an inquiry into the financial services, particularly of banks. The concept is worth considering, but Hockey showed he was just a talking head by indicating he had no plan for any terms of reference.

It seems that, in his quest for a headline and populist policy, Joe Hockey has somewhat alienated members of his own party, and earned the criticism of business and economists, especially in the media, and the Government. While Tony Abbott does not want the instability, real or perceived in polls, associated with a reshuffle, Joe Hockey's days as Shadow Treasurer could well be numbered. Post-Christmas / New Year would be, perhaps, the least damaging time for an Opposition reshuffle.

Populist announcments are never good policy.

John

A Saint For All

2010-10-18T20:50:00.000+11:00

I have been on holidays for several weeks, so I apologise now for not posting.

Last night Mary MacKillop was sanctified by Pope Benedict. Some have already pooh-poohed the idea, questioning why people would believe in miracles. But faith is a difficult thing to explain. Self-belief is important to our psyche; it is the basis of our self-confidence. Self-confidence increases the chances of success in the things we do. But self-belief and self-confidence are not measurable, in the same way that a length of timber can be measured. Nevertheless, the personal and social effects on a person lacking in self-belief and self-confidence can be clearly observed.

As an abstract concept faith is also difficult to measure. It stems from the confidence in the truth, or trustworthiness, of a another person; a thing; or a concept, such as "God", or the tenets of a religion. Yet the works of people who truly live according to a philosophy of goodness, whether secular or religious are tangible evidence of their faith.

Mary MacKillop was a strong Catholic woman. She set about improving the lives of individuals who were poor, disadvantaged and outcast. Along the way, she upset some people, predominantly me of power in a patriarchal church in a patriarchal society. Yet her faith sustained her, and with the help of others, and her own strength of character and faith, she prevailed.

Her life, her work, and the work of her nuns did make significant material difference to the lives of others. In that respect alone, she is worthy of recognition. Her elevation to sainthood in the Catholic Church is one way that it recognises her work, her life, her faith as a beacon of Catholicism. The work and life of St Mary MacKillop should also help us to focus on how we can help others; and how our society, our politicians treat others.

As an aside, I believe (there's that word again) that everyone in society should do work for society, other than their paid employment and family commitments. As for me, I have been a member of a service organisation, I donate blood or plasma regularly (it's an unpaid donation in Australia), and I help with tasks at my local church.

Johnb

Abbott In Full Tantrum mode

2010-09-27T19:44:00.000+10:00

Parliament resumes on Tuesday. The pollies are ready. Nearly. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is still trying to sort out the positino of Deputy Speaker. Tony Abbott put the kibosh on any aspirations Alex Somlyay might have had in his last term for the position, and the Parliamentary allowance it carries. The deal would have required Somlyay, or any other Coalition Deputy Speaker, to 'pair' with the Speaker. ie to not not vote on no-confidence, and possibly some other, motions. Tony Abbott's office staff released a statement on Mr Somlyay's behalf. It was quickly and publicly denounced by Mr Somlyay as not his, but he was lent on, and later withdrew from negotiations for the position. Labor has since had negotiations with another Queenslander, Peter Slipper, who missed both the Liberal Party meeting, and the Coalition's Joint Party Meeting, but this, too, seems like it will fail.

Meanwhile Tony Abbot, and his minions, have been flogging the message of "all bets are off", there will be no 'kinder, gentler politik' as promised by Abbott while he tried to woo the Independents so he could form government. It's like a warning of one enormous tantrum-to-come when Parliament resumes. Prime Minister Gillard, and her minions, repeat the message of Abbott-as-wrecker. If there is an early election, watch for it to be repeated ad nauseam.

Mr Abbott does not want Parliament, or Ms Gillard's Government, to work - his interest is the interests of the Liberal Party, and his desire for power. Ms Gillard's interest is to retain power long enough to have some "beneficial" (read 'popular-with-voters') legislation & policies, to increase her chances of an outright victory at the next election.

John

Abbott Cops a Kloppering

2010-09-18T21:20:00.001+10:00

Marius Kloppers has publicly stated his preference for a carbon tax. Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, must have fainted. Kloppers was instrumental in the advertising campaign against the mining super profits tax, is head of the world's largest resources and mining company (BHP Billiton).

Kloppers is an experienced business man and engineer. He most certainly wants the realistic 'best' for his company. European countries are already moving to limit carbon emissions and have improved their energy efficiency since the 1980's, following oil crises in 1973 & 1979 which saw the supply of oil limited, and its price rise significantly. While there is plenty of coal for BHP to mine, sell, & use, Kloppers perhaps recognises moves within the world's economies to limit carbon emissions.

A carbon tax is simple, fixed and easily incorporated in business plans. An emissions trading scheme (ETS)was favoured by John Howard (who resisted actually doing anything) and the previous and current Labor Governments under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. But under ETS, carbon permits would be traded, like shares, on current and 'futures' markets. Their price, like shares could fluctuate wildly, making business planning more difficult. There have also been suggestions that, with such a low level of proposed reductions, an ETS would achieve little except make 'winners' and 'losers' in business.

Kloppers might well be making a pre-emptive strike to achieve a level of certainty his business needs. Nevertheless, a carbon tax might well be a worthwhile inclusion in Australia's plan to reduce carbon emissions from its people, and its businesses.

Also, remember that some of the media, notably News Ltd publications The Australian and The Daily Telegraph will argue against carbon reduction on the basis of their support for the opposition Liberal Party.

My view is that we should probably have a combination: the carbon tax introduces a level of certainty, and a limited ETS reduces the effect of the open-market price volatility.

The last thing Tony Abbott wanted was for a significant business leader to publicly state his preference for a carbon reduction scheme, let alone a carbon tax! Phone calls will made, and emails sent from the Liberal Party. So too, press releases and media grabs from a congo line of Coalition members will be cheap as chips from the Opposition.

You can read more at:

John

Gillard Announces Ministry

2010-09-11T17:22:00.000+10:00

Prime Minister-elect Julia Gillard has announced her Ministry to start Labor's second term of government. It is, as you know, a minority government, dependent on The Greens and 3 Independent MP's.

You can read the full Ministry at http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-gillard-ministry-20100911-155qc.html . After swearing-in on Monday, they will be listed (via a link) at http://www.aph.gov.au/whoswho/index.htm

There are some things worth noting:

Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minster, has been given Foreign affairs. That was widely tipped, following a deal made between him and Julia Gillard during the election campaign. It also recognises his standing within the Parliamentary Labor Party.
Former Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, has been given Defence. He insists it's not a demotion, and this is still a senior Ministry. It also paves the way for the government to drop construction of 12 new submarines at Adelaide. Defence military officials are not convinced that lessons have been learnt from the rather disastrous contracts for Collins-class submarines. Only one of the six is currently in service. The new submarines were a project which had the support of Kevin Rudd, when he was Prime Minister.
Peter Garrett has moved to Education, away from environmental repsonsibiities. He had problems with the home insulation scheme, in particular.
Former Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, has been given the Finance portfolio. Again, the former government had been unable to negotiate an Emissions Trading Scheme, which The Greens thought was too watered-down, and which was not the carbon-tax recommended by Prof. Ross Garnaut in he report for the government.
Mark Arbib and Bill Shorten are both in the outer Ministry. They were major players in the moves that dumped Kevin Rudd and appointed Julia Gillard as Prime Minister. Mark Arbib was formerly ion the outer Ministry, but this is a promotion for Bill Shorten.
Independent Rob Oakeshott turned down the offer of a Ministerial position - Regional Australia & Regional Development. I think that was smart; among other reasons, it does put the onus, and responsibility squarely with Julia Gillard and the Labor Party, and it allows him to retain his independence.

Nevertheless, there seems to be reasonable correlation between Ministers' strengths, abilities and their portfolios. The proof, of course, will be in their performances.

Tony Abbott has yet to announce his Shadow Cabinet.

John

Govt Decided, Politics Continues

2010-09-09T19:40:00.000+10:00

Two days after the 3 Independent MP's made their decisions, the politicians, political parties and their supporters are back to basics. Independent Bob Katter, from north Queensland made his decision to support the Liberal-National Coalition shortly before lunch on Tuesday. Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott from NSW announced their decision to support a Labor government later in the afternoon.

Today, we had "news" stories of both Prime-Minister-in-waiting, Julia Gillard, and Liberal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, addressing their respective party 'meetings'. These were stage-managed media 'events' for PR-via-the-news; they were for public consumption to 'appeal' to voters.

But all is not as it seems: Liberal Andrew Robb wanted to challenge 3-different-leader-Deputy Liberal leader, Julie Bishop, but was convinced not to challenge for the sake of public perception. Likewise, it is probable that former (deposed) Prime Minister,Kevin Rudd, will get his choice of Ministerial position - probably Foreign affairs & Trade - as part of pre-election deal with Julia Gillard. While Labor has significant internal party issues to deal with, there will be strenuous efforts to keep them behind closed doors. That will probably suit Bill Shorten, Mark Arbib, and those from the NSW Labor Party backroom who controlled the Federal election campaign. But Labor must deal with the issues created by Shorten, Arbib and their Federal Party factions, and those from NSW's right faction who controlled the election campaign.

Meanwhile Liberal and National Party members appear to have been behind campaigns of insult and innuendo run against Tony Windsor and rob Oakeshott. The Liberal and National Parties will undoubtedly continue to undermine and character-assassinate the Independent MP's, while Tony Abbott (Liberal) and Warren Truss (National Party) will try to exude a facade of niceness.

John

Treasury Comparison

2010-09-05T11:01:00.000+10:00

The Independent MP's have had briefings from Treasury officials about the costings of the election policies of both the ALP and Liberal-National Party Coalition. These costings, and some policies important to them, will form the basis of which side of politics forms a minority government in Australia: a largely centrist-conservative Labor government; or a more right-wing conservative Liberal-National Coalition government.

