It's the 24th November!

After several months of speculation, Prime Minister John Howard has called the Federal election for 24 November 2007. He announced the date at a media conference at Parliament House at noon today.

In his following speech, he made a number of assertions:

• "people must decide who is most able to not only to preserve Australia's prosperity, but build it to make sure it is fairly spread"
  QUESTION: Is WorkChoices designed to fairly spread the nation's wealth, or to reduce pay and conditions of millions of "worker units"?
  COMMENT: in his 11 years as Prime Minister, the number of people living in poverty in Austrlia has increased from 7% to 10% of people.
• "There is no reason why the current unemployment can't go lower"
  QUESTION: An admirable aim. What effect will even lower employment have on inflation? Interest rates? When interest rates have moved in the last two years, what has been the movement? (UP)
• "I have always wanted to achieve reconciliation (with indigenous people)", he said.
  QUESTION: Demonstrate your track record on reconciliation over the last 11 years?
• Mr Howard said that if reelected as Prime Minister, Peter Costello would be Treasurer.
  QUESTION: Won't Peter Costello become Prime Minister next term?
• Mr Howard asserts that there is "nothing balanced" in having a Federal Labor Government and Labor state governments.
  QUESTIONS: When has the financial bullying and political blackmailing by the Federal Government over funding to states been balanced? Is forcing a politically-set history curriculum on states "balanced"?
• Climate Change and reconciliation positions seem have have been reversed, or at least seemingly altered.
  QUESTION: Is that just political opportunism, cynicism, or both?

Update: Kevin Rudd's Response

Kevin Rudd has said, in response

• that the election IS about a new style of leadership that is needed. That was John Howard's attack on Paul Keating way back in 1996!
  COMMENT: Kevin Rudd's leadership, like John Howard's, is "Presidential" in style. John Howard like power, Kevin Rudd wants voters to focus on his popularity.
• he has a plan, and understands the challenges facing Australia.
  COMMENT: Perhaps, but it is not yet fully articulated, except for Workchoices. That will come during the campaign, we hope.
• he will ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and will NOT develop nuclear power stations.
  COMMENT: this will certainly attract voters away from John Howard, whose plan is really about extra profit-driven "Carbon-trading", but this will mean reliance on coal, or gas-fired, power stations.

This campaign will be a long six weeks for many voters. Much of it is likely to be negative.

John

Leaders Campaign But No Date Yet

John Howard and Kevin Rudd are both campaigning in Sydney today.

John Howard is promising Federal funding for storm-water harvesting ... but only in his electorate of Bennelong. Kevin Rudd is continuing his criticism of John Howard's "government advertising" just before the election is called. It will stop when the Parliament is dissolved: then the Liberal Party will pay for advertisements that support the government.

Mr Rudd has announced $50 for a cancer centre for Sydney. A worthy cause. Federal funding, as a % of GDP has fallen, while states share of hospital funding has increased. A visionary government/leader would recognise that what voters want is a commitment, from either party, that they will provide a greater share of funds to the states for public hospitals. John Howard's vision from the last 11 years has been to foster private entities at the expense of public ones.

Short-term electioneering is a reality near elections, but neither side has yet articulated well enough its vision for services to the public, by public utilities.

Many voters are already disengaging from the campaign, and just want the election to be called, and over. Meanwhile there is still much speculation in the media about when the election will be officially called, and dates of 17th or 24th November are being mentioned. John Howard will only use those dates if he bets the Reserve Bank will NOT raise interest rates after its November meeting. I still believe he will use 1-December for the election.

John

Reba's Health Woes

NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher has been under intense pressure and media scrutiny over problems in the NSW hospital system. Royal North Shore Hospital (RNS) has been a constant problem since a pregnant woman miscarried in the emergency waiting room toilet became known about 2 weeks ago. Yesterday, there were reports about missed cancers and delayed x-ray reports at Liverpool Hospital.

NSW Premier Morris Iemma is supporting his minister, despite calls for a parliamentary inquiry from the Opposition. Mr Iemma will resist such an inquiry for a number of reasons:

• Mr Iemma is a former Minster for Health
• party factionalism
• personal friendship
• the mere fact that the Opposition wants an Inquiry
• the total Health budget is essentially determined by Mr Iemma (as Premier) and Michael Costa (as Treasurer). Neither want to be called to give evidence.

There probably should be a Parliamentary Inquiry: it is an important step to determine what is actually wrong and, perhaps, recommend ways to fix it. It would also be one way to ensure accountability and responsibility from our State politicians. Politics will determine that there isn't one.

In the meantime, Reba Meagher will be accountable through media scrutiny and analysis. They seem to hang on every nuance, inflexion and facial expression. Some time after the Federal election, Morris Iemma might decide on a Cabinet reshuffle. Perhaps Reba Meagher will move to a ministerial position more suited to her talents. At this stage of her career, Health seems to have been too much of a challenge.

John

A Reading From the Book of History by John Howard

Today, the Prime Minister will announce that Federal funding to States for schools will only be provided if they teach an Australian History curriculum set by John Howard.

The curriculum move comes after John Howard dumped recommendations by a Melbourne history academic, and had them rewritten on his terms by right-wing (conservative) historian and a supporter of John Howard. Further, John Howard seems to have set the curriculum: students will have to learn about 70 facts of Australian History: emphasis on "facts". But history is not just about facts. Date-and-event is pretty dry content. History needs to be about people, context, environment, and ... not included in Mr Howard's curriculum ... balance.

There are some significant omissions from Australia's history, from which valuable lessons could have been learnt:

• the White Australia Policy, and its parallel in current xenophobic policies
• the "Rum Rebellion": a conflict between Governor William Bligh and Macarthur & his army officer supporters over the reduced number & size of land grants, especially to the wealthy
• the Eureka Stockade
• the Stolen Generation; and the broarder issue of treatment of orphans
• attitudes and treatment of indigenous people, apart from 1 or 2 major incidents
• other aspects of changing attitudes of the world and Australia. eg Britain's nuclear weapon testing in Australia (MonteBello Islands & Maralinga), and subsequent move to the EU; Australia's change to follow US foreign policy

What John Howard wants:

• power over states
• power to personally set school curricula
• a politically-set quite prescriptive curriculum (HIS curriculum) It is similar to Japan's former politically-set history of WWII- a history that denied Japanese atrocities and war crimes - in that important key facts and political sensitivities are omitted or treated lightly.

The Prime Minister has also insisted on the attendance of the Principal and school captains at Moorebank High School. They are on school holidays and Mr Howard wants to use them for his own media promotion. He wants voters to think, by association, that the Principal and children are on his side. It is marketing manipulation, paid for by us voters.

