Haneef - High Farce of Politics

The case of accused terrorist Dr Mohamed Haneef just keeps twisting.

Last week, the media revealed

• his phone SIM card was not found in the car used in a terrorist act in Britain, but was found nearly more than 300 km away, 8 hours later.
• the prosecution case against Haneef relied heavily on, and the Magistrate was told, his SIM card was in the car
• none of The AFP, the Prosecutor's office, or the politicians were willing to correct the mistake
• within hours of bail being granted, and before it could be posted, the politicians intervened and used the Minister's "discretion" to revoke his visa and put him in detention. The migration Act makes it clear that natural justice is not a requirement of Ministerial discretion.
  
• significant differences between what the prosecution alleged Haneef said in his interview, and what he did actually say.

The last piece of information has resulted in law societies, barristers, Senior Counsel, and former judges commenting that the case against Dr Haneef has effectively collapsed. The whole shebang is farcical.

Further, the government's response to the leaking of Dr Haneef's interview transcript was typical of John Howard's government:

• if there's a problem, shoot the messenger. An assortment of Government Ministers criticised the barrister who leaked the interview transcript.
• if there's a problem, it's not OUR problem: the same Ministers refused to give further advice, referring questions to the AFP

With respect to the Minister's decision to detain Dr Haneef, the government's operation is:

• pick a position that is politically expedient
• even when they know it's wrong; the media report it's wrong; and the voting public know it's wrong, defend it to the death. Even though it's wrong.

That's how they operate.

Today, given the almost certain collapse of the charge against Dr Haneef, someone has "leaked" to the media that Dr Haneef was possibly learning to fly and had pictures of Brisbane buildings. The voting public will think, and surely be reminded of the events of 9/11. The politics of fear has John Howard written all over it.


John

The Ties That Bind

Yesterday (Saturday, 21-July), a baby was buried in Perth, Western Australia. The baby was found last month, in a plastic bag, inside a woman's handbag, at a recycling centre. No cause of death has been determined, and he and his mother are unidentified.

The funeral was reportedly attended by more than 100 people. "Luke" as people from the funeral company called him, could not be officially named, but was buried in a white coffin, in a grave marked by a donated monumental headstone. A service was conducted, and donated white doves were released to mark his passing.

This show of humanity, decency, and love for others can only strengthen "the ties that bind us" - the very fabric our our society: the common decency we should all show, every day, to everyone.

John

Costello Leadership on the Rocks

Revelations that Peter Costello had less-than-complimentary comments about John Howard, to be published in a political biography of Howard could mean the end of Peter Costello's aspirations to lead the Federal Liberal Party.

In the biography, Peter Costello:
questions the competence of John Howard as Treasurer (in Malcolm Fraser's government). During that time official interest rates rose from 10% to 21%.
said that John Howard could have, but didn't, push the Campell Inquiry reccommendation to deregulate the financial industry.
own he felt that John Howard made a firm commitment to hand over the leadership to him (Costello). John Howard's wife, Janette, made puiblic statements saying that Howard would not have done so.
regretted that he, as Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, and his wife, had never been invited by the Howards to dinner (except for official functions)

The degree of damage done to Costello's leadership aspirations remains to be seen. But the Opposition is making much of it; and the media loves a scandal/hate-hate relationship scandal. Peter Costello's leadership ambitions could be terminal.

John

John Howard - Political Control of Voters

Since leading the Liberal/National Parties to power in the 1996 Federal election, John Howard has concentrated his own political power with the government; and has led his coalition to successive electoral victories in 1998, 2001 and 2004.

He has done this by:

• controlling his ministers: they do not generally say anything, or do anything without John Howard (or his office's) approval. If they make a mistake, they are quickly corrected, and issue a media correction, to make sure everyone knows what they meant to say.
• increasing the powers of his bidders in the Dept of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and in the Office of the Prime Minister. Indeed when members of his government become Minsters, they are usually given a “minder” from one of those two offices. The minder keeps the new Minister in check, and reports to John Howard.
• Parliamentary accountability, let alone responsibility, has diminished. No Prime Minister wants to have the embarrassment of Ministers seen to be in trouble. 1997 was a bad year for his government, and he has worked to avoid accountability since. After taking control of the Senate, he set about to eliminate Senate Committees he did not control, and which might lead to embarrassment.
• He has reneged on policy announced in election campaigns: they were “non-core” promises, he said.
• He has, at every election since 1998, found something to scare voters, or at least manipulate their minds, so that they vote for him. We’ve had children overboard, Tampa, migration, interest rates, Latham: they have all worked for John Howard.

This year, nothing seems to be working: takeover of aboriginal communities, interest rates don’t mean much compared to housing affordability. “Haneef as terrorist” has had a small positive impact in the polls (about 3% swing to the Government), but that was before news of the debacle about the case, and increasing voter concern about Ministerial intervention. Then there is the release of his political biography, with all its detail of dislike between him and Peter Costello, Costello’s belief that he was shafted by John Howard not honouring a commitment to his (Costello) becoming leader and PM, Costello’s poor view of Howard’s time as Treasurer, and his rampant election spending.

John Howard seems to be struggling to find something, *anything*, to make the voters like him. He seems to be losing political control of voters.

John

John Howard - Leader

:)

John

Howard-Costello Relationship

There has already been much written about Peter Costello's comments about John Howard in a soon-to-be-released political biography of Prime Minister John Howard.

In the book current Treasurer Peter Costello:

• is critical of John Howard's election spending ($6 BILLION, during the election campaign in 2004)
  
• lets it be known that he and his wife have never been invited to a private dinner with the Howards, at either the Lodge (Canberra), or Kirribilli House (Sydney). Early in his Prime Ministership John Howard decided he would not reside at the official residence in Canberra, but at Kirribilli House, restored in the 1950s for visiting dignitaries of the Commonwealth.
• that a memo from Shane Stone, then Liberal Party President, that criticised Peter Costello was leaked from John Howard's office, because that is the only place it was sent.
• is critical of John Howard as Treasurer (when Malcolm Fraser was PM), saying he did nothing for economic reform as Treasurer; and oversaw high (11%+) interest rates

Today, both men tried to banish the issue, and put on "he's a great leader/treasurer/great working with him/best we ever had" spin. But it looks and sound just like , well ... "spin."

Many will form the opinion that John Howard kept Peter Costello in his box and let him out only occasionally to speak on matters economic, budgetary, to snipe at the Opposition in Parliament, or to say what a "good fellow is John Howard". Now, if we believe the polls, John Howard will lead the Liberal - National Party government to defeat, and deny Peter Costello his chance to be Prime Minister, at least for the next 3 years.

And yes, voters do seem to be becoming tired of John Howard's fear politics; the poor record of his social policies; WorkChoices; housing affordability; even the government's actions to retain control of fear politics. Peter Costello could have reason to feel piqued, even if he doesn't show it now.

John

Haneef Interview and Politicians

The release of Dr Mohamed Haneef's interview with police, as admitted by his barrister, has caused a flurry of activity and comment from our politicians. His barrister, Stephen Keim, said it was within his legal right to release the document. A copy must be provided by the police to the person interviewed: it seem logical that the copy is his. Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock, and Prime Minister John Howard both made comment on the issue, Ruddock conceding it was not illegal to release the transcript.

However, Mr Rudduck had two further responses:

• that the government might respond by delaying the trial, keeping Haneef in detention longer; and
• saying words to the effect that "the government might have to give advice to the courts about how to interpret the law."

Whoa! Back up there: Australia's democracy recognises the principle of the separation of powers. That is, executive government (Cabinet) should set policy and draft laws; parliament passes legislation, which is approved by the Governor-General (Governor, at state level), and laws are administered/enforced by the judiciary. It is inappropriate and unethical for politicians, let alone the Attorney-General, to suggest that *they* should tell the judiciary what to do.

It is a measure of the government's attempt to retain political control and exert their own, inappropriate, influence over the courts and the case. This case is now all about the federal government's politics. The politics they've run at previous elections: the politics of fear. It remains to be seen if it will help them in the polls - it hasn't so far.

John

NSW Govt Weighs in on RailCorp Culture

Morris Iemma probably wishes he was still on holidays. He returns to work on Sunday, usually a quiet day, and has to deal with a multitude of problems with Railcorp. Problems with management; problems with unions; problems with maintenance; problems with voters; and pesky reporters asking awkward questions.

His response:
"Enough is enough - taking pot shots, blaming each other...
I make the point - the war's gone on for too long and it is time for reform and change...
Those that don't want to go along with reform will get left behind."