A summary of the costings can be viewed at

Coalition-costings

Labor Party Costings

So, which is the better economic manager? I doubt you could form an opinion based on these documents. the only possible conclusions are that: there is little difference between the final figures from Treasury; that the Liberals did not use standard Treasury methods for their costings (based on the number of adjustments Treasury made). In terms of economic management, the sharemarket is indifferent, perhaps indicating that investors largely recognise that there is little or no significant economic difference between Labor and the Coalition. The market is more concerned about its ties to what happens in the US economy/sharemarket, and, to a lesser extent, in Europe.

My conclusion from the Treasury costings and the parties' public policy documents is hat the Liberals & Nationals lean more towards personal wealth, rather than community (public) wealth. That is, they want to distribute more public money (tax) to private entities, both individuals, and private companies, than does Labor.

I think it is important to retain, and enhance, our community/public wealth through investment in public education at all levels, public health and social programs that benefit individuals, communities and society. Becaue of those beliefs, I was once called a "latte-sipping, chardonay-drinking, left-wing (John) Howard-hater" by a Liberal Party supporter. I took it as a compliment.

John

Wilkie Signs With Labor

2010-09-02T20:17:00.000+10:00

Independent Andrew Wilkie, from Tasmania, has today signed an agreement to support a Labor minority government, IF Julia Gillard is able to form one. That might be more likely, but by no means certain, as Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor consider their positions over the weekend.

The terms agreed to include $340 Million for Hobart Hospital, and $1.8 Billion for hospitals across the nation; and a commitment to force states to use smart cards on poker machines, if they don't agree voluntarily. This will take some negotiation, and the states, addicted to gambling revenue, will resist staunchly.

Wilkie reportedly rejected an offer of almost $1 Billion for Hobart Hospital from Tony Abbott - perhaps he was prepared to forget about the rest, or cut another $Billion from their funding.

Simply throwing money at one electorate would have readily been seen by the electorate as "pork barrelling" - corruption by any other name. Julia Gillard seems to have at least provided it as part of a greater level of funding for other hospitals.

Given his treatment by the former Liberal PM, John Howard, after Wilkie's whistle-blowing about questionable intelligence being used to justify the invasion of Iraq, it was always hard to see him agreeing to terms with members of that same former, Liberal-National Coalition government.

John

Abbott-Hockey Swallowed By Own Black Hole

2010-09-02T19:56:00.000+10:00

It really didn't a take long for some details, at least the "bottom line", on Tony Abbott's costings to appear. Secretary of treasury, Ken Henry, was involved in briefing the 3 Independents about Treasury costings of Coalition election promises. Treasury estimates a shortfall - "black hole" - ob between 4& Billion and $11 Billion.

In typical politician style, Tony Abbott tried to brush aside concerns, saying that they were merely "differences of opinion". One of the differences is that Treasury refused to allow the Coalition to adjust the conservative bias allowance, a $2.5 billion blow to its costings. This allowance, used by Treasury in all its costings, ensures that the extremes of "estimates" by politicians are moderated. It seems to imply that the Coalition used the most optimistic figures it could, perhaps a more economically reckless approach.

Joe Hockey put in his 2-bit's worth, saying "It is not a black hole because fundamentally we are taking this out of surplus." But it's a surplus they don't have, and which they seem to have estimated at the most optimistic figure they could think of.

This whole concept of not using Treasury ( a principle created by John Howard & Peter Costello, because it gave them an advantage in government; it's just come back to bite the Coalition parties!); of planning it back before June ( at least 2 months before the election was called); of using a company with links to the Liberal Party; and using the most optimistic figures have all contributed to The Liberal Party's problems, real or perceived, as NOT being better economic managers than Labor.

mmm .. what's that old saying??? Oh, yes! "When first you practise to deceive ... "

John

Libs' Bovver Boys Go Calling

2010-08-30T16:46:00.000+10:00

Since the end of last week, the NSW Liberal Party's federal "bovver boys" - political bullies - have swung into action. At the end of last week it was Alby Schultz, Member for Hume. He reportedly ran Independents Tony Windsor & Rob Oakeshott.

One of his local newspapers, the Goulburn Post (25-Aug-2010) reported that he is ‘close friends with key independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott’, and that he would not be ‘weighing into negotiations unless he’s asked.’ He was quoted, saying “I thought it was absolute stupidity for the leader of the National Party to make comments seeking to influence or denigrate people about where they put their allegiances when we have a likely situation of a hung parliament and we are wanting to get into dialogue with them ... It shows a lack of political nous.”

Yet last week, he rang Independents (Tony Windsor & Rob Oakeshott), accusing them of being “arrogant, naive and holding the country to ransom”; telling them they had to support the Coalition; and was reportedly so threatening to Tony Windsor that Mr Abbott had to later apologise to the Tamworth-based Independent MP.

It would seem that Mr Schultz possibly:

has been asked to become involved (unlikely, since Tony Abbott moved quickly to distance himself); or
simply tried his hand at political bullying, perhaps at the behest of his 'friend' Senator Bill Heffernan (If so, it was a failure);
misleads members of his electorate; and
by his own words has "a lack of political nous"!

Today, Senator Bill Heffernan has been identified as the Liberal Party caller to Rob Oakeshott's home phone. It was answered by his wife, and Heffernan is reported to have said words like 'It's the devil calling'. He tried to explain it away by saying he thought it was one of Mr Oakeshott's children. If that's the case, it is disgraceful, and Tony Abbott should move to have him censured by Parliament, and by the Liberal Party. The current defense is that he does it to everyone he knows - I'm not sure he knows Rob Oakeshott's children that well!

Again, the motive was political bullying, and it appears to be not uncommon among Liberal Party members. Senator Heffernan was former PM, John Howard's, henchman in Parliament.

Both of these men are bullies. Both have behaved in a way that is inappropriate in any workplace. Politics should be no exception. Politiking is one thing, bullying must never be acceptable.

Parliamentary bullying ought to one item on the agenda for reform of Parliamentary processes.

John

Who Will The Independents Choose?

2010-08-28T21:04:00.000+10:00

One correspondent has asked me the following question, via the contact form.

"... who do you think the Independents will side with? Being fairly (can never say one is 100%) unbiased, you are perhaps in a better position than most to see which of the parties and their leaders is making the better pitch and has the better points."

It's a difficult question. Julia Gillard appears to be presenting as a calmer, more rational, more open, amenable & cooperative negotiator. Tony Abbott began with a rather belligerent, tough, stance, but has had to quickly backflip on Treasury costings, and then provide plenty of spin for the news. Too many voters are sucked-in by 'spin'.

Tony Windsor, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, and (likely) now Andrew Wilkie will not be taken in by the political & media posturing by either leader. Those performances are for public consumption & poll manipulation. The Independents want to look at treasury costings of both parties' policies, with treasury briefings. The first 3 mentioned have presented their 7-point wish-list, and been negotiating wit the leaders. They will be acutely aware that all members of the National Party, including leader Warren Truss, have been kept out of negotiations because of ongoing resentment by the Nationals about their leaving the National Party to become Independent MP's.

They are conservative MP's, some of whom view Julia Gillard's Labor Pary as left-wing. (it's members really mostly range from centre-left through centre to centre-right conservative)

Tony Abbott is a smart politician, but a political bully - he will reach a point in negotiations when he will not be able to help himself. I think that the only way the Independents will support Tony Abbott as PM is if he undertakes more, significant backflips on climate change, the National Broadband (optic fibre) Network, possibly the tax on super mining profits, reform of Question Time, and parliamentary accountability of Ministers. I suspect they will have some doubts about the economic nous of Tony Abbott et al. after treasury briefings.

My prediction: as much as they dislike Labor, I think they will support Julia Gillard as PM, because she will be less belligerent, and more agreeable, during negotiations. Labor's economic policies are largely conservative, but there will almost certainly requests to amend them. If Tony Abbott suspects he will lose, he will more strenuously strive for a fresh election &/or try to destabilize Parliament.

John

Abbott's Great Big Treasury Backflip

2010-08-27T16:13:00.000+10:00

After several days of steadfast resistance to submitting Liberal & National Party policy costings, Tony Abbott has agreed to Treasury costing of Coalition election policies & promises. The underlying assumptions will not be provided to the ALP, but the Independents will have access to treasury briefings on both Labor and Coalition policy costings & analysis by Treasury.

This did require consent from both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to amend the conventions covering caretaker governments & oppositions.

As late as last night, Coalition Shadow Finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, said "We don't want to have a fight with these guys (the Independents), but we're not going to be dictated to and not tug our forelock.." Today, he'll wish he hadn't said it like that, with its implied sexual innuendo - some people will call him "tugger" today.

The backflip occurred quickly to stifle any public comment, and voter belief, that he, and the Coalition, have something to hide. Last night Independents Bob Katter & Tony Windsor publicly questioned whether Mr Abbott had something to hide by not submitting policies to Treasury for costing.

Meanwhile, Mr Abbott moved quickly to distance himself from loopy Family First Senator Steve Fielding's threat that he might vote against (all) Labor legislation & possibly block (money) supply. Julia Gillard, despite having fundamental differences of philosophy with Senator Feilding, quickly tried to smmoth the waters, saying she had been, and would continue to, try to work with Senator Fielding, citing the Fair Work Australia legislation that undid much of the insidious parts of WorkChoices. There might be other Coalition backflips still to come - climate change springs to mind.

The quest for power occurs almost without principles, regardless of who it is.

John

Abbott Reverts To Type

2010-08-26T18:01:00.000+10:00

Two days after publicly calling for a "kinder, gentler polity" approach to politics, Tony Abbott has shown his true colours. He has gone hard against some of the requests of the Independents, whose support he wants to become Prime Minister. It's the hard-ball political bully many people believe him to be.