Should politicians set the content of school curricula? Vote now - see top right section of my blog.

John

Social Happiness and Government Policies

Many economists find the concept of "social happiness" too difficult. This is especially true of those who subscribe to economic rationalism, where the main argument is for less government intervention.

John Howard would like to think of himself as an economic rationalist. He has expressed the view "let the market decide", most recently about a carbon emissions trading scheme. That is, if business thinks there's money to be made, let them do it. He certainly did not want his government to interfere and set binding emissions targets. At the other end of the spectrum, he has been most happy for government intervention when it is to his own political advantage: the takeover of Mersey Hospital in Tasmania is an example. So is the growth of "public servants" and "media advisers" for government self-promotion. Kevin Rudd might be a little less "dry" in his economic thinking, but he, too, is prone to promised intervention if it suits.

"Social happiness" is sometimes expressed as the "sum of all individuals' happiness". But this is difficult to measure. Are people happy because they have another tax-cut? Are they happy knowing that the collective money could be used for public good? Individual people know that Public utilities (public hospitals, other health facilities, public schools, national highways) are essential, but are "happy" to take the money themselves ... until they need to use the public facilities. Then they ask "why isn't the government funding this properly?"

Government policies at State and Federal levels have been geared to individualism and privatism for too long. It is time to better fund our Public utilities for public good, rather than political expediency.

John

Polls Still Bad But PM Has Hope

The latest Herald-AC Nielson Poll continues the bad news for Prime Minister John Howard. The numbers show voter consistency of opinion over months: The 2-party-preferred count shows Labor 56%; Coalition 44%. However, as with other polls, this does not include the "uncommitted", a figure of about 12%.

Number-crunching shows the approximate figures as:

• Labor: 49%
• Coalition: 39%
• Uncommitted: 12%

It is this 12% of uncommitted voters that gives John Howard hope. I expect that about 7 in 10 of these will vote for the government (Coalition), just because they are in government, and because such voters are more likely to be befuddled by a government scare campaign. That would give figures close to:

• Labor: 52%
• Coalition: 48%

and result in a much closer election result.

The challenge for John Howard is to harness the scare campaign. He really only has 3 bullets: voter perceptions of his economic management (multiple successive rises in interest rates notwithstanding) and fear of refugees. He and his ministers will continue their assertions on these issues. The third bullet is pork-barrelling the voters. He's started with highway funding, and will continue on to hospitals, both of which are areas of voter concern. "But wait, there's more - ..."!

The challenge for Kevin Rudd is to continue to push the image of a leader who has a vision, and who wants to restore public faith in public structures such as health, education and transport; and the image of leader who wants to undo the worst degradations of WorkChoices without alienating businesses.

John

Hospitals Can't Heal Themselves

Assertions about Hospital funding, emergency department procedures, ministerial competence, a promised inquiry and changes of minds, and much finger-pointing have been the result of a recent traumatic miscarriage at Royal North Shore (RNS) Hospital in Sydney.

Since 1995-96, the proportion of Federal Government funding towards public hospitals in NSW has fallen from 45% to 41% (2005-06) of the the total funding. The States increased their proportion from 55%-59%. Many will also find unsurprising that the proportion, and dollar amounts, going to private hospitals has increased. Much of that probably comes through the 30% Health Insurance rebate given to taxpayers who then use private hospitals. Still, in NSW 30o people per 1000 people will visit an emergency department - that's a number equivalent to 30% of the population.

Education, transport, universities, TAFE, health. The Federal Government's agenda is to provide more taxpayer support for "private", rather than "public". (The same is true for NSW roads.)

"The time has come", the Walrus said, "to talk of many things ..."

• We taxpayers might need to pay more tax to fund the public services, such as hospitals, that we want.
• Or, since State Governments are severely hamstrung in raising revenue by taxes, the Federal Government needs to increase its spending on these.
• The Federal Government has restricted the number of doctors that can be trained by our universities. It is time they went, with a plan to increase the number of graduating doctors. The plan might also involve lower degree costs for doctors who work in public hospitals after completing their training. Similarly, for nurses.
• The proposal for local hospital boards is simply about divide, conquer and control by the Federal Government. Let's put that plan to rest.
• NSW Health Minister Reba Meagher needs to be more productive in her office, and spend more time understanding her portfolio, and less on holidays.
• Federal Health Minister Tony Abbott must spend less time trying to snipe at, and blame, others (states) and look for ways to work for the people of Australia.
• NSW Area Health Services need to find failures in all their procedures, staffing levels, staff training, staffing needs (in terms of experience) and infrastructure needs. Then, they can be brutally honest with their departmental and political masters. Only through such a traumatic and cathartic evaluation will a viable 5-10 year plan be possible. We will need that long to fix the systemic and political errors of the last 10 years.

All of these will require a radical change in perspective from all participants.. Economically, we cannot just pump more money in: it needs to be redistributed from elsewhere. As a society we need to set the agenda. We also need politicians and governments who will act in the public interest, not the party interests. Instead of being belligerent, controlling, and blackmailing, governments must actually consider the public good in how they deal with each other.

John

Federal Election Date

There has been weeks of speculation in the media bout when the Federal election will be held. Senior Government members will only say "between now and Christmas" or "well before Christmas".

Given that this weekend has a public holiday, and is the start of school holidays in NSW, my prediction is as follows.

• John Howard will call the election during the seek after school returns. The Governor-General is overseas, and to call the election during the holidays would not go well with voters psyche.
  
  
• If he calls the election during that week (15-20 October), the election will be held on Sat 1st December. John Howard would not want it to be any later - that would interfere with voters' Christmas shopping, and be too close to the start of school Christmas Holidays, neither of which would please voters.

So, Saturday 1st December is my prediction for the date of the Federal election.

John

Australian Farming Audit

Last week, Opposition Shadow Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, agreed that an audit of farming land would not be a bad thing. He said this in response to a direct question.

The Federal Government's (junior) Parliamentary Secretary for the environment, John Cobb, immediately responded by trying to "shoot the messenger", saying that Garrett was "the grim reaper" of farmers. Such a response contributes nothing to the discussion. It's a discussion teh Government does not want to have. There has been a number of media stories and editorials supporting John Howard's plan to provide more assistance to farmers.

