What the NRL Must Do

Volumes have been written this week about Andrew Johns, his involvement in group sex with a NZ woman 7 years ago, his sacking by both Channel 9, the Melbourne Storm NRL team, and the NRL.

I would make the following points about the matter:

• what Johns did was wrong: allowing other players to enter; cheating on his wife; knowingly indulging in behaviour that might contribute to the spread of STD's; many would argue it was ethically, even morally, wrong.
• Australians have a term for those other players who "got off" on watching - we call them 'wankers', and it's a term of derision. It might well be literally & figuratively true, given how they've scurried into the shadows this week.
• those team members who took part, and the club officials, who knew of the behaviour, and did nothing, are also responsible. Legally, it might be called "accessory after the fact". Although no crime appears to have been committed, the 'fact' ahs brought the game, and the reputations of some people, into disrepute.
• the NRL has concentrated on players only, and Johns in particular. The media has largely done the same, although the Daily Telegraph (15/5/09) carried front page silhouettes of other players allegedly involved.
• having been complicit in the scapegoating of Johns, it now behoves the NRL to provide appropriate counselling for Johns, and his family.

So, is Andrew Johns a scapegoat? Yes - in biblical times a scapegoat was the goat upon whose head the sins of the people were laid on the Day of Atonement, and which was afterwards sent off into the wilderness (Lev. 16: 21-22). This seems to fit with the actions, or inactions, of the NRL, Channel 9, the Melbourne Storm, Johns's former team-mates, his most recent work-mates, and a multitude of social commentators. There is abundant literature on the psychology of scapegoating (See http://www.birchmore.org/html/scapegoating.html for an example.) Essentially, scapegoating is a form of bullying whereby others (see above list) avoid admitting to, or consequences of, their wrongdoing. In Johns's case, he appears to have been chosen because of his higher profile that the others.

While Johns had pleaded his 'me culpa' publicly, somewhat reluctantly, and under considerable psychological strain, the others, players and officials, have retreated to the shadows like cowards.

Here are my suggestions for the NRL, but applicable to other sports, male & female:

• ban alcohol sponsorship: ban new contracts, and the renewing of existing ones. Start with your own representative teams. Ban players, officials, clubs and associations from alcohol sponsorship. If you choose to provide alcohol to your teams, do it behind closed doors, with no outsiders; none. Yes, I know the Brisbane Broncos are sponsored by a brewery, some players drink like they're in a brewery, and some have brought themselves, and the game, into disrepute becausse of it. Ban it anyway.
• don't just target one player. All players involved need to be reported, if too cowardly to own-up. Officials bear responsibility, too. If it was right to sack Johns from any role with the NRL, it is right that officials who knew should also go. You can't have one rule for "the players" and another for officials: that would be hypocrisy.
• For away games, especially, it is no longer appropraite to let players do as they please. At home, and away, players represent the club, the team, and the NRL. Consider inviting the girlfriends, parners, wives.
• introduce a common code of conduct for officials, and players; and enforce it with significant bans. eg cannot be a club official, or be involved club management or board; if an NRL contract is terminated, it ought to be concurrent with a ban on playing.
• the player education program about how treat women should be extended to all officials, including NRL managemenet, who should attend with the players. This will let them see just how bad are the attitudes of some players towards women.
• given the claim that this is a common occurrence, test every NRL player for STD's. Do it discretely, and the results should be private, but players should know this is a possible consequence of their chosen NRL lifestyle

John

Budget Realities & Politics

Did I say I was busy in teh last post?! - you bet I have been. For the record, however, I have NOT been working on the Federal. or any State, budget.

As far back as 2000, John Howard's & Peter Costello's budgets were in, or near, "structural deficit". They recorded a "surplus" because they won an economic lottery - overseas demand for our minerals ensured huge amounts of taxes paid that were outside the normal economy's scope; and they sold more of Telstra and the country's Internet infrastructure. You can read more of the expert discussion on the ABC's 7:30 Report of 10-May-200. Further, in February 2005, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry warned the Howard Government that the US current account deficit could (would?) cause a severe economic correction in the US, with worldwide implications. John Howard's response was "There's no prospect, in my view, if you're asking me for my view, there is no prospect of the American economy crashing." ! Either his skills weren't as good as he wants us to believe, or he was being deceptive.

For their parts Labor PM Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan, have a budget that looks "tough, but socially responsible", but which is has some poor policy choices: a second attempt at an alcopops tax; lots of money for universities, and school infrastructure, but not much about the extra funds public schools and TAFE will need for students staying on after the COAG "compact"(15-20 year olds will be either at school, or receiving training to help with teh recovery)

Alcohol ought to be taxed on its alcohol content, not the type of drink (beer, spirits, alcopop, wine) Further, if the desired socailly engineered position is to reduce alcohol consumption and binge drinking, the cost ought to escalate at higher levels. ie not a linear tax based on %alcohol, but a tax based on an exponential curve.

The Lib/National Coalition's plan to raie the tobacco tax to reduce the budget deficit and discouage smoking won't work - it will just be a regressive tax. And the Liberal PArty still accepts donations from ... tobacco companies. Malcolm Turnbull knows the increase in tax won't stop smokers. Essentially they show the same traits as drug addicts - by and large they will pay whatever price is asked. So the increase is just an greater regressive tax, and tobacco consumption will be unchanged.

I think means testing the Private Health Insurance Rebate is worthwhile. Effectively it is means whereby the government pays 1/3 of the private premiums. Mind you, the Coalition will oppose this measure, despite their fundamentalism on "user-pays"! Turnbull is still playing the "I'm-in- Opposition,-so-'No' " game.

As far as the already-distributed cash handouts go, Australia relies heavily on the retail sector, because reforms to industry have effectively reduced the contribution manufacturing makes to our economy. In that respect, they will likey mean the structural deficit will not be as great as it could have been.

John

Budget: Mixed News, As Always

Oh, dear. I have been so busy that I have not had time to post for 2 weeks. It seems like an eternity. It's 2009 Budget time, a time when politicians like to sprout, er, "leak" good news to the voters by using the media. They also like to prepare us for bad news, by leaking possible increases in taxes.

So, Prime Minister Rudd, and the State leaders have reached a "compact with young Australians", specifically those under 20. The following extract is from the press release via the PM's office:

"This compact with young Australians will ensure that every Australian under the age of 25 will be entitled to an education or training place. This is an important undertaking to the nation, an important undertaking to mums and dads concerned out there about their kids, an important undertaking to young Australians themselves."

Sounds good ... but just how many young Australians under 20 were at the COAG meeting that decided this. Hint: it's a nice round number! And its dressed up nicely with references to "mum and dad". There is also a sting in the tail, not just for the kids, but for "mum and dad" who receive Family Tax benefit A.

"The other part of this initiative is that we've also strengthened conditionality in welfare payments. To support this new Compact, the Commonwealth Government will strengthen the conditions unemployed young people must pass to receive the youth allowance. Anyone under the age of 20 without a year 12 equivalent qualification must be in education or training in order to receive Youth Allowance. The same conditions must be met if parents of young people in the same circumstances wish to receive Family Tax Benefit A."

Ah, yes. We'll not only make it harder for the kids, but we'll possibly punish the parents as well. Notwithstanding that the part about education & training might be good policy, the second part, about the Family Tax Benefit A, is social engineering, with a big stick, using tax policy.

There's the news about the massive investment, over 20 years, in defence capability. The fine print is that "savings" of about $2 million /year are to be made from the current defence budget: savings additional to those required under the Howard government. There will be plenty of opportunities for re-"announcements" of this future spending in this, and later, budgets. I suspect that not much of the new spending will occur soon.

News, too, that the budget "might" defer tax cuts announced last year, especially for "the rich" - applying the same formula used for the RuddBank's personal stimulus tax rebate, those earning more that $100,000 should worry. Just a little: it is after all, only a "leak", and many kites are flown to test voter reaction. There will be some bad news in the budget though, because this is a recession, and 2009 is not an election year.

John

Federal Government PR in Full Swing

Late this morning we had a number of press conferences, where Federal Government Ministers attempted to ameliorate bad news, announce something new, and indulge in a little gratuitous Oppostion-bashing. Don't get me wrong - the previous Coalition Government, now in Oppostion, did the same things.

Parliament is in recess till May, when the budget will be delivered to Parliament. The polls give Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the Federal Labor Government substantial leads over the Opposition, led by Malcolm Turnbull.