In particular, he is refusing to submit any Coalition policies to treasury for funding. Instead, he has offered access to the report from the accounting firm WHK Horwath. The firm has significant links to the Liberal Party through the family of former Liberal WA Premier Sir Charles Court, & his family. The firm has a significant conflict of interest, not declared by Abbott. At the same time, he has also claimed that treasury costings of Opposition policies will damage our Westminster system of democracy. Well, I hope you recognise that as poppycock; a distractor from the real issue of Treasury costings which he clearly does not want.

If the Independents are to adequately compare the costings of both Labor & the Coalition, the costings should be done by Treasury. It means that the same methodology & measurements will be used, giving a comparison that is more reliable.

Abbott is a formidable politician, and he's trying to publicly stare down the Independents. But they, too, are hardened politicians, especially Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, and they will not resile form a political dog-fight, if that is what Abbott wants. If they hold out and say 'no deal', Abbott will have to find a way to save face.

Abbott is risking much with this anti-Treasury stance: antagonising the Independents, and antagonising the very Treasury that he needs, IF he becomes Prime Minister.

Independents Present 7-Point Plan

2010-08-25T21:25:00.000+10:00

The key independents have today given both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott their 7-point plan. While it has not been released publicly, Julia Gillard has indicated her commitment to a full term of Government should they support her as PM. I suspect that at least the following are on the agenda: Broadband Internet, climate change, regional health programs & infrastructure, and the tax on very large mining profits. Ms Gillard reportedly took to the meeting a portfolio of things her government (well, the last Labor Government, led by Kevin Rudd) had done for each of their electorates. It will have required at least 1 backflip - on climate change, where she had said she would not act during the coming term of government. There is a level of expediency involved, but perhaps not as much as with Tony Abbott & the Liberal-National coalition.

In largely agreeing to their requests/demands, and announcing so publicly, Ms Gillard has really given Tony Abbott a "Hobson's choice". If he agrees to the requests as Ms Gillard has, Mr Abbott will perform at least 2 significant backflips: broadband policy, where he will largely have to agree to the National Broadband Network of optic fibre, and action on climate change, which he denies for political, but not scientific, reasons.

I expect the meeting with Mr Abbott to have been rather tense, even without National Party Leader Warren Truss being involved. He's been sidelined because of the none-too-secret loathing from the National Party towards its 3 former members. Mr Abbott's choice is to largely accept the Independents' requests, while trying to dilute them, or risk not becoming PM. His earlier statement about an Independent speaker wasnoting other than a statement of political reality - if he becomes PM in a minority government, he does not want to appoint one of his members, Liberal or Natinal, as Speaker of the House, and essentially lose that vote. That stattement was driven by politics; altruism never entered his head.

Does Mr Abbott stick to his political principles and say 'No' to some things, or abandon them for the sake of possible political power. Political expediency is a strong driving force - quite possibly stronger than Mr Abbot's, or the Coalition parties', ethics.

John

Truepolitiking The Independents

2010-08-23T19:46:00.001+10:00

As the reality of not winning has seared itself on the brains of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, the politics begins. First up were the overtures to the Independents. We'll come back to that.

Next came the claims of legitimacy. Tony Abbott claimed, rightly, that the ALP government had lost its legitimacy to govern, but he forgot to say the people did NOT give it to him. Julia Gillard was quick to point out that, and that, as PM, she had heard "the message" from voters.

Then came "the numbers" claims. Tony Abbott claimed that he should form government in a hung Parliament because the Coalition had the highest Primary vote. Except Australia doesn't elect members, or Prime Ministers, on a simplistic primary vote. Julia Gillard claimed she should form the government, because the 2-party preferred numbers favoured her. The difference is so small as to be negligible, and, again, that's not how we elect our Prime Minister. The statements on legitimacy & voting numbers are simply to influence public opinion, and to reinforce the leaders' own sense of messianic leadership. They are for public consumption, and will be ignored by the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce.

So, the real action is behind the scenes. Wooing the Independents will not be easy, for either leader. Rob Bandt (Greens, Melbourne) has indicated he will support Labor to form government. The remaining 3 certain Independent MP's are Bob Katter (Qld), Tony Windsor (NSW), & Rob Oakeshott (NSW). All were members of the National Party, but all left it for philosophical reasons. There is no love within the Coalition for these men, only what they have to do to form government.

The problems for Tony Abbott include: all 3 want the NBN (National Broadband Network, of optic fibre); all recognise that privatising the NBN will not be in the interests of their regional constituents; Rob Oakeshott and, possibly, Tony Windsor are likely to favour action on Climate Change; Bob Katter wants import tariffs on farm produce, and to ban imports of bananas & some other fruit. Coalition Senator Barnaby Joyce and Tony Windsor make no secret of their mutual loathing. I'm sure that none will want any education and health cuts in their electorates, as promised by Tony Abbott. The NBN, Climate Change and not cutting education & health would be serious back-flips for Tony Abbott, and he is unlikely to agree to them.

Action on Climate Change will be a sticky point for Julia Gillard: she promised no action on Climate Change for the duration of this government! Perhaps Julia Gillard will have a better chance of negotiating, with only the one backflip: action on Climate Change.

Of the threee Independents, I believe that Bob Katter is most likely to remain 'Independent' - that is, will not support either the Labor or Coalition to form government.

Stay tuned. This drama will beat anything on TV

John

Mad Maxine Dumps On Party

2010-08-22T14:04:00.000+10:00

Maxine McKew has gone from her to nobody to villain. In 2007 she defeated the then imcumbent Prime Minister, John Howard, taking his seat of Bennelong. The former journalist was a strong supporter of Kevin Rudd, and, in turn, had his support while he was Prime Minister.

Many believe she won the seat on the back of strong protest vote against John Howard, who was responsible for introducing the controversial, and socially divisive, WorkChoices legislation.

The Liberal Party dropped a high-profile, but unproven, candidate in former tennis player, John Alexander, who won the seat from Ms McKew. Ms McKew proceded to dump on her party, and her colleagues, blaming them for her loss. The image below sprang to mind, of mad Maxine & the 'Scream'.

With aploogies to Edvard Munch (and Homer Simpson)

John

Predicted Hung Parliament

2010-08-22T11:34:00.000+10:00

At 1:30 this Sunday morning, with about 78% of votes counted nationally, the predicted state of our national Parliament is:

Labor 70; Coalition 72; Greens 1; Others 4.
76 seats would give any party/coalition a majority, and government.

Of the 5.5% swing against the ALP, only 1.8% went to the Coalition. The Greens picked up 3.7% of the swing against the ALP, which has given it its first seat in the House of Representatives at a general election, and almost certainly a balance of power in the Senate. The strong swing to The Greens probably indicates dissatisfaction with the ALP's social policies: the hard line of refugees (to try to be the same as the Coalition), lack of action and commitment to act on Climate Change. The Greens showed some social vision in their policies, and I suspect this appealed to voters more than the blancmange, & porkbarelling dished up by the major parties.

At this stage is is more likely that the Coalition, led by Tony Abbott, might have a better chance of forming a government. However, he will be frustrated by lack of control in the Senate, and will likely be forced into more socially equitable compromises than he would like. Industrial relations amendment, to bring back elements of WorkChoices such as easier dismissal, individual contracts, shorter annual leave and lower or no national wage increases, will be shelved until the Coalition has both government & control of the Senate. Make no mistake, IR is on the 'wish-list' of legislation when the Coalition has full control of Parliament.

Stay tuned - there is much more to come in this saga, including the possibility of a second general election if neither side can form a viable government.

John

Election-Eve

2010-08-20T18:28:00.000+10:00

As Australian prepare to vote tomorrow, the polls are showing a nail-biting finish to the election.

Julia Gillard has certainly run hard today with the spectre of WorkChoices return under Tony Abbott. I believe it is a real risk. In the second term, Abbott will want to use, for example, the local hospital boards as a means of implementing WorkChoices-style AWA's - individual contracts offered with no negotiation. The method will be to offer local hospital boards more money, provided they implement AWA's.

My personal opinion is that there are more reasons to NOT vote for Tony Abbott's Coalition, than there are rreasons to NOT vote for Julia Gillard's Labor Party. The election campaign has been that negative.

As for tomorrow's result, I will hesitantly offer the following possibilities:

Labor retains government, with preferences from The Greens, with a 2-seat majority.

The Coalition wins, with a 3 to 5 seat majority.

It all depends on the votes in individual seats.

Ignore Mark Latham's advice to leave the ballott papers blank: he's an idiot. Anyone who saw him on news reports would have thought that. VOTE PROPERLY. By voting properly, you strengthen our democracy, you can send messages to politicians with the preferences you give, you can determine which party controls the Senate. It WILL count, and will determine who governs this great country.

Vote well.

John

Tony's Bonds

2010-08-18T16:44:00.000+10:00

Tony Abbott has announced he'll implement an Infrastructure Bonds program to help private companies and governments build infrastructure.

The "sweetener" is a 10% tax rebate on the interest income. The (government) Infrastructure Fund Manager would collect the bond money, and distribute it to government/private companies Private entities will own the infrastructure.

There are a few extras that people need to know, but which Tony Abbott hasn't indicated:

Government Bonds generally return quite a low rate of interest. Investors should be looking at the effective rate of return, and the tax sweetener might not be enough. At the end of the bond's life, you get your money back: a $10,000 bond will not be worth $10,000 in 10 years' time, even allowing for the interest payments.
Tony Abbott's plans involve providing the bond money to private companies. Why not let the market decide if those private companies are worth investing in? That, at least, would fit with one of the Liberal Party's tenets of private enterprise. The answer is that companies which build infrastructure in a public/private arrangement with governments do not have a good record. Their record includes borrowing ever more money in the first 5-10 years to pay large dividends. This is bad for the debt-to-equity ratio, and the business. Several have gone broke in NSW and Queensland.
If the Government's bond money is used to fund rail & roads, expect a significant $ Toll from the private company. Taxpayers will still be paying, as will non-taxpayers. (eg pensioners) to use them.
If the bonds total $1.5 Billion, that amount has been taken out of the money market. There is then the potential for increased interest rates because the money would have been invested elsewhere. IF Superannuation companies invest in them,, they are less likely to also invest in as many shares in those companies, which could cause problems of capitalization.