Much of Australia has been in drought for more than 6 years, the average temperature has been higher than in other droughts, possible due to climate change, and rain events that have occurred have been less common and more extreme. Add to this, the mix of high-water use irrigated crops such as cotton and rice planted in the very dry Murray-Darling Basin, and there would seem to be a good case for a national audit of what we produce on farms, where it's produced, what water is needed to produce it, and whether some areas currently farmed are viable. Some years years ago, both the manufacturing, sugar and dairy industries were restructured, and the Federal Government encouraged some farmers to leave the industry: there might be other areas where this is appropriate, with suitable financial inducements.

A national audit of farming land, production and water use is a worthwhile response to the effects of climate change/"shift" on our farmland, drought and our farmers and their families.

The question is not whether our politicians have the "ticker" to do it; the question is, are we willing to insist on action for Australia's benefit.

John

Federal-State Health Funding

On Tuesday (25-Sep), a woman had a miscarriage in a public toilet at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney. On Wednesday, another lady contacted the media to say she had had a similar experience 2 years ago. Both had gone to the hospital, and been waiting for more than 1.5 hours. The experience of both could only be described as shattering.

Triage sets priorities for waiting patients. Those most at risk (chest pains, breathing difficulties) are treated sooner. The process relies on assessment, and on available nurses and doctors. Both are in short supply. RNS has vacancies for over 60 registered nurses, and an unknown number of doctors. It underwent a restructure last year - presumably to reduce costs.

Health is one of the "big 3" budget items in NSW (the others are educations and police), the proportion of the budget spent on each of them is increasing. Health now uses about 26% of NSW's budget. While many call for more funding, no one disputes the need.

How to properly fund the provision of State services is a much bigger issue. States cannot reasonably borrow to pay for recurrent expenditure. ie money spent each year in running the services, the same way that we cannot relentlessly borrow to pay for food and regular household bills.

Since the Hawke-Keating years, the % of GDP provided to the states has fallen. Under John Howard and Peter Costello is is at its lowest point - just 5% of GDP. Yet the costs borne by states has risen inexorably. If the states, and NSW in particular, cannot adequately fund the required levels of service using the money we pay in GST, there are only 2 options:

1. we pay more tax - eg by increasing GST from 10% to , say 12%, or more income tax to the Federal Government
2. the Federal Government releases more money to the states, possibly as tied grants for specific service areas.

John Howard has 3 fundamental objections to increasing Federal Government grants to the states:

1. He considers the budget surplus his, to be used for the benefit of the Liberal Party, and his re-election. Last election he splurged $6 billion in voter "sweeteners": we're paying higher interest rates partly because of that largess.
2. He has a fundamental objection to helping fund Labor governments to provide services. That doesn't help him.
3. He has a fundamental objection to public services: he would much rather spend Federal money helping private companies deliver the same services, because he retains a measure of control, and he can take "credit".

States need to be have increased funding to provide the services we "demand". That money must come from our taxes, either new, increased, or existing income tax. Perhaps we really do need to look at a new Federal-State funding model. We will need a different Federal Government to do it, though.

John

Workchoices - the Christianity Test

On 9 August, John Howard & Kevin Rudd both professed their Christianity in a broadcast to the Hillsong Church, a church that has mostly supported John Howard.

He told the audience "The predominant religious culture in our society is Christianity" and that the parable of the talents is all about capitalism.

A friend sent me a passage from the Old Testament.
It is from the book of Job 8:4-7 It reads:

Listen to me, you who trample on the needy
and try to suppress the poor people of the country,
...
Then by lowering the bushel, raising the shekel,
by swindling and tampering with the scales,
we can buy up the poor for money,
and the needy for a pair of sandals,
...
The Lord swears ..
'Never will I forget a single thing you have done!'

It reminded me of the effects of WorkChoices legislation. I wonder what lesson John Howard and Kevin Rudd would draw from that passage.

Today's news also had stories about WorkChoices ads that have been withdrawn. The embrassing withdrawals of both ads reflect the need to for both the government and business consortiums ( the ad was from a groups of 19 employer organisations and pretended to show union bosses closing a dressmaking shop) to portray accurately what happens: neither ad does that. As with all ads from governments and big business "Caveat emptor" - let the buyer beware. The ads and the scare tactics are untrustworthy.

John Howard professes Christianity - but does his legislation practice it?

John

NSW - The Gambling State

NSW is set to allow even more opportunities for problem gamblers to fill Treasurer Michael Costa's moneybag. On Fr 22-Sep, NSW Minister for Gambling and Racing told ABC Radio

"The Gaming Machine Act is under review and that means everything is under review, from harm minimisation through to poker machine entitlements. We are not ruling anything in or out."

NSW Hotels and clubs will be mighty pleased - they will be lobbying hard to allow extra poker machines. The government is likely to be sympathetic: it wants the tax revenue, especially given it is losing millions in revenue from lost horse racing, and might yet have to be seen to be supporting the industry.

The NSW government is also under some pressure over hotel trading hours, given the increasing levels of violence surrounding some big hotels, and nightclubs.

The NSW branch of the Australian Hotels Association has been a significant lobbyist of the NSW government. Electoral Commission data shows the owners of 2 hotels where there have been problems with violence have donated tens of thousands of dollars to the NSW ALP. Presumably they see it as a "business investment", and want a return.

All this comes at the same time as Russell Crowe and Peter Holmes a Court plan to dump poker machines from South Sydney Leagues Club. There desire is driven by their recognition of the social cost of gambling, and the manner in which it is promoted: no sunlight (so patrons lose track of time), ATMs nearby, and the desire for clubs and hotels, and the NSW government, for ever more money from punters.

This is indeed a serious social issue, but the big players - the NSW government, clubs and pubs - have just one phrase: "show me the money"! Their cynicism in the face of significant social problems is nothing less than mind-blowing.

John

Poll Spin - Howard Says He Can Win

Today's Newspoll survey results seemed to bring good news to John Howard. The Liberal Party was back to his previously losing position, as shown by polls from 6 July onwards. The only exception was the last poll. (2 September). All others had (2-party preferred) the Coalition at 44-45% and the Labor Party at 55-56%.

From that, John Howard told the Party room that "I can win it". Well, politicians do like to talk up their underdog status, to at least appear to have a chance. In truth, he does. The polls have shown a fairly consistent % of 'uncommitted' that are not included in the poll results. Those undecided on polling day are more likely to vote for an incumbent government, than for a change. So, we can expect future polls to show a narrowing of the gap.

In terms of voter satisfaction/dissatisfaction with the leaders, the numbers stay the same.

• John Howard: 45 % Satisfied; 44% dissatisfied.
• Kevin Rudd: 65% satisfied; only 18% dissatisfied.

The same is true for voter perceptions of who would make a better Prime Minister

• John Howard: 38%
• Kevin Rudd: 48%

The challenge for both parties, and especially the Liberal Party, is to win the hearts and votes of those uncommitted: about 10-14% of voters. The other numbers will change a little, but it is this group that will really decide the election.