Close enough to a politician's dummy-spit. NSW Liberal Opposition Leader rightly said "there is no time frame, there is no real preparedness to set deadlines for the union and management to meet." Well ... no. Morris Iemma is still working out which of his antagonists to deal with first:

• Railcorp management: allegedly abrasive; allegedly working nights and weekends to rake in the penalty rates; and ready to blame the unions.
• Unions: resistant to change, with a history of sometimes poor work practices; and antagonistic towards management, just because it's management.
• Treasurer Michael Costa, whose response to possible government accountability and responsibility was to suggest selling the maintenance section so that the government can avoid blame. As an aside, the money could be used to show a nice budget surplus. Wouldn't he like to brag about that!

Let me help clarify the steps to finding a possible solution:

• Develop a public transport plan. Yes, I know the current plan is to build more private roads, with tolls going to private companies, but public transport IS important, does need financial support, and does need a cohesive public transport plan.
• You need to bring the interested parties together. Use neutral ground. Set an agenda and distribute it before the meeting. Invite people who are willing to work to improve the culture in Railcorp
• Forget blaming: it is counter-productive.
• Investigate and adopt appropriate ISO quality standards.
• Accept that governments providing a service expect to not make a profit.
• If you have no one working for the government who is competent at helping people find and move towards accepting solutions, hire outside people.

Rushing to sell rail maintenance, or any other section, to make a "fist full of dollars" and avoid accountability and responsibility is not good government.

Voters elected you to govern responsibly, to provide appropriate services (including rail), and to be accountable. Get on with it.

John

Haneef bailed - detained by Minister

Gold Coast Dr Mohamed Haneef was today released on bail by a Queensland magistrate. He has been charged with recklessly providing material support (a mobile phone SIM card) to a terrorist organisation: his cousins, with whom he worked in Britain.

Within hours, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews announced Haneef's detention after deciding that Haneef was not a fit and proper person, and revoked his visa.

Mr Andrews said he had used his Ministerial powers because Haneef failed the "character test", because "'the person has or has had an association with someone else or with a group or organisation whom the Minister reasonably suspects has been involved has been or is involved in criminal conduct".

The Labor opposition has said it supports the decision: - it could do nothing else, politically, because John Howard would play the "you're soft on terror" ace.

There are questions we should ask:

• the decision falls under 'ministerial discretion' of the Immigration Act. There is NO review, unless the Minister changes his mind.
• the magistrate, in granting bail of $10 000, believed that this was legally reasonable.
  Mr Andrews has been at pains to try to separate his actions, from that of the magistrate. Why? Because he can, and has, operated outside normal legal principles of presumption of innocence, and burden of proof. However, even Mr Howard, in Tasmania said: "Dr Haneef is entitled like any other person to a presumption of innocence ... "
• Did Mr Andrews asked the AFP for a "briefing" that he could use to justify a decision he had already made, but not announced? That is, was the first approach from the Minister, his office, or anyone else from the government or their officers.

On Sky News, Piers Akerman defended Mr Andrews' decision by referring to the granting of bail as coming from "just one Queensland magistrate". He was trying to belittle the magistrate, and create the impression that no other magistrates would have granted bail. That is, Mr Akerman's response was of the "shoot the messenger if it's bad news" style.

Mr Andrews cannot reveal the information provided to him by AFP officers, but it would seem unlikely that there was any new evidence not presented to the magistrate. I suspect this is just a detention driven by political desires of the Federal Government. But we won't know for 40-50 years when the archives are released. I hope Mr Andrews is alive to defend his decision. I hope it is justified from an ethical and moral perspective.

The press are right to be sceptical, and inquisitorial; and so should the public be.

John

The BBC, The Queen, and Media Operations

Last week the BBC was forced to apologise to the Queen after misrepresenting events in a photo session with Annie Liebovitz. The BBC showed a preview of a documentary about Liebovitz's work with the Queen to journalists, where it seems the Queen had walked out in a huff, and BBC1channel controller, Peter Fincham, added: "Annie Leibovitz gets it slightly wrong and the Queen walks out in a huff."

The BBC was forced to apologise to the Queen, acknowledging that the video had been spliced in the wrong order, apparently deliberately. That it was the BBC is the surprise. Had it been tabloid newspapers or TV there might have been an apology, but less would of been made of the media organisation.

As long ago as 1999, Jana Wendt highlighted the public's knowledge of the sad state of "current affairs" and news reporting in Australia's television. Ten years ago, in the Andrew Olle Lecture - 1997, she said

"...journalism and entertainment are separated by a line as thin as a spider's trail (and that) On commercial television, the result has been the dimming of news priorities. ... While considerable promotional horsepower is dedicated to pumping out large claims about the quality of news and current affairs, the reality is rather sadder and more mundane. Often, the selection and order of so-called news stories bears little relation to their actual news significance. Stories trumpeted as 'in-depth' reports are often little more than a ninety second videotape pastiche...

Not surprisingly, news and current affairs have become the worthy objects of derision."

Nothing has changed in 10 years? I think it's only become worse. Jump 10 years - 2007. A heavily-promoted tv "currrent affairs" program allegedly tricked a person into meeting them with the lure that they had "secret legal documents" . A news.com blog about the issue elicited this response:

I don't think anyone takes any of these current affairs proggrammes (sic) seriously, for me, they have resorted to sensationalism to increase ratings., facts only get in the way. I now use the option and turn both off.

On another site, about a different commercial program, and a different issue:

Since when has ACA been quality balanced journalism?

Many people in Britain rely on the BBC for quality news reporting. That is especially true given the tabloid sensationalism associated with many British newspapers We in Australia must rely on the ABC for in-depth questioning and analysis of current affairs on TV, because commercial interests seem to over-ride quality news and current affairs journalism. The full text of Jana Wendt's Anrew Olle Lecture -1997 can be read here.

I hope all news and current affairs producers and journalists read it, and address the issue.

John

Truepolitik's First Birthday

Truepolitik is 1 year old, today!! The first post, on 15-July-2006 oulined our mission. It is reproduced below:

Our Mission is to
analyse selected events covering:
* Australian National politics
* NSW Politics

The reason for doing this is because too many voters and

media outlets accept politicians' statements at face value, along with the
sometimes token analysis by tabloid media. Indeed, in recent times, commercial
television "current affairs" in Australia has become nothing more than tabloid TV.

* publish other selected thoughts about Australian current affairs.

During this first year, we have:

• posted 136 times


• added a counter to the site in July 2007


• provided independent, non-party-political comment and analysis on Australian Federal and NSW politics and current affairs


• begun releases to Australian media outlets


• Written open letters to politicians, and sent them copies.
  

We also have a new, fresh look from today. We hope you like it.

So, we will have our cake, and eat it, too!

John

Haneef on Terrorism Charges

Dr Mohammed Haneef, a doctor from the Gold Coast (Queensland) has been charged with providing material support (a mobile phone SIM card) to a terrrorist organisation. He has been charged by Australian Federal Police under the Crimes Act.

Dr Haneef was held without charge for 12 days, and there had been increasing media attention on his detention without charge. AFP Commissioner Keelty has defended the time, saying "The detention of Dr Haneef, whilst attracting considerable media attention, is something that the organisation and certainly myself believed was necessary in order to afford everybody the best opportunity to understand what has occurred." Perhaps this charge enables the process to continue without having to hold Dr Haneef without charge.

On Friday, after a question from the media, Prime Minister John Howard said he was relaxed and comfortable about the time of Dr Haneef's detention without charge. Civil libertarians say the time is outrageous, and that Dr Haneef will not be able to get a fair trial (because of the media attention to the case) But the media has not detailed, or preempted evidence that might be used. They have concentrated on his detention without charge, reasonably so, I believe.

It is important, at this stage, that they do not speculate or produce their own, non-legal, case before any trial. Tabloid media, in particular, are prone to doing this, but trial by media would be wrong. The "public interest" test must not be used to deny due legal process; and the facts, evidence and analysis could be reported during and after any trial.

John

John Howard Wants Business Money

Prime Minister John Howard has defended his call for business money to pay for ads supporting WorkChoices. The Retail and Industry organisations have rejected Mr Howard's call for cash.