Like so many other policies, there is much that Tony Abbott & Joe Hockey are not telling us voters.

Caveat emptor - buyer beware.

John

Which Party Best Suits You

2010-08-15T12:54:00.000+10:00

I started to produce a table with a synopsis of some of the policies of the major parties, using the very short statements from the major parties: Labor, Liberal and National Parties, and The Greens. I stopped after 2 policies, because a friend rang and pointed me to the site linked at the bottom of this post.

Before I provide the link, my profile at right indicates my politics are largely centrist, but vary between centre-left and centre-right. I have also previously posted about the shift to the right by the Labor Party, the Liberal Party and the National Party. See the chart on my post of 17-July at http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2010/07/election21-august.html

The issues covered are: Tax, Government Spending, Immigration, Education, Environment, Employment & Industrial Relations, Health, Defence, Communications (Internet), Indigenous Affairs. There are 3 "tie-breaker" questions on the Use of Deficits, Government action on Carbon Emissions, Industrial Relations (WorkChoices options)

My results, reflecting my basic centre-conservatism with a social concience, are shown below.

NO - I do NOT support the Labor Party - if you read my blog, you will see I have been critical of both Julia Gillard and the Labor Party; and Tony Abbott and the Liberal Party.

The Link is:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/vote-a-matic/index.html

John

Labor's Education Madness

2010-08-11T20:22:00.000+10:00

The Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, has released a new Education Policy that includes the following:

the present funding formula for schools will remain, at least until 2013. That would be an election year, so she won't change it then, either! the funding is applied selectively, so that public schools, especially those with many children from lower socio-economic areas are excluded. If applied uniformly, public schools would receive massive increases in funding.
tax deductions for school uniforms. Yes, I know they can be expensive, especially when you have several children. Just ask my wallet. But this policy is designed to appeal most to those who choose to send their children to private schools. Parents make that choice, knowing they will have to pay for uniforms. This policy will direct tax-payer money mostly to people who have more money. It will not help the families on welfare, or low-income earners sending their children to public schools. It's a policy to buy votes; it's tawdry. [OK - the Liberals policy is worse: they will give about $10,000 of taxpayer money back to a person who pays $24,000 for 1 child to attend 1 private school. Yes, I know some families make sacrifices to send children to some private schools. However, the rich of Sydney & Melbourne will certainly benefit from that redistribution to the wealthy!]
performance assessment and bonuses for 10% of teachers, and schools. In NSW there are about 50,000 public school teachers with an estimated 15,000 private school teachers. With a "top" bonus of $8100 multiplied by 10% of 65,000 teachers, that equates to more than $52 Million in NSW. The issue of bonuses is divisive: NSW Principals Association doesn't believe they are good policy; nor do public and private teacher unions. Many say that money would be better spent on lower class sizes, more support staff, better resources. But bonuses appeal to Julia Gillard, and some "dry" economists. They want to reduce education to a factory output of numbers.
Labor also wants to reward the "better" schools, schools whose results improve, but penalize schools that do need help. This policy has not worked in Britain, and it has not worked in the US. There is no indication it would be educationally effective in Australia.

Ms Gillard's education policy would contribute nothing to the social infrastructure of education, and would cause division among teachers, between schools, and between school systems. The reality is, it is bad policy; and bad economics. Aside: the Liberals education policy isn't any better.

John

Libs Economic Woes

2010-08-09T20:58:00.000+10:00

Today was not a good day for Tony Abbott. After yesterday's official election launch in Brisbane, he was a rooster. Today, he's a feather-duster. Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb & Barnaby Joyce were all part of some economic shambles. Politicians love the media attention ... except when they fall over themselves making mistakes.

In a week when Labor is running ads showing part of an interview in which Peter Costello said he wouldn't support Tony Abbott to run the economy, Mr Abbott & friends stumbled on economics. It went like this:

on radio this morning, Tony Abbott announced net recurrent spending cuts of more than $18 Billion, and that the Coalition's spending on policies would be much less than that. (ie less than $18 Billion)
at the National Press Club debate with Wayne Swan, Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey said "We've announced savings of $28.534 billion, so, so far we have $2.8 billion of net savings on the announced policies" That is, spending on policies would be about $25 - $26 Billion: more than $7 Billion more than the $18 Billion claimed by Tony Abbott.
Later in the day, Andrew Robb tried to explain away the difference, saying that Joe Hockey had included the $7Billion savings from the policy to drop the extra tax on super-mining profits. Except that that figure is accepted by Tony Abbott as $10 Billion, not $7 Billion.
Barnaby Joyce was interviewed on SykNews in the afternoon, and repeatedly tried to deflect questions on the Coalition's costs of policies, and tried to redirect an answer about Labor. When challenged about the costs of Coalition policies, he said that policies would be submitted to treasury for costings, and "we don't have the resources that Labor has" (that's true, but the reverse was true before the last election, when Joyce was part of a government! He was just having a whinge) The real economic faux pas by Barnaby Joyce was that the Coalition must submit policies AND costings to Treasury. Treasury doesn't do costings for the Opposition!

It's impossible for voters not to think that Abbott, Hockey, Robb and Joyce don't have a handle on economics. It will probably be reflected in polling about which party is the better economic manager.

John

A Christian Government?

2010-08-08T15:03:00.002+10:00

This week there were reports in the media from some Christians, indicating that they could not vote for Labor, because Julia Gillard is not a Christian, and their pastor had told them they had to vote Liberal to get a Christian as Prime Minister. Some thoughts quickly sprang to mind.

It is NOT the role of those who run a church to tell people who they can, or can not, vote for. At all! My vote comes from my consideration of the policies of offer (so dreadfully lacking in details), and the quality of the local candidate. Some of you will have the choice of an Independent candidate, as well. Mostly, it seems, the pastors are from the more fundamentalist Christian churches, and it almost reminds one of the control that Scientology and The Exclusive Brethren exert over many of their members. While it was once not uncommon in 'mainstream' Christian churches to direct people how to vote in the 1950's and 60's, most have long since ceased such interference in personal political affairs.

Electing a "Christian" Prime Minister, does not mean that you will get a Christian government. Consider the previous Liberal-National Government, led by John Howard, a Methodist, and which had Tony Abbott, a Catholic, as a member. Consider the following:

WorkChoices: a system designed to lower the wages of working people, to make it easier for them to be sacked, which allowed 'take-it-or-leave' contracts, and which was designed to distribute that money to companies. Was that Christian? Would Christ have done that? Tony Abbott vigorously defends WorkChoices.
Treatment of refugees: the use of Nauru and Baxter detention centres drew sharp criticism from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Among other criticisms, Nauru and Baxter were used to inter women and children, and separate them from their husbands/fathers for years; and the 'Christian' government knew, and did noting about, the psychological trauma. Was that Christian? Would Christ have done that?
Social Security and 'middle-class welfare': Tony Abbott was part of a government that made it more difficult for people to receive welfare, at times when they needed it. The Australian Council of Social Service, and individual social service providers, including St Vincent de Paul and the Salvation Army, were critical of the Howard-government policies. Tony Abbott defended them. At the same time as Howard's government made it harder for those needing social services, it embarked on a redistribution of the savings to those who were already better off. Was that Christian? Would Christ have done that?
The government of which Tony Abbott was a member, deliberately misled Australian voters in the 'children overboard affair', during an election campaign, no less.
(See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_Overboard_Affair ) Members of the 'Christian' government lied. Was that Christian? Would Christ have done that?

Electing a 'Chistian' as Prime Minister will not give us a Christian government. Do not let any pastor, or other church official, tell you otherwise. ALL political parties have non-Christians, and set a purely secular agenda, often designed to appeal to the lowest common votes - personal greed and fear. So, it would be best to set aside any religious considerations, and decide which party / candidate will best act in Australia's interests, and in the real best interests of Australians.

The Good Samaritan, although not one of the Chosen People, was a much better person than those 'Chosen People' who ignored the plight of of a fellow human being.

John

Abbott's Beds Hide Agenda

2010-08-05T21:11:00.000+10:00

Tony Abbott has promised funding for 2800 more public hospital beds. It sounds good, and will appeal to voters. But what are they getting?

funding will not be made available until AFTER the states have opened the beds. Opening a bed involves costs for: nursing staff, ward staff, operation and maintenance, increased number of doctors/doctor visits, electrical costs. I'm sure there are more to be found by accountants.
the 2800 beds INCLUDES the extra 800 beds for mental health previously announced. The latest 5survey data shows Australia has almost 56500 public hospital beds in 737 public & 19 public psychiatric hospitals
(see: http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/hse/84/11173_c04.pdf )

Tony Abbott has other plans for hospitals not included in the 10s media grab, and carefully scripted press release:

local hospital boards: in the 1970's & 1980's there was a history of stacked political appointments, particularly, but not only, under Queensland's National-Liberal Government. The previous Federal Liberal-National government, of which all existing Coalition MP's & Senators were members, had a policy of forcing non-elected 'wannabe' politicians on schools to which they gave Australian flags & flagpoles. It would not be unreasonable to think they would do the same with local hospital boards.
In 2008, when John Howard unilaterally announced a Federal takeover of Mersey Hospital in Tasmania, it had to delay it because people quickly realized that all employees would likely be offered AWA's under WorkChoices IR Laws. IR is definitely on Tony Abbott's agenda - he just doesn't like discussing it. Local Hospital Board's under Federal control would allow Tony Abbott to push his IR agenda.

Early in this campaign, Tony Abbott admitted he would target populist policies. Sadly, this is likely to be one of them. Glossy, popular on first glance, but with a hidden agenda that is not good public policy.