The Government's response: lay as much blame for the bad news on the previous Coalition Government.

• Deputy PM Julia Gillard did it when talking about the unfettered highly-debt-geared business plans, and planned market dominance by ABC Learning Child Care, which is now in receivership. At the same time, she announced the "good news" that of the 241 ABC Learning Centres, 210 will be sold, and that the Government has been working with the administrator to find jobs for those who work in others. Oh, and your child care will be prioritised.
• Health Minister Nicola Roxon and Wayne Swan ran a double act. Roxon ran the new alcopop legislation to validate tax already collected , and the "new" related legislation to retain teh increased tax rate; and the health benefits. Treasurer Swan took his turn, and indulged in a spot of Opposition bashing: the Liberal Party, the Opposition, and Malcolm Turnbull all copped a serve.

All round, it was presented as "good news from the government", and a "smack in the mouth for the Opposition". Monty Python would be proud. Ahhh. Don't you just love marketing ... err ... I mean "press conferences"?

John

Easter Respite For Premier Rees

NSW Premier Nathan Rees will doubtless see the Easter holidays as a welcome distraction.

The media is full of Easter stories, tabloid "stories" about "celebrities" (Nicole Kidman & Keith Urban; Hugh Jackman; Cathy Freeman's wedding; TV/radio people; Sydney's social butterflies; 2-bit starlets, et al.), sport, more sport, and Kevin Rudd.

Nathan Rees will welcome the respite from the recent news stories about

• two electrical blackouts affecting Sydney CBD & surrounds;
• former (sacked) Minister for Small Business, Tony Stewart, who is suing the State for unfair dismissal (http://www.smh.com.au/national/sacked-ministers-right-to-sue-tested-20090402-9l3y.html ); Memo: it's politics, Tony, get over it!
  
• voter and media dissent over Joe Tripodi's 3-week around-the-world trip at taxpayers' expense. He will visit Hong Kong, China, New York, Canada, London and maybe Spain, hoping to find a buyer for NSW retail electricity assets. Given the parlous state of the financial world in New York and London, Mr Tripodi might find potential buyers scarce in those places. He might still find a few people at tourist venues. Many, especially the media, will look forward to his timely, comprehensive report to NSW Parliament. (ROFLOL!) I just can't help remembering that there were whispers in Joe's right-wing ear that it might be time for him to retire from Parliament.
  
• news that NSW proposes to sell NSW Lotteries, an enterprise that returns more than $400 million to NSW Treasury each year. The news was released on Thursday, just when many voters were setting off for the Easter weekend, and when many voters are not interested in news.

Little wonder Premier Rees was looking forward to Easter. I hope he, and his new wife, enjoy the break.

John

Sydney Buildings Told To Reduce Power

Sydney's CBD and some surrounds were again affected by a power blackout on Saturday. It was the second blackout in six days. Both also affected the Sydney Harbour Tunnel, and an emergency generator has reportedly been installed to ensure it remains open. Owners of large buildings have beeen asked to reduce power consumption, especially from air conditioners, to avoid more blackouts.

Energy australia has indicated it will take some time to restore all the "backup" supply lines, and repair the main, 130kV, line under Circular Quay, which apparently failed when some earth subsidence affected its insulation.

Perhaps it is pertinent for the NSW State Government to look at:

• electricity supply lines to the CBD, and other strategic areas.
• current and future requirements, capacity and infrastructure.
• building codes for large, multi-storey, air conditioned buildings. Should there be a requirement for emergency power to take lifts to the next lowest level, from backup generators or battery systems? Before you laugh, consider the dozens of people who had to be rescued, largely in darkness, from 34 lifts across the CBD last Monday, 30 March. 34 different lifts for emergency services to attend! Perhaps, too, building codes for new multi-storey buildings to have solar power generators on their rooftops, and greater requirements for passive cooling systems on all buildings to reduce reliance on energy-gulping air conditioners. Hey - there'll be economic stimulus & job creation benefits, too.

Governments, and Oppositions, in this situation are usually light on action, and big on talk and approtioning blame. Premier Nathan Rees's Government will likely be no different. Someone else will be told to "fix it".


John

Earth Hour 2009

Last night was Earth Hour - the hour when people and organizations are encouraged turn off as much electrical equipment & lights. It is a promotion to help remind us about global warming and of our need to reduce our carbon emissions. (http://www.earthhour.org/)

As a political and environmental point, it has become an important symbol.

But it's not enough! Unless people and organizations make changes - drive less, use more economical transport, turn off appliances and lights, use less packaging, and recycle more - one hour, one day a year will make little difference.

The same for organizations - if it's acceptable to turn off most lights in empty buildings at night for one hour, why is it not aceptable every night? Security lighting is important, but it does not need every light, in every room, on every floor, every night! Electricity companies will say they need it, because they need to provide base load electricty from their mostly coal-fired, power generators. This is like the cart driving the horse. But if we set our base-load demand on our needs, not those of electricity companies, then they will have to adapt. That adaptation will result is less electricty being made from coal, and more from other sources during the day.

Governments have a role to play, by setting appropriate social, environmental and taxation policies. The coal industry donates $millions to our political parties and politicians; and governments and politicians want to sell electricity assets, so it is unlikely there will be significant action. If that sounds cynical, consider the following quote, from George Beranrd Shaw: "The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it."

I encourage to to change your habits - it'll be good for the environment, & you'll pay less in bills, too. Oh - and that would increase company profits too.

Some Earth Hour 200 photos can be found at:
http://sanpedrosun.blogspot.com/2009/03/earth-hour-2009.html
http://www.flickr.com/groups/earthhour2009global/

John

Fielding's Big Month: No, No, Yes

Family First Senator Steve Fielding has had a big month, and he's loved all the attention from the Government, and the media.

1. Political Donations

Senator Fielding voted with the Opposition to defeat a bill that would have improved the reporting and openness of political donations. Here, Senator Fielding has apparently acted in the interests of the Family First party. On 14-March-09, the Sydney Morning Herald asked Senator Fielding revealed that the Victorian branch of Family First declared "total receipts of $284,758. It disclosed one receipt above $10,500: a $100,000 donation from company director Jehan Salib. That left $184,758 in undisclosed receipts." Questions from the Herald apparently elicited a game of pass the parcel, which eventually returned to Senator Fielding, who refused to answer. Senator Fielding had previously said, on his blog:

“We need protection against political donations...we really have call these 'donations' by their proper names - inducements or bribes. They are used to buy favour or policy…” Sen. Steve Fielding http://stevefielding.com.au/forums/viewthread/3/

Senator Fielding voted against legislation to reduce the disclosure limit to $1000, and remove a tax deduction for donations to political parties of up to $15000.


2. The Alcopop Tax

Senator Fielding flexed his 'sole-senator' muscles and refused to vote for the increases in the alcopop tax. The government would not yield to his demands to ban alcohol advertising during sports broadcasts., Along with the Coalition opposition, he voted against the legislation. About $140 million in already-collected taxes has to be returned to the brewing industry.

Senator Fielding argues that binge drinking is not a tax problem. "It's a culture problem and breaking the back and the link between alcohol and sport is absolutely critical for all Australian families". But taxation is one of the tools used by government in social policy, and while the selective taxation of alcopops is not an ideal solution, Senator Fielding could have voted for it, with a negotiated sunset clause after the full review of taxation. That is, if the legislation were an interim measure, where it had some chance of achieving a reduction in excessive consumption.

3. WorkChoices is Dead

Senator Fielding voted with the Government to pass the Fair Work bill, which replaces, and undoes much of, the Coalition's WorkChoices, introduced without mandate by John Howard in 2006. Immediately after the election of Kevin Rudd's government in 2007, most of the Opposition, including current leader Malcolm Turnbull, and Joe Hockey, declared that WorkChoices is dead (as a policy). Yet they voted against the government's replacement, the Fair Work Bill, because Peter Costello and the right wing of the Liberal Party have dragged the moderates much further to the right than they wanted. They hope to resurrect the WorkChoices corpse after some future election. (probably under then new leader Peter Costello)

Senator Fielding was elected with less than 1.8% of the primary senate vote, and Labor preferences. Labor is unlikely to give him any preferences next Senate election, or if there is a double dissolution of Parliament (unlikely)

John

Costello - Puppet or Puppeteer?