He is reported to have stated: "It's desirable in a debate about public policy that those people who believe in good policy come out and support good policy". Health Minster Tony Abbott has weighed in with "the unions are going to run a multi-million dollar blitzkrieg against the Government's workplace relations reforms." That is 'the scare tactic' - an attempt to intimidate employer organisations into coughing up, and remind voters how scary unions are (supposed to be) His use of the word 'blitzkrieg' is interesting, given Paul Keating's reference to John Howard's Nationalism, and its subsequent comparisons to Hitler.

With regard to John Howard's statement that "those people who believe in good policy come out and support good policy" - we should look forward to the Liberal and National Parties putting their money where their mouth is.

John

NSW Railcorp "Culture"

News stories today tell us that missing screws and split pins were the cause of the rail disruption on Sydney Harbour Bridge last week. Strong winds had blown off a cover, which hit the overhead power lines, and caused significant delays.

Rail Corp Chief Executive, Vince Graham, yesterday said there was a lack of "maintenance culture''. Unions cried foul, saying this was an attack on workers; Acting Premier John Watkins disagreed.

A maintenance review is to be conducted, and was announced by both Mr Watkins and Mr Graham.

There are bigger issues here, though. Since Nick Greiner instituted micro-economic reform in NSW, and made government "services" run as corporations, economic rationalism has been the driving force of government "services", including during the last 10 years of NSW Labor governments. The concept of economic rationalism has been discussed by Greg Whitwell, and many others. The core concept is that the 'market' will set the prices. But what price a rail service? Any "service"?

A rail service requires coordinated investments in maintenance, infrastructure, employees and timetables. However, under the economic rationalist approach, the railways were broken up into different corporations, each with their own separate budgets; and "empires". The result is that managers seek to protect "their" budgets; and there is lack of coordination towards delivering the service that commuters expect.

I believe that there are problems with management, "work cultures" at all levels, and coordination. Perhaps the divide and conquer approach of separate corporations is not working. We need Premier Morris Iemma to lead the NSW government towards a more adequately funded, more integrated railway system that is focused on delivering service by investing more in maintenance, infrastructure, employees and timetables. More trains, more carriages, better reliability, and more parking facilities at stations will attract people back to public transport.

Economic rationalism for government services, and dare I say, utilities such as water and electricity, is not working. A new plan is needed.

John

PM - Don't Mention the War

The Prime Minister, John Howard, today said he wanted Australians to "take a deep breath and wait" until the American commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, gives his progress report to US Congress in September.

His call for patience comes amid increasing calls from both Democrats; and George Bush's own party, Republicans, for a planned withdrawal from Iraq. US troops comprise almost all of the commitment, and of the 3 893 coalition deaths (5-July-2007) 3 607 were Americans (CNN 11-July-2007). There have been 2 Australians killed in Iraq. A different, interactive, site can be seen here.

Mr Howard's (& his government's) policy is, in essence "all the way with GWB". In January 1966 Harold Holt, then Australian PM, took Australia to the Vietnam War with the slogan "all the way with LBJ" (Lyndon Baines Johnson, then US President). Holt acted after John Howard's hero, Robert Menzies, resigned as Prime Minister, not wanting to take Australia to war, or align our foreign policy with that of the US. Our foreign policy is still, essentially, that of the US.

But with a Federal election due, and increasing voter concern about our involvement, a commitment by the ALP to withdraw troops at an appropriate future date, Mr Howard really wants voters to forget about Iraq. He'd rather we took notice of himself and other coalition MP's on the unofficial election trail.

John

Housing Affordability and Governments

Housing affordability is becoming an election issue, with both the Kevin Rudd and Prime Minister John Howard making comments. John Howard blames the states for not releasing land, especially in and on the fringes of greater metropolitan areas. Kevin Rudd proposes a low-taxed home savings account, so home buyers can save more.

Other "suggestions", not necessarily from politicians include include:

• doubling the first homeowners' grant from $7000 to $14000
• reducing state taxes, such as stamp duty.
• reducing the charges on developers that passed on to buyers. For example councils charge developers for much of the costs of establishing new roads, water, sewerage; they are charged for electricity and gas mains; and telephone lines. All these are passed on to the buyer.

But the problem is much more complex, and it is not simply a case of reducing costs or giving bigger handouts, or releasing more land, to which there is a limit. The psyche of sellers (of existing houses); developers and buyers is that they will simply use the "extra" they get, or don't pay, to buy bigger or pay more.

Developers, of course want to build bigger, more luxurious houses, because they make more money of their investment. That's how business works, and no "adjustments" will change that.

Our society is a "me" society: we want the best, we want it all, and we want it now. Unless first home buyers change their tune to start with more modest houses, housing affordability will remain low. A two-storey "McMansion" with all mod cons, home theatre, multi-car garage and instant gardens is not the low-cost ideal for young(ish) first home buyers. Housing affordability will always be lower in large metropolitan areas, because that is where population growth is greatest, and so is demand, at the moment. Low interest rates might help, but it is the total cost of the houses that has the most impact on affordability at the moment.

Nevertheless, our politicians want to be seen to be doing "something", "anything" that might attract votes. We might get many comments and a lot of hot air, with little result. There is, after all, an election due in the next 6 months.

John

Confusion in Govt Ranks

The last few days have seen some confusion in messages from members of teh Federal Government.

Last week Minister for Defence, Brendan Nelson, let slip that oil ("resource security") was one of the reasons for going to war in Iraq, and staying there. Within hours we had "the big three" - the Prime Minister, The Treasurer and the Foreign Affairs Minister all denying it. Whether any voters believed them is irrelevant: it is the Government's style to pick a position and defend it to the death; even when they, and everybody else, know they are wrong.

Today, there was apparent confusion in statements from Prime Minister John Howard and Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer about whether travel warnings to Indonesia had been upgraded. The Prime Minster said there was an upgraded warning about travel to Indonesia. Alexander Downer said there wasn't. The matter is resolved in Mr Downer's favour. The smartraveller website, published by the Dept of Foreign Affairs and Trade, says:

"This advice has been reviewed and reissued. ... The overall level of the advice has not changed." (9 July 2007, 20:25)

The Prime Minister will be hoping that voters don't penalise him in opinion polls. Only time will tell.

John

Border Control Software Upgrade

Today, 7-July-2007, the Prime Minister, John Howard, and Attorney-General, Phillip Ruddock held a press conference in Sydney. They announced

"a major upgrade in Australia's border control system (which) began at the end of last year. ... It involves the introduction of more state of the art software which will enable a massively more comprehensive and effective examination of the antecedents of people who seek visa entry into this country."

The new system has "advanced identity management". The system can check the identity and previous travel of future visa applicants, and visa-holders already in Australia.

Neither Mr Howard nor Mr Ruddock discussed the software upgrade, but it could relate to the contract the Federal Government signed with Unisys in 2006 as part of a $50 million program.

In the press conference, Mr Howard admitted the announcement had been "accelerated" because of recent terrorist events in Britain.

A comment by the Attorney-General gives scope the the view that the software is not yet operational. He spoke of budget estimates, but not spending ...

"... one of the reasons this has been brought forward is because if you go through the process of looking at the level of detail you need to be able to make announcements about the precise cost, that means you've started to look at acquisition, and you've made estimates in relation to that."

Could this be a new re-announcement of the $50 million contract between the (then) Dept of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (now Dept of Immigration and Citizenship) and Unisys that was reported in July 2006? That contract was for software delivery over 4 years. It is one thing to shorten a project's time-frame, but reducing it by 3 years of a 4 year contract seems just little adventurous.

Perhaps this is just a re-announcement of matters from 12 months ago, to be used for largely political purposes.

John

Indigenous Abuse Plan Still Changing

On June 21 the Prime Minister and Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mal Brough, announced their intention to help stop child sex abuse in NT indigenous communities. The announcement was made with much fanfare and gusto, even before a plan was conceived.

We have previously made comments soon after the announcement (here), and a week later about the lack of consultation with indigenous leaders and communities. (and here). Since then, many people have offered to assist, and Mr Brough has made a point of more tours of communities, where community members have been able to speak to the Minister. Always with the media along.

However, the initial announcement made much of plans to impose control on communities and ban specific things. Some critical aspects of the plan have changed in 2 1/2 weeks:

• a ban the sale, import and distribution of alcohol
  --> maybe they're OK (6 July)
  
• a ban on pornographic material
• quarantining 50% of welfare payments to spent for the benefit of children
  --> possibly under review, but criticism from the Catholic Church, and the Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne have been dismissed.
  
• compulsory health checks and treatment for every child up to 16 years old
  --> ""When there is a suspected child abuse, normal protocols should occur and that can involve compulsory checking and that should not change" (6 July) ie not every child, as originally announced.
  