John

Party Betting Ethics

2010-08-01T16:26:00.000+10:00

Today's news reports indicate that members of both Coalition Parties (Liberal Party and National Party) and the Labor Party have been betting on the upcoming federal election. Reports indicate senior members of the ALP are betting that the Liberals will win particular seats, and will win government. The stories also indicate Coalition party politicians betting that Labor will win the election.

At the time of writing, neither Party seems to have a publicly-available Code of Conduct for its members. I have contacted both Labor and Liberal Parties for a copy of their Code of Conduct. If gambling on elections, and particularly against the party, is not excluded, I believe it should be.

A Code of Conduct specifies how people within an organization are to behave, and how that behaviour serves the interests of the organization and the people it serves. If followed, it also provides a level of protection from complaints. Codes of Practice are common, and I would be surprised if the parties do not have one.

Reasonable people would agree that betting against your own team (or party) is not in the best interests of that team. It also creates a conflict of interest, since to lose, in this case the election, would mean financial gain for the member who bet against his/her party. It would also put members in the position of campaigning for their party, but desperately hoping they lose.

While I await a response from the parties, voters would be justified in increasing their level of cynicism about the major parties if they do nothing about this issue.

Some politicians & party members will still be thinking 'ethics, schmethics - who cares!' The answer, of course, is that we voters do!

John

Mixed News for Labor, Libs

2010-07-28T21:15:00.000+10:00

There has been mixed news for the major parties in the last few days:

the Cabinet leak about Julia Gillard questioning the costs, and the political value, of a paid maternity scheme, and possibly pension rises above normal should never have occurred. It was good news for Tony Abbott, and a number of Opposition members trotted out to the media for the 5-10s media sound bite. Cabinet discussions are supposed to be confidential. The finger is being pointed at Kevin Rudd, but no evidence has been made public to support that, and he has denied any responsibility. Cabinet leaks are not common, but the last Liberal-National government had them too. There were police raids on newspapers and individual journalists over leaked Cabinet documents previewing Howard's intervention in Aboriginal communities in the NT. That was 14-Nov-2004. The raids were ordered by Howard's Dept of Prime Minister & Cabinet.
Economics has largely favoured Julia Gillard's government. The inflation figures released today for both CPI and underlying inflation fell, and it is likely there will be no interest rate rise this month. Fairfax newspapers reported, in the business section, that the predicted price rises from both Labor's Climate Change policy, and from the Coalition's increased tax on big business, will be about the same. Whichever party is elected, the "Coles & Wollies" effect will be similar. Mortgage applications rose by 2.3% in the June quarter, and the decline in personal credit (loans and credit card applications) will be good for an economy overloaded with personal debt. All up, good news for Julia Gillard's Government, and not good for Tony Abbott's Opposition. The news gives voters no reason to change government. Tony Abbott has been forced to promise a tax cut for business, but it won't take effect till after 2013, or perhaps in teh budget before an election. It's a cynical backflip, while attempting to be populist to buiness.
The media ran stories about Julia Gillard's photo makeover for Women's Weekly. Yes, it's only images & story, but it will only help Juila Gillard's standing with women, and possibly some men. Already the Coalition is worried about her appeal. It will likely remain a significant stumbling block for Tony Abbott.

Score: ALP: 5; Coalition: 2

John

Election - State of the Parties Week1

2010-07-25T15:02:00.000+10:00

During the first week of the election campaign, we have seen:

Tony Abbott stumble over WorkChoices. He wanted voters to believe that WorkChoices was "dead, buried & cremated". then he let slip the real agenda will be in the second term of his government, if elected. That could be a fatal self-wounding.
Tony Abbott run as Tony Abbott only, until the Saturday polls showed he was losing women voters to Labor. So, Saturday saw the first appearance of Tony Abbott with his Deputy, Julie Bishop. She made complimentary comments about him, as she did for every other leader for whom she has been Deputy Leader. It was nothing other than an attempt to attract back a few women voters.
Julia Gillard try to sideline Climate Change Policy, by announcing a forum of 150 people drawn from the electoral rolls. Everyone saw it as nothing other than attempt to avoid giving details of a climate change policy.
The spectre of Kevin Rudd, with news he is seeking a part-time Climate Change job with the UN. It took tony Abbott's WorkChoices bungles off the front page. Mind you, I would understand his frustration at being pestered by journalists looking for a story, ANY story, about him in his electorate.
Labor released its cashback policy for old (pre-1975) cars if they are upgraded to new, efficient cars. (see an earlier post)

Overall, I give a 2-Party preferred 'vote', as follows:

Labor: 51.5
Coalition: 48.5

John

Election Policy - Libs' Boat Policy

2010-07-25T12:52:00.000+10:00

In the previous post, we saw that Labor's cashback for old cars had some implications not stated. ie that many popular large cars would be excluded because they are are not sufficiently economical.

Today, we will look at the Coalition's, and particularly the Liberal Party's policy on refugee boats. The website http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/National-Security/Ideas/2010/Border-security.aspx states:

The Coalition will maintain rigorous offshore processing of those arriving illegally by boat, reintroduce temporary protection visas (to deprive people-smugglers of a product to sell) and be ready, where possible, to turn boats back.

What they don't say:
"Caveat emptor" - buyer beware.
Not much detail in this policy, is there? It's blatant populism - a facade that makes no attempt at detail, and relies heavily on sloganeering - the 'only we can stop the boats' (like the last Liberal government) chant. It might be popular with some voters, particularly in western Sydney, Queensland, and Western Australia, but the last Liberal-National Party Government did so by:

breaching International Maritime Law, when it denied the Norwegian freighter Tampa permission to take almost 250 refugees to Christmas Island. It denied the Tampa, contrary to advice from the Attorney-General's Department.
lying to us voters during an election campaign when John Howard and others claimed refugees had thrown 'children overboard', even when they had been advised that was wrong. A later inquiry verified that teh then PM & senior Liberal Ministers knew no children had been thrown overboard, but they continued to make that statement.
breaching Australia's obligations as a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It did this with long-term, and off-shore, detention, including at Nauru. That long-term incarceration, sometimes up to 3 years, affected the physical and mental health of people. Indeed, the UN High Commission on Refugees was critical of John Howard's Liberal-National Government, saying that The Pacific Solution was

“an unfortunate precedent, being for the first time, ..., that a country with a fully functioning and credible asylum system, in the absence of anything approximating a mass influx, decides to transfer elsewhere the responsibility to handle claims made actually on the territory of the state.”

The policy will do nothing to solve the problems faced by many people in (mostly) northern parts of Sri Lanka, nor minority people affected by the war in Afghanistan, nor terrorist activity in Pakistan. It does nothing to encourage Indonesia to crack down on people-smugglers.

The policy is populist, and will only serve to again damage Australia's international reputation.

See also:
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1588
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/howard-rejected-tampa-advice/2007/07/22/1185042950379.html
http://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/10337/Address_Refugee-Support-Group_Adelaide-Hills_Pacific-Solution.pdf

John

Election Policy - Labor's Car Cashback

2010-07-24T15:28:00.001+10:00

Today, the ALP announced a $2000 cashbback offer for people purchasing a new, economical car, as follows. (Full press release at: http://www.alp.org.au/federal-government/news/cleaner-car-rebate-to-scrap-inefficient-cars/ )

Motorists with old, higher-emission, less fuel-efficient vehicles will be eligible for a $2,000 Cleaner Car Rebate when they purchase a new, lower-emission, fuel-efficient vehicle, under a Gillard Labor Government.

This will encourage people to get their old polluting cars off the road and help the environment for the whole community.
It is anticipated that the measure will see close to 200,000 pre-1995 vehicles taken off the road over four years from 1 January 2011 to the end of 2014, ...
...
Under this measure, households that trade-in a car manufactured before 1 January 1995 for scrappage will be eligible for a $2,000 rebate ...

What they don't say:
"Caveat emptor" - buyer beware.
Of the best known car brands, the list below shows those current models that have the required green rating of 6 or more:
Ford: - Fiesta, Focus (not XR5 Turbo)

Holden: - Cruze, Barina; Diesel variants of Cruze, Captiva, Epica, Colorado

Mazda: - Mazda2, Mazda3, Mazda 6, Mazda CX7 (Diesel)

Toyota: - Prius, Yaris, Corolla, Camry

Subaru: - Impreza; Liberty 2.5i, Outback 2.5i, Forrester (Diesel); Outback (Diesel)

So, no Ford Falcon or variants; no Holden Commodore or variants, and the choice for families is rather limited.

For the full list, see: http://www.greenvehicleguide.gov.au/GVGPublicUI/Home.aspx

Like all such things, this policy is dressed to sound appealing, especially if you don't do your homework. It is like most parties' election policies. It is as the Minister said, designed to replace older, inefficient cars. He just
didn't include the bit 'but not with new cars that are still less economical'. Perhaps we will see 4-cylinder diesel variants of the Ford Falcon and Holden Commodore sooner than we think.

John

Electioneering 2010

2010-07-22T19:13:00.031+10:00

The Federal Election 2010 is not yet a week old. Are you bored yet?? You should be.

Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard has maintained her "ice-queen" persona. It is a continuation of her performances as Minister for Education & Minister for Industrial relations. Measured, reasonable, logical. But there's little sign of passion. There has been little policy detail. At least the Labor Party's site (http://www.alp.org.au/) includes its traditional logo, unlike the Liberal Party's (see below). Deposed PM Kevin Rudd is rarely mentioned, and mostly by journalists. For his, part, Rudd seems to gag and has not mentioned Julia Gillard's name. there are plenty of slogans, photos to feed the journos, and create the desired image, but not much policy reporting.

Opposition, & Liberal Party, Leader Tony Abbott has also done his best to seem measured, but it took a matter of days before his foot was firmly in his mouth over ... WorkChoices. He "promised" that WorkChoices was "dead, buried and cremated", but then indicated he wouldn't 'make changes to IR laws in the first term, but would in the second! It seems there was a conscious party decision to try to bury WorkChoices, and keep its desired changes from teh public. His picture on the front page of the Liberal Party website (http://www.liberal.org.au/ ) does NOT include the Liberal Party Logo - it's not anywhere! His official election photo (right) also has no identifier Perhaps he doesn't want people to remember Liberal Party policies when in government. Little has been heard from the National Party, at least in metropolitan areas. Perhaps they are trying to keep a lid on Barnaby Joyce.