Meanwhile, Kevin Rudd has been cautioning his team against any displays of hubris or arrogance: Government ministers have already tried lining up to tell voters that's what's happening. The mind games continue, from both sides.

It is 5 days since John Howard talked about his team. Since then, not a single one of his press releases has mentioned the word 'team', but there have been plenty of 'I's.

John

Howard Government's Green Advertising

As John Howard prepares an advertising campaign to tell voters about his Climate Change "green" credentials, it is appropriate to look at his own record.

Kirribilli House, used by John Howard instead of The Lodge, had rainwater tanks fitted in 2007. If they had not been, John Howard faced the embarrassment of being named a large water user, as Sydney residentsstruggled to cope with water restrictions.

Parliamant House, where he could have shown considerable leadership, has been less than an ideal model of a "green" citizen. While there are government websites and documentation afor householders to use to benefit themselves and the environment, John Howard's government:

• still uses large, petrol-engined cars. No Toyata Priuses here.
• 2004-05 figures show there were 133929000 MJ of energy used at Parliament House. Only 10274386 (7.8%) came from renewable/green energy sources
• A 2002 Senate Inquiry on "The Value of Water" recommended specific measures, including "Upgrading all Commonwealth buildings for higher standards of water efficiency" and "The Joint House Department to be funded to change all toilet cisterns in Parliament House to dual-flush and to fit water efficient shower roses".
  
  (Recommendations 9 & 10, under "Leading by Example")
  
  As at May 2007 only the toilets in the carpark, forecourt and Parliament House Recreation Centre had been fitted with waterless urinals (no dual-flush toilets) and only the Recreation Centre has water efficient shower roses.

You''ll soon see slick advertisements espousing the green "climate change" credentials of John Howard & co. So much for the political will of John Howard's Government to show leadership in their own backyard!

John

John Howard's New Team

John Howard has a new team. At least he says he has a team. After years of presidential-style domination of his party and coalition members and Ministers, John Howard would have voters believe they are a team.

Consider his 3 press releases today:

• Nurses Education: one "I"; no mention of "team"
• Address to the RSL National Congress: more than 30 "I"s; no mention of "team"
• Australian Nursing Schools: 19 "I"s; no mention of team

So much for having a team. This is not about teams: the Coalition has members and Ministers who firmly believe that John Howard should NOT be leading the party, let alone the country. Yes, they are self-interested: they stand to lose their seats at the election.

The presentation of a "team" to voters is like a quick slash of gloss paint over a facade that is crumbling, cracked and very much in ruins. It's glossy, but has no substance. John Howard's leadership, and his governement, has almost certainly run its course

John

Howard's Nursing Agenda

Today Prime Minister John Howard released his plan for nnursing education. Pointedly, he made the announcement at a private hospital (St George Private Hospital, in Sydney), rather than at a public hospital.

In his press release, he also pointedly talks about "I" - no mention of the new "team" in the whole press release - and says:

"What we are going to do is to provide $170 million over a period of five years to create 25 Australian Hospital Nursing Schools and essentially what that means is that the Federal Government will fund individual hospitals, either public or private, we'll adopt the same approach irrespective of whether it is a public or a private hospital; for them to provide training facilities within the hospitals themselves for people training to become enrolled nurses. "

Here we need to draw parallels with the Australian Technical Schools - remember those - most of which have been unable to find apprenticeships for their students, and most of which have to sub-contract the training to TAFE, because they don't have RTO status.

It also says that the Federal Government "will fund individual hospitals." Let's draw further parallels with universities, which this year had the option of no increase in funding, or an increase in funding if they offered only Workchoices. Yes, it's political blackmail, and yes the university Vice-Chancellor's had Hobson's Choice: Workchoices or nothing.

From John Howard, this offer might look good, but the offer is really about 2 things:

• Concentration of Political power for John Howard
• The Federal Government using financial "leverage" to push more people onto Workchoices.

John

NSW Electricity Sale to Benefit Budget - Not People

On 4 May 2007, the NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, told Parliament

"there will be no sale of electricity generation, transmission or distribution"

On 11 September the Owen Inquiry into Electricity Supply in NSW was released. Its recommendation is a s follows:

"... there is a need to be prepared for additional investment in
baseload from 2013-14. Further, the most efficient means of
providing for baseload is to improve the commercial and policy
signals used by the private sector when investing in generation
capacity in New South Wales. My key recommendation,
therefore, is that the Government of New South Wales divests
itself of all State ownership in both retail and generation. ..."

That is, Professor Owen, having looked at the National electricity market, carbon-trading schemes present and planned, the need for increased baseload power generation, and the budget, has recommended NSW sell its electricity infrastructure.

How does this fit with Morris Iemma's prmise on 9 May? Professor Owen raised the possibility of long-term leases to power station plant to private companies as way out. He argues that a long-term lease will encourage private lessees to maintain the power stations. But this doesn't solve the problem of the extra need.

The solution, it seems is to remove the pricing caps, to allow private companies to build new power stations, while politicians tell us that "iremoving the pricing cap will have no effect because competition will keep the prices low". If that is the case, they should be left. Fair go - they must think there's one born every minute! The NSW ALP government is really looking to avoid investment in infrastructure that would provide essential service (electricity) to the people of NSW.

By so doing they will make the budget look good (Treasurer Costa beams with happiness) while avoiding having to (gasp) use the State's AAA+ credit rating to borrow money to provide long-term investments to benefit the people of NSW.

The sell-off is so that the State Labor Government can avoid their responsibility to the people of NSW. They ought to be ashamed.

John

Howard Survives His Own Coup

In the time leading up to the APEC forum in Sydney, during and this week ( after the forum) there has seemingly been much whispering and talk within the Liberal Party about John Howard's leadership future. Nothing surprising there - it has been happening for months - because the polls (by Newspoll, SMH/The Age and internal Liberal polling) have never showed any improvement in either John Howard's, or the Liberal Party's, standing with voters.

This morning, John Howard's leadership was not challenged in a quickly-convened Liberal Party meeting. To do so would mean admitting he should have handed over to Peter Costello last year. And it would hav ebeen politically stupid for the Liberal Party to change now: no new leader could hope to capture the voting public's imagination in such a short time.