A representative of the Combined Aboriginal Organisations (CAO) of Alice Springs, Graeme Smith, told the ABC that there was still much confusion within communities (not surprising, since "the plan" is still changing), and that there is likely to be an influx of (indigenous) people to towns such as Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, because those addicted to alcohol and other substances will leave the communities where the plan is to control them. Mr Smith said:

"People are addicted to alcohol, to substance abuse - they need counselling.
I'd like to know what counselling measures are going to be put in place.
What additional funding is going to be attached to the Aboriginal health organisations to address these things - because people will need counselling."

Fair comments, and neither the NT Government nor the Federal Government have yet addressed these issues.

The Analyst

Iraq: Rudd vs Howard

It seems we voters will have a choice on Foreign Policy in the upcoming Federal election.

Iraq became one of Prime Minister Howard's "problems" during this term. Up until last year, he could manipulate voters with "the terrorists are coming" and "we are winning the war on terrorism". Now it seems, according to Defence Minister Brendan Nelson, that we are staying in Iraq because of our need for oil ("resource security"). He was quickly contradicted yesterday by both Mr Howard and Mr Costello (Treasurer), and today by Foreign affairs Minister Alexander Downer. Now "it's not about oil, it was never about oil".

So, why are our troops still in Iraq? Why did we really join the US war in Iraq? We have variously been told it was because Saddam had "Weapons of Mass Destruction"; to protect Iraqi people from Saddam; to fight terrorism; to install democracy; and now Alexander Downer says it's because "because if Iraq can't export any oil, Iraq can't earn any revenue" (told to Sky News, 6-July-07).

Now for the real reasons. The reasons we joined the US war in Iraq are entirely political. In short, US foreign policy is driven by what's good for the US; and what's politically good for the US President. Our political commitment to the ANZUS Treaty, and John Howard's personal wish to help his friend ensured that Australia went to war in Iraq.

John Howard's problem now is that voters are seeing the war as never-ending (as near the end of the Vietnam War); and Kevin Rudd has said his government would set a target for withdrawal. There would need to be a good deal of political manoeuvring on his part to achieve this: we can't just "cut'n'run"; but the concept is gaining popularity with voters, and that creates a problem for John Howard.

The Analyst

Joe McDonald, the ALP and Building Safety

Part of a concrete slab was reported to have fallen up to 16 stories from a QCon construction site yesterday. It was the same site where CFMEU official Joe McDonald was filmed having a rant, and trying to bully workplace officials.

Mr McDonald has said that this safety incident, which could have killed someone had it hit them, justifies his stance and behaviour as it was filmed and released to the media. Following its release, ALP Federal Leader Kevin Rudd moved to have Mr McDonald expelled from the ALP, because such stand-over, bully-boy behaviours were inappropriate.

They are inappropriate, and safety concerns do not justify violent behaviours that attempt to intimidate. However, safety concerns DO justify action on the part of employees and unions. The building industry in Australia has had a long history of sometimes violent disputes and corruption, from both employers and unions. There have been Royal Commissions. The history of some construction companies wanting work done as quickly as possible, as cheap as possible, and by cutting as many corners as possible was historically resisted by unions, and unionists, whose political agenda was extreme left wing. It's a history that the industry is still grappling with - from both sides.

Workplace safety is not something to take lightly, and responsibility rests with both employers and employees. Both parties must meet, and cooperate in the interests of their employees, union members. And their insurance companies and their own profits.

Meanwhile, the ALP still has work to do to silence those union officials with their own personal agendas - to be seen to be able to control or manipulate Kevin Rudd. They are personal agendas abd behaviours that are relics from the 1950s and 1960s. To change decades-old cultures on both sides will take a revolution. A non-violent one, we hope.

The Analyst

Australia's Iraq Interest - Oil

Since the Iraq war started on 20 March 2003 (Aus time) - John Howard's government has always told us that the war was about: weapons of mass destruction; removing Saddam; supporting the USA; ... but it was NOT about oil, as the Opposition and anti-war protesters said.

Today (5-July-2007), the current Defence Minister, Brendan Nelson, has admitted in a speech that oil was a factor in John Howard's decision to take Australia to war. Prime Minister John Howard, and his various Defence Ministers, have spent the last 4 years telling us that oil (security) was NOT the reason we went to war.

Brendan Nelson has spoken as a "warm-up" before Mr Howard delivers an updated foreign policy speech today. Given that Ministers do not release information without Mr Howard's (or his office's) approval, what has changed? Why is the government admitting that oil is a reason for the war? John Howard is an extremely good politician.I believe it is because:

• He has felt the electoral concern about current, and likely future, price of petrol.
• He knows that voters are concerned about an unending war we can't win (like Vietnam)
• He knows that the Labor Opposition has a policy that will try to set a time-line for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
• He knows he has to call an election soon after the APEC conference in September.
  

Because of the above, John Howard want to retain voter approval for his actions. He wants voters to think that the war will lead to lower petrol prices. He wants voters to think he is doing a good job on petrol prices. He is, very carefully, trying to manipulate voters to think what HE wants them to think. That's his politics. Good politics, but will it fool the voters? Will it fool the media?

The Analyst

Post Script:
Late this afternoon senior government members, including John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello said that oil (resource security) was NOT one of the reasons for Australia's continued stay in Iraq.

It seems that Defence Minister Brendan Nelson did not clear his comments with the Prime Minister or his office, before talking to the press. Such a public rebuttal by senior members of government does not look good on a minister's CV.

Bridge Toll Plan 'unAustralian"

Today's news carries a suggestion by Ken Dobinson, a former RTA director, that Sydney Harbour Bridge commuters could pay varying amounts more to use the 'Bus Only' lanes. Fairfax media carries the story here .

The proposal has a number of points about which people ought to be aware:

• the amount will vary. It will either be $10 or $20 EXTRA, depending on how many cars use the bus lane. You won't know till you get the bill! Not knowing how much you are paying for a service goes against every principle of fair trading.

• the extra toll is to use the 'Bus Only' lane on the Harbour Bridge. Once off the bridge, you have to rejoin the normal congested traffic lanes.

• the principle behind such tolling, called High Occupancy Tolling (HOT), is that those with more money can have better access to public roads. That principle goes against every grain of Australia's concept of a fair go for everyone - it is 'unAustralian' ( term usually much abused by politicians, but which seems appropriate here)

Motoring organisations, including the NRMA, will rightly condemn the proposal, because they advocate for equality of access for motorists, not access based on how much money a driver has.

The RTA, and the NSW Government, should reject this proposal outright.

The Analyst

Treasury's Warning to PM on House Prices

Channel 7 television station has obtained documents from treasury under FOI legislation. The documents consist of Treasury reports to the Government about Housing affordability. The documents are available on-line at:
( http://au.news.yahoo.com/news/story-info.html )

What the documents show is that:

• housing affordability is lowest in Sydney (no surprises), compared to other state capital cities
• the number of mortgagee sales has increased
• Treasury discusses the whole household sector, although it mentions areas of western Sydney ie it concerns itself with macroeconomics, but little microeconomic planning.
• (Federal) Treasury tries to lay the blame on states: state taxes are significant, but it the Federal Government has indicated it would not change the first home owners scheme to improve affordability.
• the paper tells the Federal Government that the effect of changing state & local land policies is overstated
• one paper from Treasury advises the Federal Government to look at the "10-point plan" proposed by a newspaper. (are they THAT short of policy ideas in microeconomics?)

The Labor Opposition has, understandably, adopted those parts of the documents that advise the Federal Government that its own policies could be contributing to falling housing affordability. The Federal Government, of course, rejects this, and attempts to lay the blame on the states.

Politics: if it's good news, it's because of 'MY' policies; if it's bad news, it's not the Government's fault.

The Reserve Bank has recently signalled its belief that interest rates are more likely to rise at the end of 2007, an the beginning of 2008. Just about the time of the Federal election, and just after. I think the Reserve Bank will NOT raise interest rates after September, if it has not done so before, but will wait till February/March 2008. Perhaps the Federal Government's economic management is not as good as it would have us believe, and the economy is soon to be affected by internal and external influences.

The Analyst

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.

Pharmaceutical Companies & Doctors

This week, the Australian Competition Tribunal, at the request of the ACCC, has determined the validity of new reporting rules for drug companies. They will have to declare their gifts to doctors every 6 months, and post them on the Internet. The information to be made publicly available includes: venues, the number and types of professionals invited, and the total cost of food, travel, accommodation and entertainment provided.