What we are seeing is a form of electioneering that involves:

image manipulation. There will be only 1 structured, manipulated, "debate".
attempts to be measured and reasonable, to point of iciness. The facades are brittle, especially for Tony Abbott
a distinct lack of policy detail through the major media outlets.
simple, transparent, attempts to gain votes by demeaning the other leader.
a "presidential" style, where we voters are asked to vote for a leader. Except for the people in their respective electorates, we don't.

There is a real risk that this type of election campaign will alienate more voters, who will either deliberately vote informal, try not to vote, or donkey-vote. Both parties demean our democracy, for some perceived short-term interest. I'm sure many voters want to see policy detail, and just a little passion - enough to show firm belief in the policies.

John

Election:21-August

2010-07-17T15:27:00.000+10:00

Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard (left) has this morning asked the Governor-General, Quentin Bryce (right) to dissolve the House of Representatives and call a general election and half-Senate election. The election will beheld on Saturday 21-August-2010.

Ms Gillard announced the election at a press conference at noon today.

Both (Labor) Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and Opposition (Liberal) Leader, Tony Abbott, will be able to score political points, similar to those below:

Tone Abbott will score "points" on: Labor's mistakes made in spending to avoid the global recession, particularly in school buildings and badly-installed home insulation; the compromised mining super-profits tax; and he will certainly play on xenophobic right-wing fears about refugees arriving by boat. (It seems nothing has changed since the 1970's when Vietnamese refugees arrived by boat - politicians still want to run a scare campaign); and Labor's inability to act on climate change, even though the Liberal/National parties do not want to act!

Julia Gillard will score "points" on: the Liberal/National Coalition's desire to resurrect at least some parts of WorkChoices - a Howard policy they ALL voted for, but which was manifestly unjust in its objectives, and which Tony Abbott, (Deputy)Julie Bishop, Eric Abetz and a string of other Liberals still want; she will claim a "tie" on refugee policy, while trying desperately to ameliorate social justice concerns about the treatment of refugees arriving by boat; she will also score points on Tony Abbott's "great big new tax" - his term- on business.

So, where does the average voter look? Truepolitik's analysis of the Australian political spectrum for the major parties is shown below. the National Party is largely right-wing, but has a distinct socialist policy: to socialize losses from agriculture (but countered by a policy to privatize the profits)

This election will lack the myriad promises of personal tax cuts and spending initiatives as both sides seek to position themselves as 'economically responsible'. The fact is both Labor and the Liberal & National Parties are conservative. The Greens are the only party that could properly be labeled "Left", and Labor, while conservative, is more centrist, and more environmentally aware that the Liberals.

It's now up to Australians. Many will vote for a particular party, "because that's how we've always voted". It's us swinging voters that the parties will try to target.

John

Election Selling 101

2010-07-08T16:27:00.000+10:00

Following from my last psoting, to help you.

Laugh - at least you'll feel better.
John

It's Almost Election Time

2010-07-07T21:09:00.000+10:00

I've been rather sick - this winter has seen some nasty bugs going around. I seem to have caught most of them this year.

One 'bug' going around is the political BS bug. We are currently being inundated with pollies' photo opportunities; press releases as 'news'; and leaders' media statements, complete with nodding acolytes. PM Julia Gillard has been busy working to clear problems, and enhance her image, and the image of her party. Within 24-hours of her Prime Ministerial dress-sense being questioned by women in the media, Julia Gillard has upped the ante this morning with a pin-striped "power suit". {Aside - why is that the media, especially women in the media, need to do this? Sell their journalistic soul for a quick buck, they would.}.

Julia Gillard is trying to be seen as firm, a listener to people, and decisive. Kevin Rudd has been removed from the media: he was not appointed to the Ministry, despite wanting to, and has kept an almost nil profile since. The mere absence of Kevin Rudd has done wonders for the Labor Party.
She has largely resolved the mining tax: at least it's off the headlines. No legislation has been announced, and it's unlikely till next year - after the election.
She has almost settled the issue of boat people with the announcement of the intended use of East Timor as a holding place. The sticking point is that East Timor has not yet agreed to do this! The move is, however, a move to the right to try to nullify the xenophobic one-liner non-policies of the Liberal Party, and appeal to populist voter fears. Nauru is off the list - Labor does not want to use a facility they, and the UN, criticised as breaching Australia's obligations to international treaties on refugees.
The superannuation revue allowed for the release of potential good news for most Australians. The retail fund managers made noises opposing, but have now kept quiet - perhaps they don't want people to start thinking about the high fees they charge!
The Building the Education Revolution waste, where schools have grossly over-priced, but underwhelming, buildings, has been quietly shuffled off to an inquiry.

Still to come are statements on: climate change/Emissions Trading Scheme/carbon tax; and a final settlement of how to deal with boat people.

I expect that Parliament will not sit in August, as scheduled. It could represent too many opportunities for the Opposition. If you've already had enough of unsubstantiated marketing from Labor, and the Liberals, you're out of luck. I reckon you've got another 6-8 weeks worth before the election. And remember, it's ALL just marketing. Marketing, marketing ... and repetition of unsubstantiated statements.Try imagining each of the parties' leaders in checked sports coats, cigar in hand, looking like shonky used-car salesmen .. err .. persons. At least you'll laugh.

John

Julia Gillard PM

2010-06-26T14:05:00.000+10:00

Julia Gillard was elected unopposed at a Federal Labor Party Meeting on Thursday morning. It was a coup orchestrated by "backroom johnnies". Among them were Mark Arbib (NSW), Bill Shorten (Vic), David Feeney (Vic), but others within the various factions were galvanised.

By the time Julia Gillard saw Kevin Rudd between 7:30 - 8:00pm, he was doomed. The numbers had already been locked in.

His live press conference at about 10pm saw Rudd at the best he had been for months. Plain-speaking, talked about his election by the people as Prime Minister; and about items he was going to put back on the agenda, including climate change/ETS; the mining tax. He was too late. Had he spoken like that, and had the government run with its agenda, his popularity might have continued, and he would still be Prime Minister. it should be noted, though, that we voters did NOT directly vote for him as PM; we voted for more Labor MP's than Liberal-National MP's. Rudd became PM because he was the leader of the party with the most representatives in Parliament.

A few points are worth noting about the process:

Liberal (Opposition) Leader Tony Abbott has criticised the process, describing Ms Gillard's election as PM as "political assassination". That might be, but is exactly what Tony Abbott did to Malcolm Turnbull, when he deposed Turnbull as Leader of the Liberal Party. It is how most party political leaders obtain the position. Just ask any of the following from recent memory: Alexander Downer (Liberal Party - deposed by John Howard); Bob Hawke (Labor - deposed by Paul Keating); Malcolm Turnbull (Liberal - deposed by Tony Abbott); Kim Beasley (Labor - deposed by Kevin Rudd). The comment from Abbott is hypocritical, and designed to hoodwink voters.
Kevin Rudd, realising he had no chance, did not stand for the leadership. The overwhelming vote, arranged for Ms Gillard, was not needed. Ms Gillard was elected unopposed. Rudd, in the end, ensured that there was no divisive vote, no acrimony within the party.
The Federal Labor Party must now be very careful that it does not become tainted by backroom deals in the same way that the NSW Labor Government has.

Already the polls show a significant swing back to Labor, and the Liberal Party Council is meeting today to try to plan how to overcome Julia Gillard's effect on voters. They are running scared. If Prime Minister Gillard chooses to have a Parliamentary sitting in August-September, it would only be to introduce legislation so she can go to the polls with "achievements". I doubt she will. My guess is that Julia Gillard might call an election for late August, or September. She would not have to have the scheduled August sitting of Parliament, avoiding the cheap point-scoring and tabloid headlines of Question Time; and it would give her time to soothe the few sores that Labor currently has: climate change; the proposed mining tax; and education spending. (already shuffled off to an inquiry for the Government).

John

Labor Madness

2010-06-23T20:44:00.000+10:00

Tonight's news is that Federal Labor factional powerbrokers are meeting tonight to discuss the possibility of a leadership challenge. The intended replacement is, presumably, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard. The intended victim is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. The meeting follows the last day of the winter session of Federal Parliament, and follows some weeks of relatively poor poll results. Some MP's are supposedly leaving for warmer climes, or on overseas travel. Prime Minister Rudd is supposed to leave for Canada tomorrow. Some elements within the party, and some pro-conservative elements in the media (News Ltd and Sky News) have been pushing the leadership agenda.

An election is due late this year, or by early March next year at the latest. Why would members of a party contemplate deposing their, & the nation's, leader just months before an election? Politics, selfishness and stupidity. Julia Gillard is still the darling of the left faction, and they want their girl as leader. MP's in marginal seats are worried they will lose - they will probably lose anyway, since historically large electoral victories are somewhat re-balanced at the next election as voters "protest against the government". This happens more often than not.

Nevertheless, Kevin Rudd would probably not be in this position if he, and the members of the Labor Government, and adopted what we have consistently said that politicians should do:

seek professional advice and determine good policy (not politics!!)
spend less time (& money) on "media management" and more time on policy
determine the legislation based on the professional advice they receive
explain the policy to the people
introduce and run with the legislation that is in the best interests of Australia, & Australians.

If the Opposition block the legislation, by all means take the policy to the people at the next election. Voters are not stupid, although News Ltd will consistently run pro-Liberal "stories", and some voters will never change.

News of the current leadership fiasco has been driven,partly by the media, (news stories can spook politicians) but by stupid politicians running with a selfish political agenda. A reasonable person would question their loyalty to the Labor Party.