Peter Costello just won't go away. He does, after all, love the media attention; and the fawning of right-wing neo-liberals in the party. Much has been made of the fact that Peter Costello won't comment about leadership speculation, but he doesn't have to: his acolytes will continue to talk about it, and elements within the media keep driving it as a "story".

Costelo, or his followers, have dragged Malcolm Turnbull's leadership away from the more reasonable centre-right, small-l Liberalism, back towards the more extreme neo-liberalist views of Costello. The Liberal Party's, and Turnbull's, position on each of the following has lurched to the right because of Costello's influence: the economic stimulus, fair workplace legislation, and climate change.


Foreign Minister Stephen Smith is reported as saying that the federal opposition's position on several key issues won't change even if Peter Costello became their new leader. Well, yes; given that Costello has effecgtively dragged the Liberal Party to his right-wing policies on these issues.


But is Peter Costello simply being a right-wing idealogue, using his supporters to effect right-wing changes in policy? Or, is Peter Costello a tool of the right-wing to wrest power from the more moderate Turnbull? His seemingly increasing support from within the party is testament to the work of his acolytes. That Malcolm Turnbull is looking over his shoulder indicates his tenure is likely to be replaced sooner, rather than later, pehaps after the (7-week!) autumn break from Parliament.

See also:
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2009/02/costello-right-wing-rallying-point.html
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2009/01/turnbulls-reds-under-bed-scare.html


John

Footballers, Alcohol And Clubs

Manly rugby league player Brett Stewar has been charged with the sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl, who lives in the same apartment block as he. After several days, the NSWRL has suspended Stewart, after Manly indicated it would select Stewart to play this Friday. The NSWRL is concerned about bad publicity, and trouble at the game against the Bulldogs (Canterbury). Some social networking site users have reportedly planned to target Stewart.

There is a significant history with football players and alcohol. Todd Carney has just been sentenced by a Goulburn court for damage to property, including shop fronts and a car. He claims he couldn't remember the incidents because he was drunk. Among other conditions, Carney is not to return to Goulburn for 12 months, and to seek alcohol counselling. Yet, he is going to North Queensland to play for a district club ... and work in a pub! Presumably the QRL sees no problem with this, even given conditions of his sentence.

Bigger questions arise:

• are pubs or clubs legally liable for players being drunk at official club functions?
• what liability exists for allowing, even forcing, players, members or visitors to leave drunk?
• how do those serving alcohol determine sufficient drunkenness to refuse alcohol?
• what responsibility does any sporting organisation, club, or pub have to meet national guidelines for the consumption of alcohol?
• if a club knowingly allows players to become drunk at an official function, and a player subsequently commits acts of violence, does the club bear any civil liability?

Ho much alcohol is "too much", and which could affect your health, and ability to function appropriately in society? A study commissionied by the NHMRC found that

"For males, the average daily intake should not exceed a level between 25g and 45g per day"
(http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/_files/alc-comp.pdf , p55)

This is about 2-4 standard drinks on any day, given a "standard drink" in the same study was defined as one having 10g of pure alcohol.

Alcohol remains a serious problem, for all sporting asociations and clubs, and, it seems, especially for rugby league!

John

Housing Credit

The HIA expects that there will still be tough times in 2009/10, but that the market is showing some resilience, possible due to temporary increases in the first home buyers grants for existing, and new, housing.

Low interest rates, and rising rents due to shortages of rental accommodation are also encouraging people to consider buying - sorry, Government House, Sydney, (pictured) is not for sale!

But there are still significant risks for buyers:

• the mortgage provider sector is still subject to full or partial takeovers, mostly by the big banks. For example, the Commonwealth Bank has taken a $2.5 billion portion of the Wizard Home Loans portfolio from GE Money, from the start of this month.


• While mortgage interest rates are at a generational low, as the economy recovers, interest rates will likely rise again. The "stress test" is, could you make the extra required if interest rates went up 2%? As interest rates rise, it is probable that the number of problem loans will increase.


• Buyers with less than 10% deposit, not including the first home buyers grant, will need to factor in the cost of mortgage insurance. Mortgage insurance covers the lender, not the borrower!


• Building insurance costs are set to increase, as insurance companies cry poor after claims are aid from flooding in north Queensland, and the fires in Victoria. (they also insure in case of large disaster payouts, but will cry poor to the public to justify the increase)


• The Australian economy will likely still deteriorate in 2009 -2010. Recovery, when it comes, will likely not arrive till the second half of 2010, and be felt until 2011.

It is likely that this is a good time to buy, IF you have the 10% deposit, IF you don't want too much house, IF you can afford the repayments, IF you can pass the "stress test"; IF you can cover the insurance - just do your "homework", so to speak. Lenders, at least, are being less reckless than they were; and that is a good thing.

John

Costello A Right-Wing Rallying Point

Peter Costello is loving the attention he's getting - well, he loves the media attention, and cannot hold back the trademark smirk whenever he's interviewed. He won't have liked the open letter from former Liberal Party leader, John Hewson. (Hewson lost the 1993 election to Paul Keating)
The letter is at http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/disloyal-lazy-no-balls-its-time-to-move-on-peter-20090221-8e6v.html?page=-1 .

Costello's real problems are:

• He's seen by many voters as having missed his chances by about 5 years. (while John Howard was Prime Minister, he did not challenge, even when it became obvious that voter support for Howard was declining)
• While John Howard was PM, Howard was the rallying point for all far-Right wing members of the Liberal Party; Howard exercised considerable control, and would send henchman Senator Bill Heffernan to see anyone who looked like breaking rank. A good dose of raised voice, abusive language and archetypal workplace bullying from Heffernan would see faltering members fall into line. Costello was seen as more centre-right, and became a rallying point for the 'small-l'-liberals and centrists within the party. They saw him as "less bad" than Howard.
• Now that Howard is gone, and the Liberal-led Opposition has a ' l '-liberal leader, Costello has become the rallying point of the far-Right. Costello was never a bleeding-heart Liberal: indeed, he wanted to make WorkChoices even more extreme than Howard, but the far-Right loved Howard.
• Costello is losing, or has lost, relevence. He has chosen not to be a member of the Opposition front bench. Voters might well see him as just a showman for the media; all smirk and raised arms, but not a viable leader.

John Hewson might well be right when he says, in his open letter:

You have only ever had a minimal support base and that base has been further
and terminally eroded by your disloyalty, antics and shenanigans of the last
year or so. ... the best you can now do to help our chances is to leave.

If Costello goes, the problem for the far-Right will be to find someone, anyone, to hoist their flag of tarnished policies. Tarnished policies + no leader = no power!


John

Bishop Shafted, Hockey Scores

Deputy Leader of the Federal Liberal party, Julie Bishop, has resigned as Shadow Treasurer, and taken up the post of Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Her move came after considerable destabilizing from within. Ms Bishop had been ineffective, and made fundamental economic mistakes, as Shadow Treasurer. Joe Hockey, who has replaced her as Shadow Treasurer, is one who spoke to the media last week about the need for Ms Bishop to go. It was said publicly that she could remain as Deputy Leader if she went. Julie Bishop was shafted, because the quiet approach didn't work - it almost never does with politicians.

Ms Bishop said it was her decision to resign as Shadow Treasurer. But sometimes the decisions are made for you, by others. So, too, with her choice of portfolio - Shadow Minister for Foreign affairs: given Australia's, and the world's focus on matters economic, Ms Bishop will not have to say much.

It might well be that her tenure as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party is shaky. A Deputy with a relatively low profile, and not much to say, probably won't be Deputy for very long.

For his part, Joe Hockey has a softer (cuddlier?) media image, presents as more personable than Ms Bishop, and has promised support from former Treasurer Peter Costello. That might make Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull rather nervous. Costello might "groom" Hockey for a leadership spill, with either Hockey as leader & Costello as king-maker; or Costello as leader & Hockey as Deputy leader. Costello has his own concerns - the Party wants to clean out non-contributing or non-performing members from high-profile, safe, seats.
(Picture: abc.net.au)

In all these scenarios, there are plenty of undercurrents within the Federal Liberal Party.

John

Xenophon's US-Style Politics

The Australian Senate finally passed the Government's second economic stimulus package this week. It passed with the votes of the Greens, Sen. Steve Fielding (family First) and independent Senator Nick Xenophon (South Australia). All of these negotiated changes, but it was Senator Xenophon's insistance on a separate package to benefit just one state that has tarnished Australian politics.