They are not required to identify individual doctors (or other health professionals), nor where they come from or work. Some see these as shortcomings in the new rules. Such information would certainly allow others to determine where and who the drug companies are targeting; and possibly examine any change in prescriptions following the "education" of doctors.

Let no-one be fooled. These are marketing projects, designed not to educate doctors, but to market the companies' products to doctors, and to increase pressure on the Federal Government to include 'new' drugs on the PBS scheme. Such inclusion would effectively guarantee widespread prescriptions, and increase drug company profit$.

There are other issues to be aware of:

• if we were to limit the marketing/'education seminars' by drug companies, how do doctors gain information about new drugs? There are not many scientifically reputable, peer-reviewed publications (they are independent of drug company interference in what they publish, and how articles are written). The Australian Medical Journal, the British Medical Journal are two, but how many doctors subscribe, and have the time to read thoroughly? Perhaps summaries could be provided through the AMA at reduced subscription, or through the PBS itself to doctors.
• the ethics of doctors accepting the drug company offers. It is almost unthinkable that doctors do not know they are being manipulated and (ab)used by drug companies. Yet they still accept the "gifts".
• there are suggestions in the SMH 30-June-07 about fraudulent or "doctored" research (pun intended!)
  (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/take-two-see-your-drug-company/
  2007/06/29/1182624165418.html)
  
• The primary goal of drug companies "sponsored & doctored" research is to gain PBS approval and sell, sell, sell, at almost any cost. It was only last year they had to be almost forced to remove Celebrex and Vioxx from the market, after denying and obfuscating about the deaths they caused. This year, the same levels of delay and obfuscation were used when side-effects of the sleeping tablet Stilnox became known.
  

The bottom line in all this is that drug companies are out to increase their bottom line! We shouldn't have to tolerate them being snake-oil salesmen, though.

The Analyst

Lack of Consultaion on Indigenous Intervention

Since Mr Howard announced Federal intervention in Indigenous communities in the NT, there have been a a number of developments. You will remember from my previous post on 23 June that I said that therre were a number of things that Mr Howard needed, and were not announced; and that he would be leaning heavily on logistics experts to cover the gaps.
( http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2007/06/howard-intervenes-in-indigenous.html )

This week there have been a number of meetings involving stakeholders: indigenous people, health & welfare experts, lawyers and church groups among them. Together they have raised serious questions about Mr Howard's methods, in particular about his lack of consultation wit the very people he says he wants to help. That is his style: he did it when announcing the national water initiative, with the conflict on the wharves (although he probably consulted with Patrick Corporation), and with the WorkChoices initiative. So it should be no real surprise that he did not consult those most affected.

There have also been suggestions that the policy was driven by his own electoral concerns. The suggestions have come from Aboriginal activists, and some others. My opinionis that Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough, who has previously toured communities in the NT, was a driving force. However it is likely that Mr Howard was smart enough to see some political advantage for him in an election year, additinal to his personal concern.

The lack of consultation could turn out to be a strategic error by Mr Howard. Not only did he not involve the communities, their representatives or those working "on the ground", he did not recognise the strength of desire by indigenous communities to have a say in what happens to them, their families and their communities.

The Analyst

Ethics, Whistle-blowing and Governments

On Friday last week (22 June 2007), a former Customs officer, Allan Kessing, was handed a 9-month suspended prison sentence. His crime? Releasing aspects of a report about Sydney airport security that alerted the public to serious flaws and inaction leading to high risk of death or injury. He was a "whistle-blower".

There a number of reasons that might lead a person to ethically release information that, under normal circumstances, they would not release. They include:

• a poor, or nil, response from an organization when the whistle-blower has tried to work through normal internal channels to effect change
• there is a real risk to public safety
• reckless actions or inaction by an organization constitute serious wrongdoing
• releasing the information would pass a "public interest" test

In this instance the report highlighted serious security problems, and Customs, Sydney Airport and the Federal Government made no attempt to initiate improvements to security. That inaction put the public at risk. Less than 1 week after the story became public there were significant and wide-ranging changes made by the Australian Federal Government and Sydney Airport Corporation.

A reasonable person would link the publication of the story and the resultant flurry of action, and think that the whistle-blower had done a "good job".

The Federal Government's response: call in the Police, because the Federal Government does not recognise public safety or public interest as cause for whistle-blowing; and it makes no secret of the fact that it will not tolerate, or protect, whistle-blowers or journalists, who act in the public interest. The US and many European countries do. John Howard does not. His government, and his hand-picked heads of departments, refer to whistle-blowing as "democratic sabotage". (Peter Shergold, Head of the Dept of Prime Minister and Cabinet) What nerve! The sabotage that is occurring in our democracy is that whistle-blowers are not protected if they act within strict guidelines, and that senior Public Servants no longer serve the public, but the politicians. This occurs at both State (Labor Gov'ts) and Federal (Lib/National) levels. They are are high-priced lackeys who answer "Yes, Minister" or ask "What advice do you want me to give?" Theirs, and their political masters, is the shame, and the democratic sabotage.

The Analyst

Howard Intervenes in Indigenous Communities

The Prime Minister's announcement that the Federal Government will intervene in NT indigenous communities to stop child sex abuse has drawn mixed reactions. The intervention occurred following the release of a report into child sex abuse in indigenous communities in the Northern Territory. He has asked the State Premiers to do likewise, and that he will fund it.

Parts of the plan include:

• a ban the sale, import and distribution of alcohol
• a ban on pornographic material
• quarantining 50% of welfare payments to spent for the benefit of children
• compulsory health checks and treatment for every child up to 16 years old

The plan has drawn criticism from some: ACT Chief Minister called it racist; Professor Judy Atkinson from Southern Cross University (author of 3 reports into child sex abuse in Aboriginal communities) predicts an increase in violence, suicides, suicide attempts and despair; the NT Anti-discrimination Commissioner called is "discriminatory". I don't believe it's motivated by racism,, or by discriminatory attitudes.

It is certainly true that alcohol and other substance abuse; petrol sniffing; violence and sexual abuse have been known about for decades. It is also true that little has changed. Many people would think that alcohol, petrol sniffing and pornographic material are underlying contributors to acts sexual abuse. They might, or might not, be correct. Some would even question Mr Howard's underlying motives - there is an election due and there is public belief that he has a poor track record on social justice policies. Whether that is true, or not, action is certainly needed.

The shortcomings in Mr Howard's announcement are the social interventions required to help stop the problems recurring. Enforced rule of law, bans and medical checks & treatment are not enough. Mr Howard needs the following:

• Cooperation and close working with indigenous elders on the health care
• Social programs to engage the different gender, and aged-based and family groups in meaningful activities. Such activities could include using & developing traditional knowledge and skills, taught by those who have the community's respect.
• Recreational activities that suit the different ages and genders, and that fit with indigenous interests
• Inclusion of aboriginal language and culture in formal and indigenous educational settings.
  
• Repeat, and on-going health and welfare cooperation, including appropriate diet and counselling services
  
• Developing community leadership, including a return to appropriate traditional values of care

None of this was announced. Mr Howard might well be leaning on his logistics experts to develop and implement appropriate strategies and programs. I'm not sure he has the social policy awareness to recognise the extra needs, unless advised.

The Analyst

Postscript: see also my post on 28-June-2007 at
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2007/06/lack-of-consultaion-on-indigenous.html

Politicians - "We're all right"

Yesterday's (19 June 2007) announcement that politicians will get a 6.7% pay rise from next month has rankled many people in Australia. What annoys people is not that they get a pay rise, or even the amount, per se. After all, it is reasonable to pay our politicians.

What has rankled the Australian people are the following:

1. that members of the major parties (Liberal, Labor, and even the National Party) stood before the press and boasted that they had an "independent body/umpire/tribunal" to set their pay.
   Many Australians, those under WorkChoices contracts do not: the body that sets their wages is part of the Ministry, and therefore under effective political control.
2. that one coalition (Liberal MP David Jull) replied that "we have a judge to set our pay". This is a member of Parliament that voted to remove the power of judges in the Australian Industrial Commission to set wages independently of government. The hypocrisy of his statement is mind-boggling!
3. that one coalition Senator (Sue Boyce, from Queensland) said the following about the less fortunate in our society:
   
   "I'll probably buy some extra pearls to cast before the deserving poor or something"
   
   Perhaps that is a modern equivalent of "let them eat cake"? Such a comment is indefensible, reprehensible and is one that would not be made by any decent person, under ANY circumstances. Poverty and disadvantage is something about which honourable people do NOT jest. (I suspect that is her preferred "defence".)
   