John

Racism, Alcohol & Sport

2010-06-14T19:39:00.000+10:00

This week saw NSW (‘Blues’) representative league player, Timana Tahu, walk out of the team camp, & the team. Assistant Coach, Andrew Johns, is reported to have made racial comments about three Queensland players: Greg Inglis, Jonathan Thurston & Sam Thaiday. The remarks were apparently made during a drinking session with the players.

There are 2 main issues with which rugby league, the NSWRL, and sports in general, must address:

Racism: are there underlying racist attitudes of some of its members? When asked, I am sure every single player, coach, supporter, official will say that they are not racist. Yet occasional derogatory comments about race are still made on the field. they don’t happen often, but they do still happen. Perpetrators often dismiss it as ‘sledging’ and ‘it didn’t mean anything’. But it reflects deep-seated attitudes, some of which surface under pressure. Timana Tahu has apparently thought for some time before taking his action. He is to be commended for not acting in haste; and for taking action on principle. The alleged racist comments are the most important driver of events.
Alcohol & drugs: the time has long since passed when team “bonding sessions” should be based on alcoholic stupor, and the stupidity that follows. With respect to Andrew Johns, he has already publicly admitted he is an alcoholic - “For me the problem was alcohol” (& ecstasy). [Andrew Johns, to Phil Gould on The Footy Show, 30-Aug-2007.]

Rugby League managers and administrators put Andrew Johns, and others, in a position where the consumption of grossly excessive amounts of alcohol are not only encouraged, but almost mandatory under considerable peer pressure. Andrew Johns lived a lie involving alcoholism and drug abuse for 10 years. Why would the NSWRL put him into such a situation as part of his work? They must be in breach of OH&S laws. Don’t think the NSW team is alone; Queensland will have had such an alcoholic session. Similar drinking sessions usually follow a game on Friday, Saturday, Sunday; for representative games, for NRL club games, for local club games. Addressing the issue must also include addressing alcohol sponsorship of players, clubs and teams – here the NRL will likely do nothing, they are too gutless: after all, it’s all about the money, not good principle.

Racism; alcohol, and alcoholic players; and the use of drugs on Friday & Saturday night after games are issues that the NRL must address. It’s not the only sport.

John

Libs New Plan To 'Stop the Boats'

2010-06-05T13:41:00.007+10:00

Fictional Media Conference involving Liberal Party & Coalition Leader Tony Abbott and ...

Tony Abbott appears wearing shirt, conservative-blue tie, dark suit coat, and ... budgie smugglers!

[Journalist]: Mr Abbott, why are you wearing budgie smugglers?
[Abbott]: Err, I never miss a chance. And anyway, arh, I have to keep fit if I'm going to be, arh, the next Prime Minister of Australia.
[Journalist]: Who's that with you? No, not your throng of media advisers and head-nodders. Who's that? (points at 11th person in Abbott's throng, standing off to side)
[Abbott]: Who? Um, Oh, OH! - that's my Shadow Minister for err, Immigration.
[Journalists]: (as one) Who is it and why are they wearing a John Howard, one-eyed mask?
[Abbott]: Not relevant. The point is, arh, teh point is only the Coalition can STOP THE BOATLOADS OF REFUGEES. We did it before and we'll do it better next time.
[Journalist]: How? Christmas Island is already full, NZ won't take them again, and Nauru will likely be under water soon, with the effects of global warming, won't it?
[Abbott]: Arh, heh-heh, Nah - that's just a left-wing Labor, commie refugee conspiracy. BUT, ONLY WE CAN STOP THE BOATS!
[Journalists]: (all as one) HOW?
[Abbott]: The Coalition will outsource border security against refugees to the Israeli Government. They did a wonderful job on those ships going to Gaza. The Israelis will use their warships, zodiacs, helicopters and commandos. After all, some of those commandos are Aussies. We will pay for them with AGBNTOE(*) The boats will stop, and we will be able to focus all our energies on the important things. (thinks - and those sucker voters will vote for us)
[Journalist]: Such as?
[Abbott]: New Industrial Relations. Before you ask, the term 'WorkChoices' is dead, we won't call it that. And a new immigration policy targeting 457-visa workers for employment; and my colleague here (aside - what's your name, son?) - yes, of course, Scott Morrison, will concentrate in the lab on resurrecting the White Australia Policy. That's all folks - no more questions. (thinks - because we don't have any answers)

Abbott, surrounded by nodding media advisers and ... what-his-name with the Howard mask, shuffles off to Parliament House.

END

* AGBNTOE - A Great Big New Tax On Everything.

John
(with acknowledgement to Chris Henning, whose 'True Fictions' column in the Sydney Morning Herald inspired this)

Mining Tax Kerfuffle

2010-05-30T15:02:00.001+10:00

This week we have seen strong, even vehement, reactions to the Government’s proposed ‘Super Profits Tax’ on mining companies.

You can always tell the level of desperation by the intensity of the marketing campaign. The stronger the campaign, the more likely there is to be misinformation, “statistics”, and outright lying. Political parties will attempt to score cheap political points.

The Mining Council of Australia is running ads. They are marketing – you should therefore be sceptical of any claims. Indeed, they have largely been debunked by respected economics and business journalists Ross Gittins and Ian Verrender. See the following:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/major-miners-generally-selfish-20100528-wle9.html
and
http://www.smh.com.au/business/super-profits-tax-is-up-against-brazen-propaganda-20100528-wlea.html

Meanwhile the Liberal Party has brought forward its marketing campaign. You will remember the ads – they are certainly annoying - but they don’t ague on good policy, just on annoyance. take them with a grain of salt – they are only marketing. For its part, the Government has bypasses its protocols on Government advertising, by NOT having its ads checked by the Auditor-General. Political expediency is more important. However, the Opposition has successfully diverted attention from debating the proposed super-tax on mining profits to voter perceptions of the Government. WHY? Well, Tony Abbott doesn’t want to debate the merits of the changes to tax on mining companies, and would very likely change his mind, and keep the tax if elected. (remember, John Howard did the same with the ‘never, ever GST’)

Meanwhile, in Federal Parliament, both sides have done little but try to score cheap political points. Labor Ministers almost queued to make statements alleging that the Liberal & National Parties were simply after mining company donations. Jamie Briggs (Liberal) responded with figures showing “the federal Australian Labor Party has received $80,500 from the mining industry in Australia, and the federal Liberal Party has received nothing.” However, has lied by omission – he forgot to include the personal donations from those who run our mining companies. the ABC has reported:

” Australia's fifth richest man according to the last BRW rich list, Mr Palmer donated a total of $865,000, including $400,000 to the Liberal Party of Australia through his mining company Mineralogy.

Mr Palmer … also made a personal donation of $280,000 to the Liberal National Party of Queensland.

While most of his generosity was reserved for the conservative side of politics, Mr Palmer also boosted the West Australian Labor Party's coffers by $25,000 via Mineralogy.”
(See: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/01/2806718.htm)

Liberal Jamie Briggs omitted to mention that, and similar, donations.

The intensity of marketing, and the presence of enough spin to bamboozle Shane Warne, ought to make all voters cynical of the ads they are seeing. If asked about it respond - ‘Yes, I saw it. It’s marketing crap’. I suggest simply reading the first two links I’ve provided, to articles by Ross Gittins and Ian Verrender. Ignore everything else.

John

David Campbell Resigns As Minister

2010-05-21T19:48:00.007+10:00

NSW Minister David Campbell has resigned as Minister for Roads & Transport. His resignation follows Channel 7's news story, yesterday, of his visit, outside Parliamentary hours, to a gay men's "club" in Sydney on Tuesday night.

He has taken leave to deal with "family issues" arising from the revelations. Most feel considerable sympathy for his wife and children. His wife has recently battled cancer.

Mr Campbell had previously weathered public and Opposition anger over the bungling of accident & traffic diversion on the F3 Freeway north of Sydney. I believe he should have resigned because,as Minister, he is ultimately responsible for the performance of his Departments.

A number of questions arise from the Channel 7 story:

Was there anything illegal in his actions? It appears not: it is accepted that Ministers can use their government cars for private purposes; and it is not illegal to visit gay sex clubs.
Was any public interest served? This is a more difficult question. 'Public interest' is difficult to define, but many agree it involves common good or general welfare of society. Channel 7 reports indicated he resigned after questions were put to him about his visit to a gay sex club. If so, that would be wrong of Channel 7. No questions appear to have been asked about what effects, if any, Mr Campbell's lifestyle had on his Ministerial performance, until AFTER the news story. He, and others, have since indicated that it had no effect. That statement is untested, but Channel 7 have presented no evidence to support such a claim. Being a public figure doesn't justify scandal-mongering.

I suspect that Channel 7, and the journalist who broke the story, Adam Walters, had little motive other than scandal-mongering for profit. It's not something I'd want to put on my CV. Nor would I want to put "lives a double life" or "unfaithful to family".

John

Political Spin & Image

2010-05-19T19:10:00.007+10:00

Poor Tony Abbott, he's not only paying for his sins, but the sins of all politicians. His sin: admitting on ABC's 7:30 Report on 17-May-10 that his comments were not always "Gospel truth", and that sometimes "in the heat of discussion you go a little bit further". He was responding to a question about why he vowed to introduce a new tax (to supposedly fund pay for stay-at-home mothers), when he had previously promised "no new taxes".