While the government had reached agreement with the Greens and Senator Fielding earlier, Nick Xenophon held out for more - he wanted more money brought forward for the Murray River, specifically for SA. This legislation was separate to the stimulus package, but Senator Xenophon has introduced US-style bargaining to Australian politics, and done so effectively. Remember the first US stimulus package was changed by the US Senate late 2008 from a 1-page bill to a bill of over 1000 pages, with an explosion in the $-amount. That happened because the US elections were very near, and every Tom, Dick, Harry wanted something extra that would help them be re-elected.

Notwithstanding the need, and existing legislation, to improve the Murray River, Senator Nick Xenophon has brought that style of US-politics to Australia. He, and others, refused to pass the legislation on its merits, and the obvious need for an economic stimulus, unless he got what he wanted - the package to be brought forward. Senator Xenophon gets something for HIS state, and for HIS press-releases: it was pork-barrelling at its most blatant and vulgar - .

For its part, the Opposition wanted tax cuts - to benefit those who still have jobs - to drip money into the economy; whereas the IMF had supported an upfront cash injection, followed by spending on infrastructure, with already scheduled tax cuts in July. It had decided it would not support the economic package no matter what, and became irrelevant - their vote would not change.

This week has seen the current Opposition become even less relevant, and Australian politics has been compromised some Senators. Both these demean our democracy.

John

Victoria's 2009 Firestorm

The Victorian firestorm has been going for a week; and its effects will be long-lasting. Saturday 7-Feb-2009 was the date tragedy sruck, and it has continued durng this week.

There are many stories and images of human angst, grief and anger. Some can be viewed at:

• http://www.abc.net.au/news/events/bushfires/stories.htm span>


• http://www.smh.com.au/national/more-than-1800-homes-lost-in-fires-as-bushfire-threat-continues-20090213-86kb.html


• http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/skins/timeline/index.html?id=1185

Those who have seen and heard the tragedy; those directly affected by the tragedy, including residents, those who lost family & friends, &/or property; those who stayed to fight the fires, police, SES, firefighters, and other volunteeers will be scarred for life - in the same way as war veterans.

The Australian Red Cross has indicated that the best way to help is to donate money to its appeal - that way money can be targeted to purchase the goods and services needed.

Currently you can donate to the Red Cross Victorian BushFire Appeal at: http://www.redcross.org.au/

John

Rudd's Second Economic Stimulus

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's second economic stimulus package, designed to either stop Australia falling into recession, or minimise its effects and duration, includes:

• cash handouts to most people, depending on income and whether a tax return was lodged for the 2007-08 financial year.
• an extra bonus for single-income and low-income families
• a cash bonus for farmers and small business affected by the drought
• cash handouts as a "training and learning" bonus
• infrastructure investment handouts to the states including for building works at "every public school", and public housing at least.
• $1600 rebate or grant for solar hot water or roof insulation (if there is none)

A big cash injection into the economy will help to kick-start it. The infrastructure spending will be more a sustained release pill for the economy. It seems a good package, although there could be more money for unemployed people and and those on very low incomes. There are tax cuts scheduled for 1-July from last year's budget.

So much for the economic proposal. What about the politics?

Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has derided the cash handouts, instead wanting tax cuts. Tax cuts have a trickle effect, and there is a real risk that some of them would be used to pay down debt, rather than be spent. The Liberal and National Coalition parties voted against the package in the lower house, and have said they will oppose it in the Senate. He might well have chosen tax cuts for a number of reasons:

• the Costello factor - he's still in Parliament, and still has support as a future Leader. Turnbull might still be wary of a Costello challenge. Indeed, Turnbull might have asked himself 'What would Costello do?' {His imaginary answer from Costello might have been: 'take 2 tax cuts, go away, and see me when the recession's over'}
• Turnbull's need to be different
• Tax cuts have previously been politically popular, even though they redistribute more wealth to the wealthy, or at least the better-off

For his part, Kevin Rudd has ensured that tax-payers will be reminded of the injection into schools and other infrastructure when the next election is called. Further, he can paint Turnbull as obstructionist - indeed Rudd said Mr Turnbull should "get out of the road" on multiple occasions during press conferences today.

The economic stimulus might be judged quite economically sound, but the underlying politics by the Government is very clever.

John

NSW ALP Image

Turnbull's 'Reds Under The Bed' Scare

Malcolm Turnbull will be checking for commies (communists) under the bed tonight. His return to the 1950's was confirmed with his statement that:

"The Prime Minister has been writing a 7,000 word treatise about political ideology in which he appears to be abandoning his claim to be an economic conservative and instead seems to be channelling Gough Whitlam, high taxes, big government and socialism.
It is amazing at this point Mr Rudd is seeking to go back to the failed days of big government, Gough Whitlam.
Older Australians like myself will shudder at the thought that Kevin Rudd is
channelling the Whitlam era in his latest treatise."

The treatise to which he refers is an article written by Prime Minister Rudd in which he espouses the need for greater world financial and economic regulation to prevent further recurrence of the current global financial crisis, which sees much of the world in recession. Certainly, some of the financial actions of the 1970's Whitlam government were questionable, but to suggest that Prime Minister Rudd is "channelling Whitlam" is just baseless political scare-mongering. Mr Turnbull wants instant tax cuts for Australians - always politically popular, but the World Bank has indicated that more rapid injections of funds are required. Tax cuts are already scheduled, anyway, from 1-July.

Australians might well shudder at the thought of Turnbull seeking political expediency over rational economic thought. Prudent financial regulations are the real reason why Australian banks do not need the same levels of financial assistance as the bailout of US and British banks and mortgage lenders. Those prudential and financial regulations are entirely consistent with conservative economic policies.

A thought for MrTurnbull: neo-liberalism's 'laissez-faire' economics are not economically conservative, and are not financially conservative. They are irresponsible because they quite blatantly allow for financial crises such as we now have.

John

Robertson's Ministerial Irony

John Robertson, former head of Unions NSW, was appointed to the NSW Legislative Council (Upper House) when Michael Costa retired. Mr Robertson had strenuously opposed the privatisation of NSW electricity, won, and watched as Michael Costa, having lost, retired from politics.

Yesterday (30-Jan-09) Mr Robertson was sworn in as Minister for Corrective Services, Minister for Public Sector Reform and Special Minister of State , after just 2 months in Parliament.

The irony of his appointment was that he will now be responsible for the privatisation of at least some of NSW gaols; and will almost certainly have disputes with some of his union mates in parts of the Public Service over privatisation and job cuts.

John

Israel, Hamas To Fall Short Of Objective

Originally posted 12-Jan-09 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Israel’s retaliative assault on Hamas has been going for 17 days, since 27 December 2008. Dr Muawiya Hassanein, the head of Gaza emergency services, says almost 900 people of Gaza have been killed, including more than 270 children. Some of those children died as Israel attacked clearly identified UN schools, whose GPS locations were known to Israeli commanders.

Israel stated its objective was to eliminate/destroy Hamas. This gives the Israeli military a chance to flex its muscle, particularly as its political leaders ignored requests from the UN and France for a peaceful resolution. The destruction of Hamas is a politically popular “ideal” among Israelis, but is unrealistic. Not even the partial genocide by Israel has been able to eliminate Hamas. Here we can branch into internal politics: Israel will have an election on 10 February 2009, brought about by Prime Minster Ehud Olmert as leader of the Kadima Party. His then Foreign Minister, Tzipi Livni, was unable to form a viable coalition government. There is much jockeying by various party leaders to be seen to be tough on Hamas, and the war certainly helps them. Hamas and Fatah are in limbo over how to manage the end of Mahmoud Abbas’s official term as President of the Palestinian National Authority (on 9 January)

There is justifiable international condemnation of the excessive response by Israel, and of the use of civilian areas for rocket launching by Hamas, but this war is about Israeli and Palestinian/Hamas politics, muscle-flexing, and religious & racial hatred by both sides. Israeli politicians will be looking to ‘ease-off’ and secure a tenuous, “victorious” peace before the elections in February. It will nevertheless have failed to achive its stated objective - the destruction of Hamas. For its part, Hamas will also have failed to achieve the destruction of Israel. Both sides have ignored UN resolutions, and approaches from France and Egypt.

The real tragedy surrounding the death of so many civilians and children, and the 3 Israeli civilians, is that no-one will be held accountable. No one!

John

PS This month (Jan-09) Israel said it would legislate to protect its politicians and military from any consequences of war crimes!