Indeed, the most recent polls show a further swing to both Kevin Rudd as preferred Prime Minister, and the APL's vote. Backbenchers and Ministers are in danger of losing their seats, and are paranoid about it: they feel John Howard is leading them to oblivion. Ministers at risk include: John Howard (NSW), Alexander Downer (SA), Brendan Nelson (NSW), Gary Hardgrave (Qld)

What is surprising, is that John Howard says the speculation was all his fault - he claims he asked senior ministers including Alexander Downer, Malcolm Turnbull and Brendan Nelson, to talk about him and his future. Peter Costello wasn't invited.

Mr Howard told a press conference

"... I have never run from a fight before and I don't intend to
do so now."

Ominous words from a leader who seems likely to lose the election, even allowing for some convergence in the polls after the election is formally called. It is reminiscent of a leader who knows he'll die in battle, but is determined to sacrifice his own troops to do it.

John

APEC - Hot Air on Climate Change

The Sydney Declaration on Climate Change at the Sydney APEC Forum contains just over 2000 words.

It reaffirms signatories' commitment to the UN principles on Climate Change.

It commits nothing till after 2012.

It says, in part, that members of APEC will:

• "work(ing) towards achieving an APEC-wide regional aspirational goal of a reduction in energy intensity of at least 25 per cent by 2030 (with 2005 as the base year);"
• "work to achieve an APEC-wide aspirational goal of increasing forest cover in the region by at least 20 million hectares of all types of forests by 2020"

Have another look at point 1:

"work towards achieving an ... aspirational goal" means that the aspirational goal might never eventuate. There is no requirement of members. China apparently almost baulked at this - it wanted something stronger (to its credit).

Nevertheless, there is a target - 25% less energy intensity than 2005 by 2030. But there are no intermediate targets; no requirement for members to start acting; nothing has to be done in the political lifetime of the leaders.

Increasing the forest cover is a fine aspirational goal. APEC countries apparently account for 54% of the worlds managed and natural forests ( Abare Economics) . However, a nuber of APEC countries where these forests are being denuded (legally or illegally) includes: Australia;
Indonesia; Phillipines; Thailand; China; Mexico; Papua New Guinea; Chile; Peru; and Viet Nam.
These represent a significant portion of APEC nations. Australia, for example, is still waiting on a decision on a Tasmanian woodchip mill that would partly use old-growth forest timber; some other countries have significant problems with illegal timber clearing.

The aspirational target to increase forested area has no timeline of commitments, and the statement allows countries to argue economic differences to avoid doing anything.

Overall, the document has escape clauses to avoid doing anything, even after 2012; and, if anything is done, it could well be after the current political leaders are no longer in office.

The reality is, it was about John Howard, in particular, trying to look good before an election - without him having to do anything.

John
"The Analyst"

APEC Protests

Today's protests in Sydney, to coincide with the APEC forum turned out to be quieter, and more orderly than many expected, and planned for.

There might be a number of reasons for that:

• some individual people and groups, known troublemakers, were warned off. They included Mutiny, a left-wing group that distributed a manual for APEC that detailed how cause trouble; Resistance, a group that acknowledged on its website that other groups feared it would cause violence; and AC/DC, an anarchist political group (not the band)
  
• Police have lessons have been learnt from the Cronulla and Macquarie Fields riots of 2005
• rain, or the threat of rain, kept some people away
• the public holiday in Sydney
• pre-warning by Police that they would tolerate no trouble at all, and had the numbers and equipment to show it
• Protester fears that the protest could be high-jacked by those individuals and groups seeking violence.
  

Reports this afternoon indicated 18 people had been arrested: not many out of 3000 - 5000 estimated protesters. Some protesters, as they seem to do, and some parts of the media have questioned the force used by Police in their zero-tolerance approach. One journalist was pushed back, and fell to the ground, while trying to push into the middle of a Police arrest to get a photo. The journalist seemed to have only minor injuries from the push and fall, but some defended the action as part of "the media just doing its job".

Well, no - it is not the media's job to put themselves into a position that interferes with Police officers' work. The photo could have taken from the 3-5 metres without interfering with Police.

Whether the Police operations, and the special APEC laws, were excessive ought to be discussed as part of a debriefing. If a disaster plan, including preventive measures, means a disaster (riot) didn't happen, that is one measure of its success.

APEC: Howard, Rudd Gush to Impress Voters

Since Tuesday, John Howard has been basking in his friendship with US Presidetn Bush. Yesterday, he even issued a press release of the "media conference of mutual admiration and political praise."

John Howard was gushing in how well the war in IRaq is going, and how much we need to stay. Recent media stories of the progress towards teh 11 criteria set for the Iraq government shows 2 of 11 performance indicators only. Better than none; but hardly war-winning.

Goerge Bush, having said he wanted to stay out of Australian political campaigns was at pains to tell voters that John Howard was a man of "vision" and "a leader". Certainly John Howard has led Australia to follow George Bush's Foreign Policy on Iraq. (war, more war; and more troops, for longer)

Today, Kevin Rudd countered with his meeting with George Bush: a meeting at which he confirmed Labor's policy of withdrawing (some) troops from Iraq; but offered to send more troops to Anghanistan. Diplomacy is a 2-sided coin, after all. Details of the conversation will remain private, at Mr Bush's request.

Chinese President Hu Jintao has arrived, and announced improvements to ensure the safety of toys (following a number of toy recalls by Mattel) and while the governemnt announced a gas deal, Mr Rudd apparently spoke in Mandarin during a social event with the Chinese. He is trying to show Australian voters, and the Chinese, that he is better able to communicate by talking one-to-one with the Chinese in trade, energy or other matters. Certainly, his time as a working Diplomat gives him that advantage over John Howard.

John

Howard Slips Further in the Polls

Today's Newspoll results did not bear good news for John Howard. They show a widening gap between the Coalition and the Labor Party on a two-party preferred vote: 59% to the ALP and 41% to the Coalition. The fall in coalition voting intention is due to the fall in Liberal Party vote.

But there is worse for John Howard: he continues to fall as "preferred Prime Minister" to 37%, down by 2%, while Kevin Rudd's approval has gone up by 2% to 48%. For both men the approve/disapprove changes seem to come from those voters willing to express an opinioni: neither man is convincing the"uncommitted" percentage.

The primary vote results are particularly worrying for the Coalition Parties:

• the National Party vote is down from almost 6% at the last election to 4%
• the Liberal Party vote is down from 41% to 33%
• the overall Coalition vote is down from 47% to 37%
• the Labor vote is up from 38% to 51%. The increase here is greater thatn the decrease in Coalition voting intentions, indicating that opposition to the Coalition government is concentrating in Labor's intended primary vote.

John

Andrew Johns, Football and Drugs

Drugs in sport are nothing new. Some sports have had the legitimacy of whole events questioned. Cycling's Tour de France and other endurance races have been the subject of individual and team doping for some years.