So, how do you tell the "truth" from spin?? Brisbane-based ABC journalist Madonna King wrote, on 11-May-10 a list to help. It includes:
the mea culpa; the diversionary tactic ; it's all in the language;
the greed card; the missing transcript; pick your day syndrome;
it's not personal, it's just me; tell the partial truth;
blame the public servant; the drip feed; saved by the review;
the picture opportunity; the human touch; the social media blitz;
the phony sacking
You can read the full descriptions by Madonna King at:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/11/2895707.htm

I'll add the following:
the pre-prepared statement, with no questions allowed. Often used after a forced resignation (to avoid being sacked) - remember Peter Garrett.
the send a junior minion to explain: Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey's quick exit from the National Press Club today, after explaining how the Opposition would make savings. (Cut programs) gave journalists the printed paper just as he was leaving, and leaving junior Andrew Robb to bluster through questions)
the we'll send a battery of MP's/Ministers to all deliver the same message, using the same key words. You just had it from the government, spinning Tony Abbott's admission as a sometime liar.
the 'friendly' interviews to multiple TV/Radio/Media. There's an election soon, isn't there? Oh and add the friendly/highly critical journalist's story (there's a hidden agenda to support a particular politician/party - Miranda Devine & Glenn Milne spring to mind.)
the repetition of message. This has been adopted from the advertising industry. It is still used in many ads, including those from politicians.

John

Jessica Watson Home

2010-05-15T15:22:00.001+10:00

16-year-old Jessica Watson has completed her solo round-the-world sailing adventure.

She is the youngest person to complete this, but the world sailing organization will not officially recognize it, because she is under 18 y.o. they don’t want to encourage very young people to undertake a task that must be extremely arduous, physically, mentally & emotionally.

By any measure, Jessica has completed a remarkable feat, and deserves the feting & accolades currently being bestowed upon her.

You can read her blog at http://www.jessicawatson.com.au/_blog/Official_Jessica_Watson_Blog/

To finish in a uniquely Australian way:
“onyaJess”

John

Federal Budget & Reply

2010-05-15T13:41:00.001+10:00

This week we had Wayne Swan deliver the Federal Budget. By any measure, it was not a traditional “election-year budget”. Make no mistake, though, this budget was driven as much by the politics of re-election as any.

It had no new tax cuts from 2011; no massive spending programs; no new taxes on “mums & dads” or “ordinary working families” (phrased beloved by politicians). It does offer future increases in superannuation guarantee contributions – something that will please middle and low-income earners. It will begin to wind back the extraordinary government spending used to avoid a recession in Australia; it does aim to return the budget to surplus in 2012-13. The proposed surplus, some increases in health spending and superannuation have been included partly by delaying environmental ETS programs; and by relying on a “super tax” on very large profits from mining and resource companies.

The earlier-than-expected surplus in 2012-13 was designed to silence the Opposition’s claim that only they can manage an economy and have a surplus. The superannuation is something the Coalition will likely oppose in the Party room, but be forced to accept so as not be seen to deny the “mums & dads” or “ordinary working families”.

Tony Abbott’s Budget Reply in Parliament was reasonably well-spoken. He will oppose the tax on extremely high profits by mining & resource companies. But there was definitely a sting in the tail. He was apparently rolled by his own (Liberal) party on payments for stay-at-home mothers; and he promised a return to the core of WorkChoices. Now Tony Abbott has previously said the phrase ‘WorkChoices’ is dead. True, he did not use the term in his reply, but he has promised a return to core elements of WorkChoices: more individual contracts,and removal or dilution of unfair dismissal laws.

Opinion polls indicated that Prime Minister Rudd’s approval had dropped since the budget, and Opposition Leader Abbott’s increased. I suspect that indicates respondents’ focus on image created by,and in, the media, rather than any voter thought about the issues.

Don’t be fooled. Remember, politicians use the media for marketing and image enhancements. Only rarely do they slip-up.

John

Politicians & Political Parties

2010-05-07T19:45:00.001+10:00

Well, it’s been a busy few weeks for politicians, Federal & State.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has dropped the ETS from his legislative agenda. It was supposed to be the greatest environmental challenge of our time. Political considerations have derailed it. The Opposition Coalition parties have chosen a political position that denies climate change, and entrenched a NO vote. The Greens did not think the legislation went far enough, and voted No.

Liberal Senator Cory Bernardi has used his blog to voice the right wing opinion that the burqa should be forthwith banned in Australia. his basis is that one criminal has used it in a robbery, so it has now become “the preferred disguise of bandits and n'er do wells”. While Tony Abbott has distanced himself from Bernardi’s opinion, it is, I think, symptomatic of the rise, and persistence of the hard right of the Liberal Party. The proposed policy seeks to be both alarmist and populist, and by doing so, avoid significant argument towards good policy.

In NSW, Labor MP Karyn Paluzzano has been suspended from the NSW Labor Party, and has today resigned from the NSW Parliament as the Member for Penrith and Lower Blue Mountains. She has admitted to an ICAC corruption inquiry that she lied to ICAC investigators, and that she falsified pay slips to defraud the NSW Parliament.

There are at least 3 messages for our politicians:

If you believe you have good public policy, run with it, irrespective of opponents. Voters will appreciate the commitment to good policy. If it’s not good policy, work on it! Good Policy does not equate to political ideology. (WorkChoices springs to mind)
As a society, we need to be aware of extreme/extremist political agendas. Cory Bernardi’s blog is a reflection of greater influence of , and agenda-pushing by, the hard right of the Liberal Party. Liberal Party founder Sir Robert Menzies would find it abhorrent.
It would behove all politicians to check how they are using allowances (taxpayer funds) and Federal funding to electorates. The Federal Auditor-general has previously been critical of the rules, and the apparent use of taxpayer funds for essentially personal and party political purposes. (see reports on Distribution of Funding for Community Grant Programmes and Administration of Parliamentarians' Entitlements by the Department of Finance and Deregulation at www.anao.gov.au)

Work hard, and pester your politicians.

John

Political Expediency Pollutes CPRS

2010-04-28T20:11:00.005+10:00

Kevin Rudd's CPRS - Carbon Pollution reduction Scheme - was to be one of his great environmental stamps. It was to involve a carbon cap-and-trade system; higher electricity prices, which would encourage more consumers to use renewable energy; some compensation for high energy use industries; and an environmental halo for Mr Rudd.

It was beset by difficulties:

The Greens thought it didn't set sufficient targets for the reduction in carbon pollution
The Copenhagen Conference on climate change achieved little, as many predicted, and countries have not committed to any reduction in carbon emissions
The Coalition - Liberal and National Parties - are running a policy of denying climate change, protecting the short-term interests of big business. They, and the Greens, defeated teh CPRS Bill in the Senate, biut for the different reasons outlined above.

The NSW, and other states, electricity price regulator, approved large price rises for electricity. In NSW there were 2 reasons for this: preparation for the carbon trading scheme, and the desire of the NSW Labor government to privatise electricity generation and sale, for its own short-term political reasons.

Voter backlash against the price rises, and manipulation of that anger by teh Coalition parties before this year's election have led to Prime Minister Rudd shelving the CPRS until at least 2012.

The shelving has nothing to do with the merits, or otherwise, of the CPRS. It has everything to do with political expediency.

John

Corrupt Storm

2010-04-24T13:48:00.010+10:00

For several days now, the media has regaled us with the sordid details of corruption at the Melbourne Storm Rugby League club. The corruption involved 2 sets of accounting books; one "official" set, kept with player contracts. A second set, hidden in a separate storage, apparently documents extra payments to some players at $15 000 a time. Today's news also gives some details of letters of offer (of off-the-book payments) to at least 3 players. The corruption involved at least some senior managers, probably the players to whom letters were written, 1 or more sponsors. The NRL has imposed very tough penalties: stripped of Minor Premierships, Premierships (Grand Final wins), return of $1.1m in winnings and $500 000 fine, loss of all points for 2010, and unable to gain any competition points in 2010.

The corruption allowed the club to keep more players, with more talent, so that they gained an unfair advantage over other clubs. It is devastating for those not involved, and it would be appropriate for them to stand up and say that they do not want corrupt officials, staff, players at the club - they should help root out the evil infecting their club.

For more than 10 years, ever since its inception, Melbourne Storm has lost money; losses that have had to be made up by grants from the NRL, and from its owner, News Ltd. News Ltd has been trying to sell the club for some years. It might now not be able to sell the losing concern.

While forensic accountants have been called in by News Ltd, and some matters referred to police, there is more that must be done. The NRL must investigate:

players to whom letters were sent, offering the corrupt payments. If shown to be true to the NRL's satisfaction, these players must have their NRL contracts withdrawn, and be suspended from any professional league for at least 12 months.
the involvement of club executives, and other staff, including coaching and related team staff. As with players, anyone involved should be banned from working in any NRL-related capacity for some time.
The apparent insider trading on betting. At least 1 $50 000 bet on Storm getting the wooden spoon (coming last) was made hours before the announcement that they would get no points in 2010 and come last. What relationship does the bettor have with the NRL, the Melbourne Storm, or any other club, or club executives?

Other clubs, and other sports, will be examining, or re-examining, their behaviours. That is a good thing. Corruption in any form is insidious. It, and its perpetrators, must be weeded out.

For the record, I do not support any NRL team; I prefer Super Rugby.

John

Beauty Madness for 9YO Girls

2010-04-18T16:02:00.003+10:00

Today's Sunday tabloids carry the story of 9 year-old girls having regular hair removal & waxing at beauty salons. There's no law against this - the child enters the salon, with or without a parent, the salon takes the money. Done deal.

The questions spring to mind.

Do 9yo girls need waxing/hair removal? The occurrence of excessive body hair mostly occurs after puberty. Most 9 yo girls have not yet reached puberty.
Why would parent(s) allow removal of non-excessive hair in a pre-pubescent girl? Social engineering of parents (" 'everybody' at school is having it, mum"), or parents providing money, but not knowing how their daughters are spending it.
Do "tween" magazines/websites promote hair removal as 'beauty'?
How many 9yo girls have the cognitive maturity to make a rational decision about the process? Psychologically, not many at all.
What ethics are shown by salons that do this to 9 yo girls?

It seems to me that there would be very few young girls who would need this medically. It is pandering, or the effect of undue influence by others. Industry (beauty, and the tween-targeting publishers) must exert more energy in ethical behaviours. Parents must remember that it is OK, even good, to say "No, that's not appropriate at your age".

Madness, sheer, bloody madness!

John