It really is the hypocrisy and and the detrimental social impacts of their policies that annoy people. If only our leading politicians would recognise that and act in the interests of ordinary Australians.

The Analyst

Cardinal Pell & The Separation of State

Sydney's Catholic George, Cardinal Pell's most recent foray into politics has been his most damaging and ill-conceived.

Cardinal Pell attempted to pressure Catholic MP's into voting against a bill to reverse the ban on therapeutic cloning. Indeed, some have construed his comments as a threat (to ban from communion) to politicians. A threat, of course, would be illegal.

The issue, here, is really about the separation of Church and State. For centuries the Catholic Church, and other Churches when their members became political leaders, exerted considerable influence and political power. Pope Pius XI, in 1933, wrote in his Papal Encyclical Dilectissima Nobis of his "great sorrow" that the new Spanish Constitution had affirmed the "separation of Church from State."

However, biographical notes, released by The Holy See, on Japanese Archbishop (now Cardinal) Peter Seiichi Shirayanagi note that:

In 1989 on the occasion of the death of Emperor Hirohito, Archbishop Shirayanagi spoke on behalf of the Japanese Catholic Bishops, asking the Government to observe strictly the separation of State and religion in Japan.

( http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/
cardinali_biografie/cardinali_bio_shirayanagi_ps_en.html )

While Cardinal Pell has the same rights to lobby politicians as all of us, the inclusion of religious interference in the secular, "separated-from-Church" running of our democracy, and his application of religious pressure and judgemental consequences is unreasonable. Some have likened it to the intrusive and intolerant outbursts of (Islamic) Sheik al-Hilaly.

Our democracy does not need such behaviours ... from any religious leader. We do need our politicians to take all issues seriously, and vote well, to satisfy, as well as possible, the sometimes conflicting secular desires and religious conscience.

The Analyst

NSW U-Turn on Lane Cove Tunnell Fines

Yesterday (31 May 07) NSW Roads Minister, Eric Roozendaal, did an about face on fines for motorists caught speeding in the Lane Cove Tunnel.

Mr Roozendaal himself is reported to have said "Clearly there is a problem. Around 13,500 infringements have been issued through the Lane Cove Tunnel". The tunnel was opened in March.

The problem appears to be speeding drivers!

There are a number of problems that ought to concern anyone who values democracy:

1. The change in mind, after saying, effectively "tough" cam about because there were lots of calls to (commercial) talk-back radio. Such shows are usually run by "shock-jocks", some of whom have had their own brush with speeding fines. Governments depend on the "goodwill" of such shock-jocks, so if they complained to the Premier, the Premier jumped. Should the Premier, or any of his Ministers, intervene in matters of law, just because talk-back radio gets calls?
   
   
2. Should Ministers, or any politician, intervene in any legal matter that might come before the courts?? Not in this democracy, they shouldn't!
   
   
3. Drivers have primary responsibility to read road signs, be aware of changed speed limits, drive at an appropriate speed (even less that the speed limit). Further, they know that there are speed cameras: not only are there signs, but they are highly visible.. If drivers have been irresponsible, or reckless, they ought to be caught on camera and fined.

The State Labor Government's actions were driven merely by political expediency. Mr Iemma and Mr Roozendaal have shamed not only themselves, but our democracy as well.

The Analyst

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

WorkChoices Ads - No New Law

On 22 May, Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey, admitted that "We (the Fedral Government) got it wrong. We under-estimated what would have happened if we put in place a system that may lead to people trading away penalty rates without fair compensation."

Well - Yes. WorkChoices is deeply unpopular with working families, young people, mums and dads, because the legislation gave to employers what employers asked of John Howard: - reduce the wages (but don't touch our bonuses) John Howard was doing the bidding of employer groups.

However, the people of Australia have been promised, and it is coming, ad advertising campaign so they can "Know where you stand". The trouble is that there are currently no proposed amendments to the Workplace Relations (WorkChoices) Act that relate to the advertising. It's been nearly a week since they were announced, with much "humility" by John Howard, Joe Hockey, adn Treasurer Peter Costello. There is no indication of such an amendment from the government's website. (www.aph.gov.au), nor in its list of proposed and current legislation at http://www.aph.gov.au/parlinfo/billsnet/blist.pdf , which was updated on 22 May.

We'll get the ads, and we'll pay for them, but it seems we might not get the changes!! They might be a non-core promise for after the election. Funny about that!

The Analyst

The Politics of Smacking

Democrat Senator Andrew Bartlett has called for an independent inquiry into smacking and (parental) discipline, and any link it might have to child abuse.

His call comes after New Zealand passed legislation banning smacking of children, and reports that the number of reported cases of child abuse in 2005-2006 has doubled since 1999-2000, to 266,000 reports across Australia. There are several things we, as a society should know, in order to put this in context:

1. ANY child abuse is abhorrent; and it is right that we should address the problem.
2. The responsibility for reporting falls to each State. ie each state has its own laws that govern when a report of child abuse is made.
3. Media outlets have simply reported raw statistics about the doubling of the number of reported cases from the (Federal Government-run) Australian Institute of Family Studies. Media have not bothered to even check the website. There they would have found the following statement:
   
   "Some of this increase reflects changes in child protection policies and practices in the jurisdictions." (http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/stats.html)
   
   They would also have found a site dealing with Comparability of Data, at:
   http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/ccpd/ccpd-c00sum.html
   
   There appears to have been no investigative aspect to media reporting - just tabloid repetition.
   
   
4. 2007 is an election year, and it was no surprise that politicians of the major political parties were keeping a low profile on the issue. There are at most 6 months before an election is held, possibly less, and political parties do not want to antagonise any section of the voting public.
   
5. Senator Bartlett called for an independent inquiry. I can't remember the last truly independent public enquiry established by a Federal Government. The current government, under John Howard, has removed all the Senate Committees it does not control, and the most recent inquiries likely to be remembered are the inquiry into Nuclear Power and the AWB Royal Commission. The inquiry into Nuclear Power was run by John Howard's good friend and confidante, Ziggy Zwitowski; and the AWB Royal Commission was excluded from making findings about politicians and their public servants.

In short, this is such an important social issue we do need an independent enquiry, or a serious piece of proper investigative journalism. The chances of the Federal Government commissioning a truly independent public inquiry are NIL. Any inquiry, like other government enquiries, will occur because it suits the party; will have a controlled outcome that favours current government policy; and will be timed to run well past the Federal election.

It is a shame that our politicians duck for cover, when some form of leadership is needed.

The Analyst

Politics & the Dalai Lama

Yesterday, both Prime Minister John Howard and Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd were caught playing politics on the topic of whether to meet the Dalai Lama when he visits in June.

Neither leader had allocated time to personally meet His Holiness, the Dalai Lama. The excuse was that such a meeting could cause international concern. ie China would be unhappy, because that Dalai Lama lives in exile from Tibet, and campaigns against human rights abuses by China.

Now, both men have done an about face ... of is that the two-faced-two-step? China does not determine our foreign policy, and a person of some integrity would have met with His Holiness.

However, it got worse: domestic politics was also a consideration. Mr Howard's office said that he "may" meet with the Dalai Lama. He wanted Mr Rudd to make the first move - Mr Howard would then have had the option to say "See, Mr Rudd doesn't respect China". In the end, that was not politically possible and both men will now meet His Holiness. Both were embarassed into doing so.

What a farce! What two-facedness! (well .. it IS an election year)

The Analyst

Australian Media & Freedom of Speech

Last week's reports of rival Australian media organizations cooperating in a "fight a steadily declining level of free speech they say has seriously eroded Australia's democracy". (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/media-rally-to-fight-threats-to-free-speech/
2007/05/10/1178390470980.html)


In Australia State and Federal governments, both Labor and Coalition (conservative)employ ever-more armies of media spin-doctors to manipulate, manage and control the media. But even worse, the very Freedom of Information (FOI) laws, designed to make governments more open and accountable, are now being used to restrict the information given by governments.