This week's revelation and cathartic confession by Andrew Johns that he did take drugs, including ecstacy, during competition times; that he ran the gauntlet of drug testing; and that others in his team, club and family knew of his drug-taking brought many comments. Today's news stories are that he not only suffered from depression, but the more serious bipolar disorder, and was/is taking medication for it. However there are still questions to be asked, and actions to be taken. Johns has admitted that drugs are not the only problem; alcohol abuse is another. Many would believe such abuse is common among footballers (soccer, AFL, rugby league and rugby union). One of the last things a person suffering depression needs is a depressive drug like alcohol.

So:

• what responsibility does a player have to inform their club of psychological problems that could affect their performance? (Johns admitted that some days he went through the motions of playing)
• what responsibility does a club have in promoting and ensuring responsible use of alcohol (not more than 6 standard drinks (4 schooners only) in any 24-hour period; and at least 2 days a week without alcohol)? Alcohol is often provided in vast quantities after important games - win or lose! Should restrictions on alcohol use be part of every player's contract?
• what responsibility does the NRL bear in its testing regimen? Should players be tested on weekends, after playing Friday night? Out-of-season testing? Just how far does the NRL go in testing?
• how much will his near and extended family have to do to support him?

Andrew Johns will need the support of many people: his doctors, family, friends, his club and the NRL. Most of all, he will need help to avoid the circumstances that lead to taking excessive amounts of alcohol and drugs. He will have to avoid nightclubs, late-night outings at pubs and clubs without a sober minder. I hope he can do it - but I despair that he can't: behaviours learnt from a football culture that includes binge drinking and playing-up from teenage years will be extraordinarily hard to change.

John

John Howard Scared of Labor's IR Plan

Prime Minister John Howard must be very afraid of voter perceptions of Workchoices, and the obvious differences in the ALP's (& Kevin Rudd's) modified IR proposal.

Today, Mr Howard issued a press release about Labor's proposal. Because the media run these press releases as news, almost without question, Mr Howard will mention the "scary moster" word "union" every 20 words i his 330 word press release.

But, as with most things said by politicians, it is what was not said that is important. Mr Howard had no argument: he is simply trying to scare voters. He said nothing of his plans for "WorkChoices v2"; he did not argue against any of the content of the ALP's policy, other than to criticise a system of arbitration and conflict resolution. His tactic is simply to repeat the untested assertion that is his position: no facts, no policy, just repetition.

It seems to be all he has, or wants to tell us. Voters can only hope that the media recognise that, and report it.


John

Big Kev's 'Big' IR Changes

Kevin Rudd has released his proposed changes to IR Laws. The changes, he says, are to make the system fairer, and will be introduced soon after the 2007 Federal election. His proosals include:

• awards will not be used to cover those whos epay is above $100,000 (indexed to inflation) For many "ordinary Australian" workers, this is a figure chosen for its 6-figures - much more than they earn.
• workers earning less than $100,000 would be covered by an award.
• secondary boycotts stay- there is no change. The ALP can never go back to allowing them - the political risk is much too great.
• those whose AWA's were signed before the so-called "fairness test" are likely to be stuck, some for the next 4 1/2 years! It would be infeasible to try to legislate backdated cancellation of such contracts. The best that the ALP, and those on AWAs can hope for, is that the proposed "transitional arrangements" will ease the burden on both.
• Flexibility in awards would not allow employers to reduce pay and conditions. That would seem to be fairer, since AWA's can, and do, reduce not just pay, but other conditions such as public holidays.

The ALP claims that fewer than 5% of workers are on AWA's and that most of them are among the lowest paid workers in hospitality and retail. These are areas that use a large proportion of casual, part-time employees, many of them women, or young people.

There are undoubtedly many old-time ALP members and supporters who will be upset that the changes will not go far enough, and that the 1970's power of unions will not be restored. That is a good thing in many voters' minds, and will severely limit the level of valid criticism that could be used by John Howard's Parliamentary and Industry representatives. They will still use invalid, "bogyman" tactics to try to scare voters, though. It's worked in the past.

John

An Inconceiveable Conversation?

The following story comes from a fly on the wall. I do not know the whereabouts or identity of the fly - it is one of billions.

PC Plod: That lawyer is soooo bad! Fancy releasing the transcript of the umpteenth interview with that fellow we called a terrorist ….whatisname? … !

Minister For Foreigners: Yes – absolutely disgusting! Doesn’t do much for the AFP, though!

PC Plod: Don’t you talk – you wanted a political decision. We just told you the interpretation you wanted … Idiot.

Minister For Foreigners: Idiot! IDIOT! Listen, should I release more of the reasons you gave me for my decision??

PC Plod: NO. That would only make matters worse. No way, Minister. (THINKS: would make the AFP, and ME, look like an idiot.)

Minister leaves to address a press conference ... Later news reports carry the following quote:

"I’ve been advised that I cannot release any more information about what I’ve
been told about (that terrorist-fellow)."

Couldn't happen in a robust democracy ...

John

Howard vs Rudd - Some Differences Appear

As we get closer to the 2007 Federal Election election, voters a re now starting to see some differences in language and concepts used by both John Howard and Kevin Rudd. To soem extent, Kevin Rudd has been coerced into highlighting differences, as Government ministers ahve lined up to say that either Kevin Rudd has no differeences, so stick with us; or tried to assert that a Labor Governemnt should scare everyone.

On the 20-August, the John Howard outlines in both a press release, and in an "Australia Rising" speech, nailed some of his colours to the mast. Others have come from his public and parliamentary comments.

John Howard wants:

• a Nationalist government - that should worry many Australians. Nationalism was a concept based on ethnic and religious intolerance and led to the formation of the nations of Germany and Italy, causing of some of the most dramatic and divisive events of the 20th century


• greater concentration of power (to held by himself, and fitting with his Nationalist ideas)
• more takeovers without consultation
• actions to be "outcome focused" - (subtext: never mind due process, cooperation or consultation)
• further economic reform. (WorkChoices 2)
• Nuclear Power - however, has has given a (non-core) promise that communities can have a referendum on whether they want one in their suburb/area. I'm sure Ziggy Switowski would vote for one in his 'backyard' - he recommended them, after all.
• "All the way with GWB"
• Climate change - as long as big business and mining interests can make money from it.