Take GitmoTerrorists - Bush

Originally posted 3-Jan-09 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

George W Bush, establisher of Guantanamo Bay (’Gitmo’) detention centre for suspected terrorists, has now asked Australia, and other countries, to take inmates, possibly terrorists, that he doesn’t know how to manage.

Acting PM Julia Gillard has said that Australia would formally consider requests on “a case by case basis”, but it is “unlikely” to take them. The former statement is diplomatic. The latter statement is designed to allay fears within, and backlash from, both the media and voters. It is unlikely that even former PM John Howard, often portrayed as President Bush’s foreign deputy and yes-man, would have agreed to the request. It is unlikely that the current Labor government would want to take any responsibility for the policies of the former Liberal Government.

The request form George W Bush has been made after the US elections, but before the inauguration of President-elect Barak Obama, who has promised to close Guantanamo Bay. President Bush says that many of the detainees can’t be returned to their homeland because they would be a danger (of treason, sedition or terrorist charges), yet Bush has not indicated that the US is prepared to take any of the people he detained. Today’s ‘The Australian’ (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24867414-601,00.html)newspaper) reports:

“Major General John Altenburg, formerly an appointing authority to the US military Commissions - the body that oversees the prosecution of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay - told The Weekend Australian that a significant number (30 or more) of former detainees had subsequently undertaken terrorist acts or had been recaptured on the battlefield. … it’s a fair comment to say, ‘we don’t want these people. Now we’ve got the burden of watching them and we don’t know whether they’re dangerous or not’ "

Yes, the US doesn’t want the detainees, doesn’t know how they’re going to monitor them, and Bush asks other countries to take them for him. His request seems to be driven by the usual tenet governing most US foreign policy - ‘what’s in our self-interest, and the self-interests of us politicians?’ It’s a tenet that might not be that unusual in international relations.

The problem for Australia, and other countries whose then leaders strongly supported Bush, and Guantanamo Bay, is that because of the support given by our then leaders, our countries also have some responsibility. Just what that is, and how we fulfil it, is a discussion we need to have.

John

Merry XMAS 2008

Originally posted 24-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Truepolitik wishes all people a Merry Christmas, and hopes that all people will work for a better world in 2009.

Truepolitik will return early in the new year.

John

Haneef Cleared, Andrews Thinks He Was

Originally posted 23-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au


An inquiry established by Kevin Rudd, and conducted by retired NSW judge John Clarke QC, has found no evidence to link Dr Mohamed Haneef to the attempted terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow which led to his arrest in July 2007. He is reported to be satisfied with the finding, and considering a claim for compensation.

Kevin Andrews, now a Federal Opposition MP, but then Immigration Minister in John Howard’s government, was cleared of making an “improper” decision. Nevertheless, John Clarke’s report says he was “mystified” about the basis of Mr Andrews’ decision. In his response, Mr Andrews said he acted in “the national interest”, and it was about “national security”. Consider the following:

• the inquiry found no sound basis for Mr Andrews’ decision to cancel Dr Haneef’s (working) visa, and to deport him.


• the phrases “national interest” and “national security” are NOT magic. They do not, and ought not, allow Ministers to use the phrases to make unfounded, or at the very least questionable, decisions. Their use by Mr Andrews is simply “spin” to justify his actions with the public, while avoiding any valid arguments to justify them.

Even if, as Mr Andrews claims, “The Australian people expected me to act”, that is not a justification for so doing! You would not want a doctor to use a particular treatment, just because ‘the patient expected me to do that’. That would not be evidence-based medicine. What Mr Andrews did was not evidence-based decision-making either.

Ministerial decisions need to be made on the basis of logic, reason, and verifiable evidence. Political advisers and media advisers (”spin doctors”) are too often a hindrance to that.


John

Turnbull To 'l'-Liberal For The Right

Originally posted 7-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Peter Costello has warmed a seat on the backbench since John Howard lost the Federal election in Dec 2007. He declined the position as Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party, & Leader of the Opposition. He had hoped to be offered a plum job outside politics, but the current international financial & economic crisis has closed many doors. Their motives could be: Costello to unseat Malcolm Turnbull; or some people are eying-off Costello’s very safe seat of Higgins.

Now the Melbourne Liberal “Establishment” want him to declare whether he will contest the next election. So to, do Wilson Tuckey and Tony Abbott, both of whom would like to unseat present Liberal, & Opposition, Leader, Malcolm Turnbull. Indeed, Wilson Tuckey is now suggesting that party-room votes on policy be secret votes. There is hypocrisy behind this. Firstly, he never dared suggest that under John Howard; secondly Howard used him occasionally to ensure Liberals openly voted as they should; thirdly, Tuckey knows that party-room votes should be open - from an organisational perspective.

Turnbull’s image among the likes of “ironbar” Tuckey and “mad monk” Abbott, and the Melbourne “establishment” are: he’s not “Establishment rich”, he’s neauveau riche; and he is seen as too ’small-l’ liberal. This ‘liberalism’ fits with (party founder, Sir Robert) Menzies’ views, but is an anathema to the extreme right of the Liberal Party, including Costello. Costello has previously admitted he would have made WorkChoices legislation more extreme. Julie Bishop, Tony Abbott, & Wilson Tuckey agree. Turnbull dropped the policy after the rout at the Federal election. Others do not want ‘liberalism’, or even economic reasonableness, to become or remain party policy. The far Right wants Turnbull to go.

They want the Liberal Party to return to the reactionary, pro-rich, White-Australia, anti-worker party it was under John Howard.

John

A Right Coalition Mess

Originally posted 7-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

This week was the last week of Federal Parliament for 2008. There was legislation to be passed, including legislation on infrastructure spending.

That is where the Liberal & National coalition parties in Opposition came a cropper. The Coalition had proposed amendments to the bill, ostensibly to increase accountability. However, late on Thursday 4-Dec, they came to the pragmatic conclusion that if the bill did not pass, then there would be significant detrimental effects on the economy; and, worse, that the government could rightly blame them for jeopardising the economy, and thousands of jobs. The Senate will not sit again until 3-February. Practical politics said they had to approve the bill, or risk both an economic and a public backlash.

Liberal, & Coalition, leader Malcolm Turnbull, set the policy - the bill would be supported. Rather than support the bill, as they’d been told, 2 Liberals voted against it, 5 voted as per party policy, and the rest (25 of them) abstained, by waiting just outside the Senate doors, which were open. The National Party senators voted against the bill, and against Coalition policy. Such a principled stand on amendments to increase Government accountability was something never seen from Coalition Senators while they were part of John Howard’s government!

At a press conference, Opposition Infrastructure spokesman, Andrew Robb, tried to blame the Government for the Coalition’s disarray, telling ABC reporter Sabra Lane “They wanted to shift the blame for their dithering and mismanagement onto the Coalition“. Doublespeak! The Government proposed the legislation; it wanted it passed; the Opposition delayed it by proposing amendments, and Andrew Robb thinks the Opposition’s disarray is all the government’s fault!

The fact is, the Opposition, and Liberal Party senators, in particular, chose to abandon whatever principles they thought they had, and opted for political expediency. While-ever the Liberal & National Parties blame everyone else, including “the government”, for their own internal ructions and rebellions, they will have no chance of being a viable opposition, let alone an alternative government.

John

Private Schools Just A Political Pawn

Originally posted 4-Dec-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au (without the images)


Yesterday, (3-Dec-08) Federal Education Minister, Julia Gillard, called on the Opposition to pass legislation in the Senate regarding funding for private schools in 2009. As with so much legislation now, from both the former Howard Government, and the current Rudd Government, the legislation is not free-standing. Embedded in much of Howard’s legislation, and now Rudd’s, is the sub-agenda. In this case, the funding is tied to delivery of a “new” national curriculum. The Liberal/National Opposition doesn’t like it, saying it lacks flexibility.


Yet in October 2006, then (Liberal) Education Minister Julie Bishop said: “We need to take school curriculum out of the hands of the ideologues in the state and territory education bureaucracies and give it to a national board of studies”. Again, in February 2007, Ms Bishop used an ACER report to ague for a national curriculum. In 2008, in Opposition as Shadow Treasurer, she opposes it.


Following publicly-reported statements from the head of the Independent Schools Council of Australia, Bill Daniels, and the National Catholic Education Commission’s chief, Bill Griffiths, the Opposition back-flipped, and allowed the Schools Assistance Bill to be passed.

