In Search of a Moral Compass 2

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

Gillard Defends Carbon Tax

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

Carbon Tax Debate Hijacked

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

Libs New Plan To 'Stop the Boats'

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)

Political Spin & Image

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

Happy New Year: What I hope For

WOW! Sydney's fireworks are still the best!! Awesome! You can see some images of NYE from around the world at:

• http://media.smh.com.au/decade-starts-with-a-bang-1007483.html
  
• http://au.news.yahoo.com/video/national

It was great, but it is a moment in time. A moment where people forget their troubles, express their good wishes to others, and enjoy themselves.

Today, after the party hangover clears, brings a new reality. What do I want for this year? What are my "new year resolutions"? Mine is simple: I resolve to help our politicians develop better public policies - policies that are in the best interests of Australia, rather than political self-interest, or the interests of "the Party". Some examples of public policy that need a re-think:

• Hospital / health management: How much, if any, should the Federal Government manage? It is undoubtedly in the best interests of Australia's people that the Federal Government be responsible. State politicians are reluctant to hand over anything - it would affect their budget, the size of government, and the number of Ministers drawing Ministerial salaries. The Federal Government knows it's a dog's breakfast, and will cost more to fix than the savings retrieved from the states & territories. Political self-interest is impeding good policy.
• Climate Change: political half-truths & mis-truths are being used to protect the interests of large political donors,and to propagate populist (but largely incorrect) fears. IT is in human nature to try to control our environment, that's why we build houses, so why would politicians not try to control climate change to benefit people? The cynical, but correct, answer is political self-interest, or the financial interests of the political party.
• Refugees: The release of Cabinet papers from 30 years ago show that our politicians, especially those from the Liberal & National Parties have learnt nothing. They still popularise xenophobic ideas, and seek political opportunism at the expense of good policy. Liberal Party and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's pronouncement that he would simply turn away boatloads of refugees knowing that they would likely sink and drown, is the latest example of bad policy for political expedience. The Federal Government politicians are little better - they seek to placate populist public opinions, and the Opposition, for their own benefit, rather than deal properly with a difficult issue.

Happy New Year for 2010 - now, go to work on our political leaders and local members.

:)
John

Nuclear Poll Reporting

TOday's media are reporting on a Herald/AC Nielson poll about nuclear power. Headlines scream with "More Aussies back nuclear power: Poll" (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/more-aussies-back-nuclear-power-poll-20091013-gu7r.html), "People open to nuclear power: Carr" (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/13/2712317.htm?site=news), and "Australians embracing vision for fission" (http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=382271)

The stories go on to report that 49% of (surveyed) Australians "said nuclear power should be considered for Australia's future energy needs, while 43 per cent were completely opposed" (SMH) Former NSW Premier Bob Carr was reported by the ABC as saying "There is a shift. People are more open to it again because they can see the damage that carbon dioxide is doing".

There are some problems with reporting on surveys, on-line polls, and market research. Foremost among them is that the media do NOT report that the numbers aren't definitive: they come with an error margin eg ± 3%, or ±5%. The second is that some people who volunteer, or are asked for, comment might have an agenda that is unreported. Bob Carr, for example, is paid by a company that invests in infrastructure. That company might have an interest in building a future nuclear power plant. There is no suggestion that Mr Carr was acting for any other entity when making his comments. Rather, the reporting illustrates that the interests and agendas of commentators are rarely reported. Thirdly, were respondents aware that the best places to put nuclear power plants in Australia is in coastal areas where there is an abundance of seawater for cooling; and close to existing transmission lines? Perhaps Bob Carr is happy to have a nuclear plant near Maroubra? ooooh, (shudder), I can feel the rage in the NIMBY response! In reality, parts of the less inhabited coastlines of SA and WA are more likely places.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was quick to dismiss the building of nuclear power plants in Australia, saying it was, and is still, ALP policy. He then passed the parcel, challenging the Opposition to have a position, reminding everyone that former PM John Howard wanted Australia to have nuclear power plants. It really was a political "hospital pass", knowing that the Liberal party is deeply divided on environmental and climate issues.