However, the problem is deeper than that:

• Certainly, we must have robust FOI laws, and these laws should make it difficult to restrict information, except for that which is classified under the Official Secrets Act.
• Parliamentary accountability and responsibility is almost a distant memory, at both State and Federal levels, under both Labor and Liberal-National Governments.
• The Prime Minister, State Premiers, Ministers, members of lower and upper houses of Parliaments use the media for 5s & 10s "media grabs" and issue Press Releases.
• There are media organizations that simply seek the "sensational", to the point of entrapment. We need to be protected from such tabloid behaviours, especially from some commercial "current affairs" stories. For example, Victorian Police have been asked to investigate the role of Channel 9's "A Current Affair" car in a tragic accident involving a truck in the Domain Tunnel in Melbourne, in April 2007.
  (http://www.smh.com.au/news/general/crew-faces-probe-over-crash
  /2007/05/12/1178899144089.html)

I'd like to suggest that the media include in all stories that involve governments: "The following is an announcement/assertion by ... (insert Government / Political Party/Name & Party)" or "The Following story was provided by Government Media spin-doctors"

Governments and individuals feed the media only what they think will be of self-benefit: rarely is such information given for the public benefit. Indeed, any information that informs the public what is really happening seems to be stifled by the abuse of FOI laws, by governments, for the benefit of politicians and political parties. Voters should not only be excused for being cynical, they have good reason to be.

The Analyst

"Clean Coal" ?

As governments, mining companies and political parties scramble to gain their green credentials with the (voting) public, it is worthwhile us looking at what they offer.

"Clean coal" has been bandied around as a saviour: a means where we can continue to mine, export and use coal at existing or higher rates, but not pollute the atmosphere with more carbon dioxide. The trouble with carbon dioxide is that it reduces the earth's ability to cool itself by radiating heat into space, mostly at night. So, the earth collects heat from the sun, becomes hotter, but can't cool itself as well. This leads to increasing average temperatures across the earth = "global warming" and all the associated weather, ecological and environmental effects.

Coal is substantially carbon. Depending on its colour and sheen, it has varying amounts of sulphur, water, hydrogen and substantially-decomposed plant material, from which it is derived.

"Clean coal" technologies promoted by the Australian Coal Association (http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantech.htm) include technologies to:

• reduce fly ash escaping from chimney stacks
• using pulverised coal dust in furnaces (like having fuel injection for cars)
• converting coal to gas (a process that uses more energy than the energy in the the gas it makes)
• other methods to improve the efficiency of combustion
  

All of these are admirable (except for converting coal to gas, which is energy-inefficient). Add to the mix the "new technology" of carbon sequestration. Say what?? Essentially burying carbon dioxide pollution underground, so that it doesn't contribute to global warming.

There is one inevitable truth about this that its proponents do not tell you:

• for every 100 million tonnes of carbon dioxide buried, they also bury almost 73 million tonnes of oxygen - oxygen that we, and every other living thing needs to survive!

Clean coal?? By all means develop more efficient methods of combustion (so we burn less), and reduce the sooty and other particle emissions from smokestacks.

But please don't bury the very oxygen we need to survive! "Clean coal" is NOT the environmental cure that many politicians are saying.

The Analyst

Ethics: by John Howard

John Howard will shortly appoint Amanda Vanstone to a diplomatic positioin, rumoured to be Italy. Amanda Vanstone resigned from the Senate today.

The arrangement goes something like this:
"Well done, Amanda. You have been a good and faithful servant to the Liberal Party, and me. I had to sack you from the Ministry in January, but here's a consolation diplomatic posting for you. You're not appointed on merit, we didn't advertise, and you don't have to suffer the effects of WorkChoices."

And don't think it's ever only been confined to conservative side of politics. Labor members will say NOTHING, because the Labor Party has also made similar postings.

But wait, there's more! According to The Canberra Times, "Senior Foreign Affairs and Trade Department sources say former arts minister Rod Kemp has been promised the plum post of Australian ambassador to France."
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=political&story_id=576714&category=political

Ethical? What about moral? - No, to both questions.

But Mr Howard will make at least one appointment before the election. He will make it soon, so that the political fallout is finished before any sniff of the election.

The Analyst

Kevin Rudd & Labor's National Conference

Kevin Rudd faces several hurdles at the upcoming Labor Party Conference.

• Uranium mining has always been a divisive issue within Labor's ranks. Twenty-five years ago it caused bitter division within the party. Not much has changed. There are several member sof his team opposed to more uranimium mining, let alone allowing the development of more mines. Among them are Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett, the Federal Opposition's environment spokesman.
• Industrial Relations: the announcement of the "Fair Work Australia" agency, to replace the Industrial Relations Commission. The Industrial Relations Commission has already been abolished by the Government's WorkChoices legislation. The new agency will bring together the Fair Pay Commission, the Office of Workplace Services and the Office of the Employment Advocate: all current government agencies uunder effective Ministerial control. The paln is to sidleine any political criticism of simply repealing Workchoices: a move that would cost Labor a considerable number of votes. Further IR changes under Labor would see secret ballots on strikes.

These two issues alone will be a test of Kevin Rudd's leadership. If the National Conference is seen by voters as degenerating into in-fighting, bickering and divisiveness, then Kevin Rudd will lose the Federal Election because voters will perceive, rightly or wrongly, the Labor Opposition as a rabble.

The Analyst

Low Infaltion Figure, Interest Rates & the Federal Budget

Yesterday's surprise March 2007 CPI figures are expected to prevent the Reserve Bank increasing interest rates again.

The March 2007 Quarterly CPI figure 0.1%, and the inflation rate for the year to March was 2.4%. However, total figures don't always tell the whole story. The Australian Bureau of Statistics data includes a "contribution" of -0.6% for food. The main contributor was falling fruit, especially bananas. However, last week we were told to expect food prices will increase sharply this year as the drought further reduces our ability to produce enough food to meet demand.

If food prices had remained the same, the CPI would be 0.7%, and the inflation rate 3.1% for the year. If that had happened, it is almost certain the Reserve Bank would have raised interest rates next week!

Nevertheless, newspapers were full of speculation that the budget will deliver more personal income tax cuts. What effect will this have on the economy? We know there are still significant inflationary pressures from the costs of child care, health, pharmaceuticals and education. In 2005, the CPI for the quarters after the budgeted tax cuts (effective July) were 3.0% and 2.8%; in 2006 they were 3.9% and 3.3%.
< http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mf/6401.0?OpenDocument>

Three of those four figures are at or above the Reserve Bank's "comfort level" of 3% and led to rises in interest rates.

So, what about the budget, to be delivered in May? Personal income tax cuts effective from July this year will certainly lead to increased discretionary spending and create further pressures on inflation. Peter Costello will need to exercise considerable economic prudence in whatever tax reform he indulges in the May budget: but there's an election looming and voter bribes will be order of the day.

The Analyst

An Election Campaign of Fear - Again

Prime Minister John Howard has won all his elections partly on on voter fear. There has been little positive policy from him during the election campaigns, other than assertions about how good he / "his government" is.

• 1996: fear of Keatingomics of the Labor Party, and fear of (then Prime Minister) Paul Keating's arrogance.
• 2000: fear of refugees / "boat people" and the horror of "children overboard" (later shown to be a lie, but politically useful during the election campaign
• 2004: fear of (then Labor leader) Mark Latham.

In 2007, there is still voter fear to be exploited. However, this time there are likely to be opposing fears. John Howard will repeatedly tell voters to fear the unions and a Labor Government, and how they will "will reverse one of the biggest economic reforms this country has seen". Specifically we voters are being told to be afraid of unfair dismissal laws and the removal of WorkChoices / AWA's (individual work contracts).

But Mr Howard will have his own demons. There are and will be strong campaigns from unions and the Labor Party telling us voters to be afraid of John Howard's WorkChoices. This was a policy Mr Howard did NOT tell voters about before the last election. Mr Howard and his Ministers already know that WorkChoices is very unpopular with those who have been forced onto them. He, and his Workplace Relations Minister(s) have been most reluctant to release full statistics about the effects, and have been only selectively quoting "statistics" about how wonderful they all are.

Furthermore, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd, in an address to a packed Press Club outlined his plans for IR in Australia, and those plans included things the unions did not want: secret ballots before strikes, no strikes during the course of an agreement; no pay during strikes. By so doing he has publicly stated that he is not, and will not, be governed by union demands. Much depends on how the Australian public perceives his plans.

It could be that Mr Howard has much to fear.