Kevin Rudd wants

• greater cooperation with and among states, especially regarding hospitals. Indeed he has stated that he will give the States just 18 months to work with him to fix the problems. If they can't or won't he will take a proposal for a Federal Government takeover of public hospitals to the 2010 election.
• Economic and IR reform (the proposal is to remove the excessively adverse effects of WorkChoices on women, families and young people)
• a withdrawal of troops from Iraq at a "convenient time" - while much of Mr Rudd's policy is ideal, it is likely that Australia will be asked to make a greater commitment to Iraq, given the US major escalation of troop numbers and a number of other countries (Britain, among them) looking to reduce their involvement in what has become a mire. Forcing a country to have democracy when it was artificially created from historically warring parties and has been ruled by warlords is proving particularly troublesome.
• Action on climate change - here he is treading carefully, knowing the interests involved - including the use of "clean coal" technologies.

John Howard would also like Peter Costello to stay in the background: leadership talk by others unsettles him.


John

Kevin Rudd and the "Celebrity' Strip Club

A strip club's a strip club - they all provide tacky "entertainment", usually sleazy.

Today's media is full of the story of Kevin Rudd visiting strip club Score's in New York, led by Glenn Milne's reporting in one of News Ltd's Sunday papers. Milne is a long-time fan of Prime Minister John Howard, and it would be difficult to think other than that this story was fed to him. {Readers will recall that it was Milne, in a drunken state, that pushed Stephen Mayne, from crikey.com, off stage while he was presenting an award in 2006}

Rudd confesses it happened; that he called his wife the day after; and that he'd had too much to drink with others who accompanied him.

By any measure, Rudd's visit to such a club was politically stupid. Yet Australians have often forgiven those in public office who breached the usual bounds of decency: Malcolm Fraser wndering hotel corridor without his trousers, and Bob Hawke's prediliction for swearing come to mind.

John Howard was absent from Media interviews today, but many feel sure he would have supported Mr Rudd, having supported Australian soldiers "letting off steam" just a few weeks ago. Both leaders cultivate their image: this will almost certainly hurt Kevin Rudd and the ALP in this week's NewsPoll survey. The reult will allow John Howard to tell the media, voters, and especially the party room that he will be 'good for' the election - although he won't publicly phrase it that way.

John

Costello The Fortune-Teller

Yesterday's and today's news is about what Treasurer Peter Costello did, or did not say to journalists and supporters.


Three Journalists had dinner with Mr Costello, who is reported to have spoken "off the record" about leadership, in 2005. The reporters, as would any journalist, kept notes, and say that Peter Costello said:

• John Howard could not win the next (this coming) election


• John Howard had to step down as Prime Minister by the middle of 2006, for him. If John Howard did not stand down he would work to undermine him, to the point of going to the backbench.


• Only he (Peter Costello) could lead the Liberal-National Parties Coalition to victory in this (2007) election.

Peter Costello today claims he did nothing, and said nothing to his supporters. It is, perhaps, difficult to think he said nothing in private to at least some of his supporters, but that the politics of numbers was such that he would not win any challenge. In 2006, John Howard held sway, both with voters, and in the party room.

However, the polls this year show voter disenchantment with John Howard. They believe him to be "mean and tricky"; his economic credibility is taking a battering from interest rate rises and housing affordability; and his leadership dominance is not as it once was. Yesterday, Peter Costello's 50th birthday, saw Liberal MP Wilson Tuckey send faxes to John Howard and other members, effectively demanding that John Howard should resign as Prime Minister. The ALP asked the Prime Minister in question time if, after 11 years, he would finally invite Peter Costello and his wife to a private dinner for his birthday. John Howard did not do that.

Peter Costello's remarks might well turn out to be prophetic. Perhaps the Liberal Party's best chance at this election is to change leader and hope that Peter Costello is still enjoying a "honeymoon" period as Liberal Party leader and Prime Minister when the election is held. Even this close to an election!



John

Economic Management-2

In a previous posting ( here ) I suggested that:

"The Reserve Bank (RBA) uses monetary policy (interest rates) when fiscal policy (the budget) is ineffective, or having an adverse effect on the economy"

Today, the Reserve Bank has used its Quarterly review of monetary policy to foreshadow further increases in interest rates. It believes further rises will be necessary because the economy is still overheating (see economic streetracer ) and has revised its expected rate of inflation for 2007 and 2008 from 2.5% to 3%. It doesn't seem like much, but that is redlining the economy, and is unsustainable.

John Howard has two political problems on economic management:

1. if he pushes "electoral sweeters" at voters before the election, he will pump even more money into the economy, and will be responsible for even more interest rate rises, and will be seen as being economically irresponsible.
2. the Reserve Bank is showings its independence from government in ways that John Howard does not like.

John Howard has a history of taking effective control where he does not like outcomes. He took responsibility for wage increases away from teh independent judiciary, and put it within a Ministry; he put the once-independent tribunal that determines politicians' salaries under his own department (& effective influence); he wants control of water; he wants selective control of hospitals.

John Howard has a history of wanting "control". If he wins the election, he might well consider removing the Reserve Bank's independence, and put it under effective control of himself and the Treasurer.

John

HMAS Sydney Found - Possibly

There is news tody that a group has claimed to have found the wreck of HMAS Sydney off the coast of WA.

The mystery of the final resting place of the Sydney has been along one.

HMAS Sydney was commissioned on 24 September 1935. She was a "light cruiser", and was sunk on 19 November 1941.


(Picture: HMAS Sydney at Circular Quay in 1939)

She was sunk in a battle with the German raider Kormoran, somewhere near Shark Island, off the coast of Western Australia.

The Sydney's total complement, 645 crew members, were lost. It was the largest ship, and greatest single loss of ship's crew in WWII. The (then suspected) loss was reported 15 November, as in the picure below.

(Source: National Archives of Australia)

If the wreck is that of HMAS Sydney, it will be formally declared a war grave; and its find will bring closure to the families and relatives of all those lost, and for all Australians.

Lest We Forget

John

Economic Street Racer

(Digital Mischief by The Analyst)

(Orginal drawing from http://www.houseofcars.com/ )

John

Interest Rates and Economic Management

Back in July, I predicted interest rate rises (so did many others)
I also discussed them in May - and there were tax cuts in the budget, just enough to pour even more money into the economy.

That the RBA has had to take such a blunt economic instrument, the first time in an election year, since its independence from government, and the 9th rise since 2002, is a serious blow to John Howard's claim of being a "good economic manager".

The Reserve Bank (RBA) uses monetary policy (interest rates) when fiscal policy (the budget) is ineffective, or having an adverse effect on the economy. Before the 2004 election, Peter Costello put a number of "electoral sweetener" options to Mr Howard. He wanted Mr Howard to use one. Mr Howard used not one, but all of the possible put to him by Peter Costello. The result was an EXTRA $6 Billion put into the economy. With an "average" multiplier effect of about 1.4-1.5 across the economy, the economy had to produce an extra $8.4-$9Billion worth of GDP. And that's before the $multi-Billion tax cuts; the mining boom; the housing boom; rising levels of personal debt.