Be a bit wary of reports on polls and surveys: the numbers are not definitive, as implied in the reports, and some commentators might have hidden interests. With news, as with advertizing, it pays to be "buyer beware"!

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

Open Letter to Democratic Leaders

Following is a (generic) copy of a letter I have sent to both the Prime Minister, Mr Howard (leader of a conservative Liberal/National Party government) and the Premier of NSW, Mr Iemma (leader of a Labor government). I believe it speaks for itself.

The Analyst

---

Today, 1-July-2007, I visited Old Parliament House in Canberra for the first time in about 3 years. I refreshed my memory about its importance, history and traditions, while I read the "self-guided tour" pamphlet.

It describes King's Hall as "the heart of the House, symbolising the openness of our parliamentary democracy..." I nearly choked!

Prime Minister/Premier, over successive governments, both Labor and Liberal, the openness of our democracy has declined, almost to the point of being meaningless.

Consider, please, the following:
1) the FOI laws: their intent was to make government and bureaucratic decisions more available for scrutiny in the public interest. ie the "openness of our democracy". They have, instead, become a means for governments to obfuscate and hide behind public servants whose only mission is to "do as they are told" (a response from your government to recent 'whistle blower' legal pursuits, including journalists.

2) the degradation, almost to non-existence, of Ministerial accountability and
responsibility to Parliament; and to the Australian people.

3) the abuse of Question Time, mostly to have compliant Party members ask trivial questions, the purpose of which is to give Ministers a springboard to gloating &/or abuse of Opposition members. Often, valid questions form non-government members are answered with "I don't recall" / "I haven't been told.." / "I'll get back to the member". Some of these are questions on notice, and it behoves Ministers to answer them, in Parliament, on record.

Prime Minister/Premier, these are serious problems. King's Hall no longer symbolises our democracy. What we have is an insidious, evil cancer. I ask you to take action to address each of the above problems, so that our democracy can be restored to the highest world standards: standards it once held.

Yours, as a voter
(etc)

The Analyst

PostScript (03-07-2007)
The Sydney Morning Herald of 3-July-2007 carries a story about the Federal Government denying a Freedon Of Information (FOI) request for public opinion surveys performed for the Federal Government, paid for by us taxpayers, but which we are not allowed to see (at least till after the upcoming election!)
( http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/government-refuses-to-let-public-see-survey-results-on-ads/2007/07/02/1183351125216.html )

The Dept of Workplace Relations (WorkChoices) said

• the information was not inthe public interest! (Rubbish! Ted Cole, Principal Adviser means it's not in the interests of the Government)
• Mr Cole also indicated that "they" (the voting public) would not cope with the "outdated" results. Poppycock! We voters can make up our own minds, thank you)
• Matthew Moore, FOI Editor for teh SMH said "A final reason offered suggests the Government believes it can withhold survey results indefinitely as long as it plans to update the results in the future." But that doesn't mean we voters aren't entitled to know, under the intention and letter of the FOI legislation.

Labor's Bad Week

Last week the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, had a bad week. a really baaaad week.

1. It was reported that his wife's, Therese Rein's, business placement agency (YES) not only had individual contracts (not AWA's), but had also underpaid staff. It turns out the underpayments were "discovered" in Dec 06-Jan-07, and were "being fixed" for both current and former employees.
   
   She had acquired the business in late 2006 and had reportedly been told by the previous owner that the contracts were legal.
   
   It might well be that there are other employers who have relied on previous owners or industry associations that are in the same position. Employers ought not rely on them, but should employ their own lawyers. Small business owners, though, are in the same boat as employees - they can't afford it.
   
   
2. Then, in an attempt to defuse the issue, Mr Rudd made the valid point about about women, including wives, having their own business/work life. However, he used the unfortunate expression that such women were not an "appendage of middle-aged men". Oh, dear! Rightly, many commented that neither are those who choose to stay at home, raise children, and have their on life that doesn't include work.

It wasn't a good week for the Labor leader, but Mr Rudd did the only thing one could do: admit embarrassment, say sorry and cop it on the chin.

The Analyst