The Analyst

Missing Superannuation Payments

Australia has legislation that gaurantees 9% of wages are paid by employers into superannuation accounts. The Superannuation Gaurantee Act (1992) requires employers to make payments into a superannuation account only once per year.
<http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s1772.pdf , S4 "Page 8")

In 2001, Ansett Australia went into receivership, folded, and employees lost all their superannuation entitlements. A "levy" was introduced on all flights to make up for Ansett's failure to meet its obligations. ie passengers flying on different airlines paid extra to make up for Ansett's poor management of its employees entitlements, including superannuation.

The ABC reported that up to 8000 employers could be in breach of the Superannuation Gaurantee Act (1992). <http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2007/s1898306.htm>

The tax office apparently investigates up to 10,000 complaints about superannuation, each year! One wonders how many other employees don't know to complain, or are unaware they are being denied their legal entitlements.

Assistant Deputy Tax Commissioner Ian Read, says that many complaints occur after a company starts experiencing cash-flow problems., and there are occasions where the tax office never retrieves any superannuation money. ie the money is not gauranteed, as one would think from the title of the legislation.

If a company makes one superannuation payment in a year, at the end of the company's financial year, how much in superannuation earnings do employees lose? How much might have to be "made-up" by the Federal Government in pension payments?

I think the time has come to amend the law to require more frequent gauranteed contributions to superannuation, and possible that directors become more responsible for ensuring that the compulsory contributions are, in fact, made! Last year the tax office recovered more than $350 million in unpaid superannuation, yet there seems to have been no action taken against those responsible for underpaying, or not paying, compulsory superannuationpayments.

The Analyst

COAG Meeting - April 2007

The COAG meeting has finished with its usual "we're all different, but we can work with each other" press conference. These are stage-managed by agreement so that no politician can come out looking worse for wear. IMage is important.

But what really happened? Well, among the items were:

Agreements

• Health: $100m from the commonwealth; and $100m from the states (collectively) to improve the health, and productivity, of the population by helping those who are obese &/or who have ,, or have in increased risk of, diabetes. Also, the states will get some say in hospital training of specialist doctors. such as surgeons. They will need extra funding, over and above whatever else is needed, to pay for such training.
  
• Education: movement towards a more uniform national school curriculum, and school starting ages.
• Workplace Skills: Builders, carpenters, electricians and mechanics will soon be able to have their skills qualifications recognised when they move interstate.

Disagreements

• Education: The states have called Julie Bishop's bluff. With a Federal election due in the next 6 months, the states have jointly expressed their concern over Julie Bishop's plan for "performance pay" for teachers, and have called her bluff. Her plan was also criticised by ACER, which completed a study for Julie Bishop's department. Whether John Howard will honour her promise to withhold $3 billion in federal funding to states for public education remains to be seen. I believe it would be electoral suicide for the Federal Government to withhold that funding so close to an election. The states will win ... this time.
• Climate change: John Howard refused to accept the States' plan (adopted from Federal Labor leader Kevin Rudd) to set a target for greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2050. Politically, he could never be seen to accept a policy proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. However, if you don't have a target, you have no chance of hitting it. Perhaps there would have been a better outcome if the States' plan showed some differences from Kevin Rudd's plan.
• Water: Victoria still refuses to agree to John Howard's national water plan. The Labor Premier, Steve Bracks, is supported by the Victorian Farmers Federation, a fact that must rile the Prime Minister and his National Party deputy.

Perhaps the COAG meeting wasn't all amicable discussion about the "new federalism".

The Analyst

New NSW Director-General of Education

Michael Coutts-Trotter was appointed as Director-General of Education in NSW by new Minister Michael Costa. It is no secret that Mr Coutts-Trotter was appointed because the new Minister wanted him. It is also no secret that MrCoutts-Trotter had a conviction for drug supply when 19, and that he spent 3 years in prison.

Today's media has been full of such stories, and it is reasonable to ask whether Mr Coutts-Trotter is a fit and proper person to head the Education department (DET). There are a number of underlying political considerations as well:

1. Because of his prior record only, the NSW Liberal Party Education spokesman, Brad Hazzard, says he is not fit to serve (in Education)
2. MrCoutts-Trotter's educational leadership qualities have also been questioned.

Comments:

1. Mr Coutts-Trotter would NOT be employed by NSW as a teacher. His criminal record would preclude that. He probably would not be able to work with Scouts or similar groups of children.
2. Since leaving prison some 23 years ago, and being through a rehabilitation program with The Salvation Army, he has, apparently, led an exemplary life. He began working for former NSW Treasurer Michael Egan as a political adviser, and was appointed as D-G of the NSW Department of Commerce in 2004. By any stretch, this was apolitical appointment, but we need to judge the effectiveness of his time there, as well as the manner of his appointment.
   
3. It seems that the Liberal Party might not believe in redemption. Former leader John Brogden was rather brutally treated and cut loose by his own Party, after they released inappropriate suggestions made by him about former Premier Bob Carr's wife. He has not been allowed to be rehabilitated within the Liberal Party. 'Redemption' is, perhaps, a concept ironically alien to the faction known as "the Religious Right".
4. At the level of Director-General, it is probably more important to be able to show leadership, than to have a particular inside knowledge of the Department. Such knowledge can be gained quickly by experienced and competent managers

The Analyst

NSW Parliament and Domestic Violence

Where, oh where, are the ethics and common human concern? There are some things that are absolutely right, and some that are absolutely wrong. Domestic violence is absolutely wrong. Not it seems, to members of the NSW Parliament. It apparently took a new (Labor) MP to stand up and say that what happened to Sandra Nori, MLC, in the 1990's was wrong, criminal, and the alleged perpetrator is not fit to hold a Ministerial position.

Good on her. But where were the others?

For years there have been government-sponsored ads to tell us that domestic violence is wrong. Yet it seems that apathy, and/or the interests of the Party took precedence over the interests of an apparently abused person. There are reports that matters were discussed with then Premier Bob Carr, and that Labor power broker Graham Richardson had "counselled" a member. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/new-minister-dumped-over-assault-claims
/2007/04/02/1175366158728.html)

But not one person seems to have done anything to help the alleged victim, nor reported it to the Police.

It seems to be just another case of "the Party comes first". All those Parliamentarians who knew, or suspected, or who saw the bruises and did nothing should hang their heads in shame.

ALL of them.

The Analyst

NSW Liberal Party Leadership Change

On Wednesday, the NSW Parliamentary Liberal Party unanimously elected Barry O'Farrell as its new leader, replacing Peter Debnam. The new leader quickly made a number of statements, distancing himself from Peter Debnam's leadership and policies; stating that the Party had recognised that it needed to change; and that he was not going to be (Liberal Prime Minister) John Howard's stooge.

If the change is to be more than a cosmetic face-lift, then the Liberal Party must change some of its policies. Doing so will test Barry O'Farrell's statement about not being the Prime Minister's stooge in NSW.

Policies that I believe they must change include:

• Public Service: removing 20,000 public servants. (on Thursday 5 April, the policy was dropped)
• Education; where a firm commitment to better fund public education, including schools and TAFE must be backed by policy. That policy should include support for centralised staffing, including centralised hiring and firing. Experiences in the US and Britain have shown that it increases the possibilities of inappropriate hiring and firing.
• Health; where Area Health Services should be retained, and the policy of local boards is dropped, because they become limited in vision and scope, wanting resources that perhaps could be better spread over a larger regional area.
• Police: a commitment to the Separation of Powers, where politicians do not ever interfere with police operations, or instruct police on who to arrest, and on what charges. We are not a Police State, and such a concept eats at the heart of any democracy.
  
• Industrial Relations: commitment to, and retention of, the NSW Industrial Relations system, including State Awards, and a NSW Arbitration Commission
• Government and Public Servant Ethics: ensuring that politicians, especially Ministers and Premiers, and Public Servants cannot work for companies with whom they have had direct or indirect dealings involving significant State Government contracts. The exclusion of employment time should be at least 1 full Parliamentary term (4 years). Furthermore, a policy that requires Ministers to actually be accountable to Parliament for the actions of their Ministry is required. Too often in NSW and Federal Parliaments, Ministers duck and weave to avoid. Accountability is not the same as personal responsibility, although in some cases Ministers need to take responsibility, too.

Instituting the type of policy changes outlined above will not be easy, since many of them clash with Prime Minster John Howard's policies (official, and unofficial). The changes he does make will determine whether Barry O'Farrell meant what he said about changes being needed, and about not being John Howard's stooge, or whether his leadership is just "air-brushing" - a soft sell of the policies largely determined by John Howard. Many of those are proving to be electorally unpopular.

The Analyst