It’s sad, really, that schools have become a political pawn for both sides: Labor to push through requirements for a national curriculum; and for the Opposition to use to try to score cheap political points, even abandoning their previous position to do so.

John

An Education Revolution

Originally posted 30-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

It’s been a busy time. I’ve been busy - so busy I haven’t had time to post recently. NSW Premier Nathan Rees has been busy slashing - there has been a min-budget for NSW; and Kevin Rudd has been busy - overseas and at home. He even missed a fundraising dinner to celebrate his first year in office, because of the terrorism in Mumbai, India. Yesterday came the feelgood press spin - sorry, “press release” - about the $15b for states over 4 years from the COAG meeting. NSW gets $5 billion, over 4 years, in particular for health and education. It includes Kevin Rudd’s promised “education revolution” for computer availability for students in Yrs 9-12.

NSW Premier Nathan Rees announced that the Department (of Education & Training) IT section had developed a 3/4 size laptop model for computers. It could be similar in concept to Asus Eee-PC’s. They are tough and light, and more than adequate for “office” application and Internet use by students. School students, though, will not like them - they will no good for the games they stereotypically like, and their specifications are not “cool”. Nathan Rees has promised wireless access for all public schools; and that students will be allowed to keep their laptops at the end of Yr 12 - for laptops such as I have described, it is likely that the recovery, preparation & sale would cost more than the likely return from sale.


An education revolution? Spin, more likely.

John

NSW Government Woes Continue

Originally posted 15-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au


Back in February, I wrote that NSW Labor was set to supernova. (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/02/nsw-labor-set-to-supernova.html) Their problems included: asset sales; corruption (at Wollongong, and potentially within the government); lack of investment in infrastructure; health, especially hospitals.

The only thing that has changed, with Nathan Rees as new Premier, is that the problems have grown. Premier Rees has had to sack several new Ministers, including Matt Brown and Tony Stewart for inappropriate behaviour. Tuesday’s mini-budget has divided Sydney north & south / Liberal & Labor seats, public transport gets another kick in the teeth, created voter and media backlash, and Nathan Rees’s own Labor politicians are bordering on revolt. Rees intends to sell NSW Lotteries, an income generating asset, and revelations of the political machinations of parachuting Reba Meagher into the seat of Cabramatta, within hours of then member John Newman’s assassination in 1994. All these reflect a party that is dysfunctional, driven by self-interest, controlled by Treasury officials reluctant to release 10-years’ worth of surplus, and with internal government and party fractures.

There appears no way for NSW Labor to win the next election in 2011.

Obama's Challenges

Originally posted 8-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au


The world is recovering from Barack Obama’s historic win as US President-elect. As the first black man elected to govern from the White House, and first Democratic President (to be) since Bill Clinton he carries the hopes and dreams of many of his citizens, and, indeed, of many in the world.
Euphoria is an emotion that lasts such a short time - and it’s hard landing when it wears off. Obama had sufficient wisdom to tell people this when he reminded them that the US still has a President, George W Bush, and will do, until his inauguration on 20 January 2009. He has also moved to hose down expectations of rapid change - has asked to be judged on his first 1000 days, not the usual 100 days.

His challenges include:

• the US economy, which has suffered the after effects of George Bush’s “laissez-faire” economic policies that verged on economic nihilism: there is no right or wrong, “the market” will fix itself. Of course, when the self-inflicted financial crisis hit, Wall St socialism became the philosophy of choice. President Bush was forced, basically, to pump public money into institutions which had based their financial decisions on “greed is good”, while abandoning financial prudence in their lending practices. As he did so, almost every Congress member and Senator due for election wanted money for their electorate, and the initial 3-page bill became more than 500 pages. Domestic financial and prudential reform will be a slow, difficult process, as will economic recovery.


• George W Bush’s wars, especially those in Iraq and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan, are unpopular. They are seen as unwinnable by many ordinary Americans, and their death toll on US service people are unacceptable to them. Bush’s advice that Iraq could become the USA’s next “Vietnam” - advice he ignored - is a popular perception. Determining if, when and how to withdraw will be a significant hurdle for Obama, and his military advisers.


• global warming is still an international issue, even though it’s been pushed off the news headlines.


• domestic health changes, including a universal health scheme were among his election policies. Many were ashamed when the world was shown images of aid organisations providing free medical and dental services in tents to US citizens in “middle America”; basic health services that ought to have been available to them.


• the political revolving door- political appointments and the relationship with (wealthy) lobbyists is something he will have to tackle earliest. If he doesn’t take measures before and immediately upon his inauguration, the gravy train will roll on, and on, and on.

Despite the expectations born of euphoria, Barack Obama’s performance will not be radical change, but will likely be measured, and slower than many expect. That’s as it should be.

Bali Bombers And The Death Penalty

Originally posted 1-Nov-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Much of Australia, & other parts of the world, awaits the impending execution of the Bali bombers. Amrozi, Mukhlas and Imam Samudra remain unrepentant for the 202 innocent people they killed by bomb in 2002. 88 of those were Australian.

Australia has maintined its fundamental opposition to the death penalty, and its policy of non-interference where Australians are not involved. Many Australians, particularly friends, family, community support the death penalty imposed on these three men.

The following arguments are used to justify a death penalty:

• deterrence: the concept that having such a severe penalty will make criminals think twice before acting.


• retribution: society’s version of “an eye for an eye”.

It is entirely possible that neither of these is justifiable. I suspect that few criminals consider the likely consequences of their actions. Retribution, or punishment, might satisfy society’s, and individuals’ need fo revenge. Revenge is a very human emotion, often driven by anger. But is an argument driven by heated emotion a valid reason to impose a death penalty?

Nevertheless, with certainty of guilt and extreme effects on society, punishment by death could still be acceptable to some. Others will include the need for “civilized” humanity & the sanctity of human life to argue against the death penalty. I believe that, in cases like this, it is reasonable to argue “death as a penalty”. See also: http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/teacher/c/about/arguments/contents.htm

So, what’s your position - death penalty or no?

NSW Nats Delusional

Originally posted 24-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

The NSW National Party is spinning its head over the recent by-election for the NSW seat of Port Macquarie. The Nationals’ Leslie Williams increased her vote by 14%, after the Independent, (& former National Party member) Rob Oakeshott quit, to run for Federal Parliament. Such a swing is common when personally popular Independents resign or retire from their seat. Christine Ferguson, from the NSW branch complained in a letter to the Sydney Morning Herald (Letters 24/10/08) that the Nats didn’t lose the seat, because they didn’t hold it. True. But they expected to win, and they didn’t win; so they lost. Don’t you love political word games!

Further exacerbating the Nationals’ glum mood was the fact that Liberal Alby Shultz, (Liberal member for the Federal seat of Hume) supported Peter Besseling as an Independent. He won; the Nats lost. Shultz also believes the Nats should be merged with the Liberal Party. Remember the Borg from Star Trek?
(Photo: http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating) “Resistance is Futile”: that’s how some in the Liberal Party view the proposed “merger”. NSW Nats Parliamentary leader Andrew Stoner had a hissy fit about Shultz, and wanted to “take him out the back and shoot him”. Stoner later tried to brush off the comment as a joke. Nats MLC Duncan Gay waded in with “he’s no longer a member of the Coalition” - Shultz will ignore it as the ranting, personal comment that it is.

In all, the National Party members are showing just how delusional and ineffective they are in NSW.

John

NSW Labor Savaged in By-Elections

Originally posted 3-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

The NSW Labor Government has been savaged by voters in four by-elections yesterday. Ryde, formerly held by John Watkins, is now held by the Liberal Party. Ryde and Cabramatta recorded swings of about 22%; and ex-Premier Morris Iemma’s seat of Lakemba recorded a swing of about 13% against Labor. The ALP did not contest the seat of Port Macquarie, but it has been taken by a new Independent, much to the disappointment of the National Party.

While the Labor Party has been sent a clear message about its unpopularity, Federally, the ALP, and Kevin Rudd, remain popular. the challenge for the NSW Labor Government, led by new Premier Nathan Rees, is to reverse the decline in infrastructure, promote public transport, restore adequate funding for NSW hospitals and schools, while managing a budget which will have declining income in the current economic climate.

The only sources of funds for him will be: the Federal Government’s promised early infrastructure funds, increased State taxes, and borrowing. All are likely to feature in November’s mini-budget. Nathan Rees just hopes that voters will be happy that the “message” has been sent in 2008, and not repeat it in the state election in 2011. So will Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.

John

NSW Needs More Than Federal Funding For Nurses

Originally posted 3-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

On 29-Sept-08, Prime Minister Rudd held a doorstop press conference at John Hunter Hospital, Newcastle (NSW). In it, he announced funding for an additional 1100 nurse training positions at Australian universities. That’s less than half of the 2600 applicants turned away in 2006. In NSW, Enrolled Nurse training will be changed under the recently-agreed award. EN’s are trained through TAFE and on-the-job training. Effectively NSW will train fewer nurses (EN’s), and some of that will be picked up by the announced federal funding of RN places. “For the future of our hospital system, we’ve got to make sure that we are training enough qualified nurses“, Mr Rudd said.

But there are other points to consider:

• Training is one thing, but there is no extra funding for more full-time positions in hospitals. Mr Rudd would argue that that is a State matter, and it is, but it is also part of the problem. Unless the States have, or find, more money to fund employment positions, training more nurses will result in more part-time positions shared by more nurses who will work fewer hours.
• The shortage is not just that there are no nurses, but in retaining existing nurses, and encouraging the return of those who have left. The poor image of some of NSW’s major hospitals is an impediment, and will only be corrected by significant investment in new infrastructure; new, or updated equipment; and staffing. Here, we are paying for sins of the past 13 years of Labor Governments in NSW. The current Government’s budget position is, at best, tenuous.
• There is still a set of divided responsibilities between Federal & State governments. Health care might need a plan for a controlled Federal takeover of all health funding, with States delivering the services.

The accelerated $20 billion Federal funding for infrastructure, agreed to at the Perth COAG meeting, will help. States need to commit to recurrent funding for staff & equipment, too, and that’s a problem!

John

Farmer Wants ... A New Seat

Originally posted 28-Sep-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Pat Farmer is looking to quit Federal Parliament just 11 months after being re-elected by just 11 votes after preferences. He would be the fourth ex-Howard (Lib-Nat) Minister to resign after losing government in November 2007. He was recruited by John Howard for the Federal seat of Macarthur, centred on Campbelltown, near Sydney. There was considerable voter disenchantment with his decision to stop living in the electorate and move to the affluent North Shore of Sydney.

He is quoted in NSW Sunday papers as believing that he can’t do anything for his constituents by sitting on Opposition. He says he needs new challenges: that just happens to include looking at standing for the Liberal Party at the next NSW election – an election the Libs are expecting to be able to win. Oh – that would put Farmer back as member of a government. (image from smh.com.au)

The concept that Parliamentarians can only serve their constituents as member of a government, and especially from the front bench, like Farmer, is an anathema to democracy: it implies that only government members can do things – possibly including “special” government funding or promises at or near election time (‘electoral bribes’ in most people’s minds)

His proposed resignation, and the other three, is a good argument for politicians and political parties having to repay public money from the Electoral Commission when they resign after losing government. Sadly, no government in Australia would introduce such ethical legislation: self-interest will prevent it, to their shame. If politicians are not prepared to serve as backbenchers, and in Opposition, they should not stand for election.

John

Rudd Canes Rees Over Economy

Originally posted 12-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has given a verbal slap to his Labor colleague, NSW Premier Nathan Rees. Mr Rudd has committed to pumping more than $10 Billion into the economy, including cash handouts to some just before Christmas. He knows it’s a short-term band-aid, but that it will mostly be spent over Christmas, helping to sustain at least the retail sector.

Nathan Rees, as Premier of NSW, is planning to significantly cut State expenditure in a mini-budget expected next week. Mr Rudd, is reported in the Sun-Herald to have said:

“On the state of NSW, I will say it in loud and clear terms: the Government
of NSW has to radically lift its game. … It is necessary not just for the people
of NSW but for the national economy.”

A significant reduction in NSW Government spending will only exacerbate the NSW economy, and therefore the national economy. What Mr Rudd didn’t say, and I will, is that:

• NSW has had 12 successive budget surpluses, totalling more than $4 Billion. The money has been closeted in NSW Treasury.
• While some of the surpluses were used to slightly reduce NSW net debt, it is entirely appropriate for NSW to draw down some of those surpluses, or even to borrow, to support the NSW budget over the next 2 fiscal years.

Such use will doubtless upset some Treasury officials - those who are economic rationalists who believe the money belongs to Treasury. It doesn’t, it belongs to the people of NSW, and the NSW Government ought to use it appropriately during economic slowdowns such as this.


NSW has also asked the Federal Government for $Billions to help fund infrastructure programs. Assuming it receives some extra Federal grants, Nathan Rees has an opportunity to use some of Treasury’s reserves, and Federal Government money, to benefit the people of NSW.

That would beat any glossy press release, or press conference full of image and no substance. It would also be a nice change.

John

Rudd Trumps Turnbull On Deposits

Originally posted 12-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au


Prime Minister Kevin Rudd today announced that the Australian Government is guaranteeing all deposits in Australian banks, credit unions and building societies for 3 years. Reports value this guarantee at about A$700 Billion. The guarantee is irrespective of the size of individual deposits.

Financially, this guarantee will help ensure that financial institutions continue to have a significant deposit base, desirable from a prudential perspective; that they can continue to meet the prudential regulations, and can lend to each other with more confidence. This inter-bank lending is important for fiancial institutions - it enables them to continue to lend to customers - and will help to maintain the economy.

The politics of this are:

• Other governments, including the USA, Britain, European countries, and Iceland have already made similar guarantees. It ensures that Australian deposits will remain in Australia.
• Last week, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull was spruiking “his” idea of guarantees on bank deposits up to A$100,000. From a a free-market investment banker, it was pure political populism. Kevin Rudd’s proposal means that he has not only trumped the Opposition by including credit unions and building societies; but also ensures that he cannot be out-trumped on the $-amount. Late this afternoon, Mr Turnbull said that “Mr Rudd and I are very much of the one mind on these measures“. This is just a “me, too” statement: he knows Kevin Rudd out-flanked him on this issue, and doesn’t want to be left behind.
• Prime Minister Rudd is also seen to be taking decisive action to protect Australians’ savings.

All in all, this deposit guarantee is a good move for financial institutions, with a side serving of political advantage for Kevin Rudd.

John

Banks, CEO's And Politicians

Originally posted 7-Oct-2008 at truepolitik.myperspective.org.au

Today (7-Oct) the RBA lowered the Australian cash rate by 1%. Late today, the 4 main banks indicated they would lower interest rates by 0.8%. The main focus of the media, and politicians, has been on mortgage interest rates. It remains to be sen whether the banks lower personal loan rates, and especially credit card interest rates. The Australian Stock exchange finished higher, rising rapidly after the announcement.

Meanwhile the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan have been rather defensive of how much of the rate cut should/could be passed on by the banks, but still roll out the spin about “working families” and “good for business” - they could be Howard clones! The Oppsition, led by Malcolm Turnbull and Shadow Treasurer Julie Bishop can indulge in populist press releases calling for the “full interest rate cut” to be passed on to consumers. They don’t have to be responsible, and seem willing to abandon economic responsibility for a quick, populist, tabloid headline. Labor also did as much when in Opposition.

Australia’s “big-four” banks - CBA, NAB, Westpac & ANZ - are 4 of the 18 worldwide banks that have a AA credit rating. They have good market capitalisation & deposits, and so are well-placed to weather the global financial crisis. But they are not immune, and yet Malcolm Turnbull has called on the banks’ CEO’s to justify why they won’t pass on the full rate cut. As a former investment banker, he knows that is an unreasonable request, and that the banks and the Government can be painted as the “bad boys” when they don’t. Financial journalists, of course, have better understanding and report that banks have had to pay 0.75% more for money in the last 3-4 weeks - banks don’t want to lend to each other, or can’t because of they are overseas banks in parlous circumstances. They have previously been lending to Australian consumers at full rates money that they borrowed from overseas at minimal rates.

Don’t feel too much sympathy, though. They recorded record profits this year, except for the ANZ, which recorded a loss after writing down subprime securities, and they increased rates by 0.5% or more than the rises from the Reserve Bank. Thy will still make a significant profit, and their CEO’s will still put out their hands for a substantial bonus!

John

Truepolitik is Back

Truepolitik has returned to its home - here at http://truepolitik.blogspot.com

Pages that were posted at myperspective.org.au are re-posted after this past.

Welcome Back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

John
:)

Truepolitik Is Moving

Truepolitik is moving .... to http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik

The most recent posts include:

• Obama's Challenges: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik/?p=17
  
• Bali Bombers and the Death Penalty http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik/?p=15
  
  John

Turnbull Just A New Image

Malcolm Turnbull’s ascension to the Liberal Party throne – Ok, Opposition Leader – was quicker than he had initially planned.
...
Turnbull has already said that he doesn’t intend to change policies, including those set by former leader Brendan Nelson. So the only change is a change of image. The substance, the policies and characters tarnished by Howard’s insistence on blind loyalty to him remain. The Liberal Party has changed leader, but it is still lost in the desert.

John
I will be shortly moving my blog to: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik
For the Full Text of this posting see my new page at:
http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik/?p=6

Reba, Reba Where Ya Goin' To?

Yesterday, after handing out how-to-vote leaflets for NSW Council elections, Reba Meagher announced her resignation from the NSW Parliament. She would have been dumped from new NSW Premier Nathan Rees's ministry, but resigned first.

After resigning as Minister for Health, she indicated she had always acted in the interests of "the (Labor) Party". She was elected, as a party-parachuted candidate, for the seat of Cabramatta, in west/south-west Sydney, in 1996. She has held Ministerial positions in Fair Trading, Community Services, Aboriginal Affairs, and Health. Health, especially Public Hospitals, has been beset by myriad problems, including embarrassing deaths at RNS. She will retire with a Parliamentary pension of about $130,000 - about 3 times the average annual income of her constituents.

The following lyrics should be sung to The Monkees' son 'Mary, Mary'.
(with apologies to Mike Nesmith and The Monkees)

Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, Reba, is it Coogee?
This one thing we know ‘bout ya
We will live better, without ya
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?

Reba, Reba, tell us truly
What did we do to make ya leave us?
Whatever it was, it wasn’t us
You knew from “The Party”, ya had to go
Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?

Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
Reba, it’s not Cabramatta
Reba, Reba, Reba, Reba, Reba, where you goin' to?
[Repeat adlib]

John

[This post is also available at http://truepolitik.myperspective.org.au ]

Rees Gets His Way

Morris Iemma had told his Right wing faction that it (the cabinet reshuffle) was his way, or no way. "No way!' said the faction, and Morris resigned.

Enter newly-elected Premier of NSW, Nathan Rees. He gets his way, and both Reba Meagher and Frank Sartor are left out of cabinet! "Cranky Frankie" issued a press statement saying that dumping him was a mistake - a political tantrum.

The irony of Reba Meagher's omission is that she had reportedly called Morris Iemma at 6am Friday to tell him she was not resigning, and still wanted her job in cabinet. She then went to right-wing power-broker Eddie Obeid, and this helped precipitate the events that led to Iemma's resignation, Nathan Rees's election as Premier, and Meagher's dumping from cabinet.

Both Morris Iemma, at his press conference on Friday, and Reba Meagher, in her press release last night, said that they had always put "the interests of the party" first. In saying that, they are reminding "the party" that they are available for other appointments; now, or in the future!

And that, dear reader, is the single biggest issue with our politicians: - "the party" and their political careers, are more important than the interests of the people.

John

Postscript - The new ministry, announced on Mon 8/9/08, is:
Premier, & Arts: Nathan Rees
Deputy Premier, Commerce, Climate Change & Environment: Carmel Tebbutt
Attorney-General: John Hatzistergos
Transport: David Campbell
Education & Training, Women: Verity Firth
Planning & Redfern: Kristina Keneally
Health: John Della Bosca
Roads: Michael Daley
Roads & Waterways, Regulatory Reform, Finance & Infrastructure: Joe Tripodi
Police: Mat Brown
Housing: David Borger
Water, Rural Affairs and Regional Development: Philip Costa
Industrial relations, Emergency Services, Land: Tony Kelly
Tourism, the Hunter: Jodie McKay
Aboriginal Affairs, Ageing and Disability Services: Paul Lynch
Small Business, Science and Medical Research, Assistant Health Minister (Cancer): Tony Stewart
Community Services: Linda Burney
Primary Industries, Energy and Mineral Resources, State Development: Ian Macdonald
Gaming and Racing, and Sport and Recreation: Kevin Greene
Juvenile Justice, Youth, and Volunteering: Graham West
Local Government, Assistant Health Minister (Mental Health): Barbara Perry
Fair Trading, Citizenship, Assistant Arts Minister: Virginia Judge

(this post is mirrored at: http://blogs.myperspective.org.au/truepolitik )

NSW Labor Supernova

In February, (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/02/nsw-labor-set-to-supernova.html), I wrote that the NSW Labor Government, led my Morris Iemma, was set to supernova. (other media use the term 'implode') Then, the main issue was corruption; in, and outside, Wollongong City Council. I raised other issues, including incompetent project management, the proposed privatisation of electricity, and incompetent Health Minister (Reba Meagher).

In July, (http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008/07/nsw-in-need-of-new-ministers.html), I wrote that NSW needed new ministers, and that at least the following should go: Morris Iemma, Michael Costa, Reba Meagher, Frank Sartor, David Campbell, Joe tripodi & Graeme West; and that NSW had become a dictatorship (under Morris Iemma and Michael Costa).

I August, ( http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2008_08_01_archive.html), I suggested that the embarrassment that ensued when Morris Iemma's early recall of Parliament backfired, and it became obvious that Parliament would not allow the privatisation of electricity, was "unsustainable".

Yesterday, 5-Sept, that supernova occurred. The Right faction would not allow Morris Iemma to dump Reba Meagher, & others, in a cabinet reshuffle. The opportunity occurred because of the sudden resignation of his Deputy Premier John Watkins on Tuesday. Certainly the NSW Labor Party executive had a hand in the behind-the-scenes politicking, given Morris Iemma's defiant stance against party policy over electricity. Morris Iemma's own Right faction withdrew support for him, because he wouldn't accept their (suggested) cabinet. Iemma resigned, rather than suffer a Party-room bloodbath. Like Costa, he has indicated he will resign from parliament, too.

Meanwhile Michael Costa held a 25-minute press conference, essentially to say that only he could have made the tough budget decisions; and unloading bucketsful about the state of NSW's finances / budget.

So NSW has a new Premier, Nathan Rees, and Deputy Premier, Carmel Tebbutt, both of whom are from Left-wing factions. The new Cabinet will likely be announced today, after a full caucus meeting. The supernova has, as with stars, been slow to build, but quick and brutal in its effects. The Right faction's grip on Parliamentary power, in Leadership and behind the scenes, seems to be broken. You could only shed crocodile tears for right-wing power-brokers Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid.

John

Carmel Resurrected For NSW Labor

Carmel Tebbutt, the former NSW Education Minister, is set to become the new Deputy Premier. The sudden resignation of her left-faction colleague, John Watkins, left a hole to be filled. John Watkins was seen as the "nice guy" - he was Education Minister for a short time, charged with calming troubled waters. He has, however, been unable to successfully master union control within the NSW Transport portfolio, especially the railways.

Carmel Tebbutt is "good news" for Premier Morris Iemma - she is seen as hard-working, a mother who put her young family ahead of her career as a Minister for more than twelve months. Caucus will approve her appointment tomorrow, following her left faction colleagues voting to support her.

Morris Iemma will also announce his "new" reshuffled ministry. If Reba Meagher, Frank Sartor, Michael Costa and John Della Bosca stay, it will be like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic! The last 3 of those WILL stay, and Costa will stay as Treasurer, party bully, and scourge of infrastructure investment - Iemma needs their influence and followers to stay, so they will remain, although not necessarily where they are. Reba Meagher is not only unpopular with voters as Health Minister, but is seen as incompetent: she will be lucky if she is moved to an outer Ministry, and not dumped to the backbenches. There is a growing perception that Sartor approves developments that suit donors to the ALP, and which are contrary to his senior Departmental Officer's advice.

Media report suggest Ms Tebbutt is being groomed to take over as Premier. Morris Iemma is unpopular, and seen as ineffective, by voters; unpopular with NSW ALP Executive; and Labor MP's and MLC's because of his defiant stance over the "sale" of NSW electricity assets.

In 2009, Iemma will have served long enough to qualify for extra "retirement benefits" as a long-serving Premier. These include an office; staff; and car. It would be an opportune time for him to stand down, giving Carmel Tebbutt 15-18 months to establish her image before the next election. Cynical? Probably, but that's the reality of how politicians work for their own interests.

John