No wonder there were 5 interest rate rises since the last election. The RBA had to slow spending somehow.

Have a look at:
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2007/07/cpi-reserve-bank-and-interest-rates.html

and

http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2007/04/low-infaltion-figure-interest-rates.html

Whatever spin is put on this by both the Coalition Government and Labor Opposition, the fact remains that the economy has become too strong; John Howard's government has been too loose with its "voter-pleasing" spending, and its budgets (fiscal policy) have not been as effective as they would have people believe.

With an election shortly, voters will be acutely aware of the hip-pocket effect of this latest rise, in particular.

John

Andrews Inconsistent on Haneef's Departure

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews has made conflicting statements about Dr Mohamed Haneef's departure from Australia.

On ABC TV's Insiders program, Mr Andrews said

“Dr Haneef has been protesting his innocence, there's an appeal on foot, normally people stay around to see the outcome of their appeal."

This is at odds with his statement to reporters in Melbourne on 28-July, when he said

"… he (Haneef) should depart Australia”

(http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/haneef-can-leave-andrews/2007/07/28/1185339311724.html)

The government has been at pains to show it is "tough on terror", but having been denied a judicial trial, is now seeking "trial-by-media".

John

Haneef Case Review

There have been calls from the Federal Opposition and Green Parties for a judicial review of the handling of the investigation into Dr Mohamed Haneef.
Following are the "findings" a reasonable person might have made:

• Dr Haneef was granted a 457 visa so he could work in Queensland, because there is a shortage of (hospital) doctors.
• Although he made some comments early, Prime Minister John Howard left most of the media commenting to Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock, and Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews. This does not mean he had nothing to do with them. His office alone employs 40-odd people, and Ministers do not make comment without Mr Howard knowing what they are saying.
• While the AFP rightly claim that intelligence information can, and does change quickly, they seem to have been reticent to incorporate changed information into questions asked of Dr Haneef'.
• There are still allegations that AFP officers made some entries into Dr Haneef's diary, then asked him about the entries.
• The AFP, and its officers and analysts, was under considerable political pressure because politicians kept making comments during the investigations. Perhaps, if they had been silent, as they should, a death might have been prevented.
• AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty showed some political promise when "passing the buck" for mistakes, including blaming the media. One would hope that he remedies the causes of the mistakes in the organisation he leads.
• There is no doubt that the Federal Government was very keen for Dr Haneef to leave the country: the case had brought significant bad press for the Federal Government, particularly in relation to the use of Section 501 (ministerial discretion) to cancel Dr Haneef's visa, and to leave it cancelled after the DPP reviewed the case and dropped all charges. That the Commonwealth Solicitor-General gave legal advice that the visa cancellation was perfectly legal, even where no case exists, highlights the need for oversight of such "Ministerial discretion".

I'm certain the Federal Government doesn't want the formal judicial review: it could only make them look worse.

John

WorkChoices Ad Campaign

WorkChoices, as it is still known by many people, remains unpopular with those most affected: families, their children and Mr Howard's so-called aspirational Australians.
(Digital manipulation by 'The Analyst'; Photo from The Age )

John

NSW Public Transport

Today's and recent headlines about public transport in Sydney include:

• one of the contractors building new Millenium trains for Sydney (Downer EDI) had a profit downgrade, and its Managing Director resigned. Deputy Premier & Minister for Transport tried to reassure voters that Downer EDI was only one part of the consortium that has the contract.



• criticism of Minister Joe Tripodi for being slow to ensure that Cremorne Wharf was repaired quickly after July Storms.



• "kite-flying" by the government about privatising the ferry service, which might lead to a doubling of ferry fares. At least Treasurer Michael Costa would be happy to receive a bucket-full of money, and with the passing of responsibility for services.



• there is still no single ticketing system for Sydney's public transport, and nor are services linked. People can leave one service (train, ferry, bus) only see a connecting service disappear. (SMH)
  

The contract to the consortium for Sydney trains, which also includes AMP Capital, ABN AMRO and Babcock & Brown is a significant shift in government spending policy, because it is the largest public-private partnership contract ever. That included the more than $2 Billion contract for the "western orbital" for Sydney. (info from SMH)

A profit downgrade, even the third one this year, doesn't mean the contract won't be fulfilled. But it IS cause for concern. Voters would be keen to know what safeguards have been built into the contract.

The Project for electronic tickets on public transport has been running for 10 years, but there seem to be no results. How much has been spent? Who oversees the project (there has been a procession of Ministers)? Victoria and Tasmania seem to have them operating - what's wrong with NSW?

Furthermore, there have been significant problems with maintenance, track maintenance, safety and timetables.

All in all, public transport in NSW is in a mess. Furthermore, successive governments, from the time of former (Liberal) Premier Nick Greiner, through former Labor Premier Bob Carr to the current Labor Government have had policies of developing private toll roads with public money, but nothing for public transport. They need a re-think.

John

Rudd Targets WA

Yesterday, Prime Minister John Howard targeted the marginal Tasmanian seat of Braddon,by effectively taking control of a public hospital that teh State government proposed to downgrade to a day-surgery and Emergency Department.

Today, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd promises that, if elected, some of the Federal Government's income from the Pluto gas project would be put back into WA infrastructure.

Mr Rudd said "I think we would want to be generous in order to make sure that people here in the West in the State Government can plan properly into the future." Well, yes, winners would be grinners. As much as John Howard's Tasmania stunt was about buying votes, so too is Kevin Rudd's.

Not that states shouldn't be better funded by the Federal Government - they should - but that is the policy position that should be put.

John

Howard's Takeover of Mersey Hospital

Prime Minister John Howard has indicated that the Federal Government will fully fund Devonport's Mersey Hospital.

The hospital has the following characteristics:

• it is in a marginal seat in Tasmania (Braddon)
• the Hospital, a lower-level "Community Hospital", has neither obstetrics, nor an Emergency department
• the Hospital has a history of losing money. Mayne Health sold it in 1993 to Healthscope
• Healthscope signed a 15 year (+10 year option) with the (then) Liberal Tasmanian Government to run the public hospital and provide health services.
• the hospital has had several service downgrades, because it keeps losing money.
• the hospital was eventually handed back to the (now Labor) Tasmanian Government to run as a public hospital.
• there are two other, larger, hospitals nearby

Mr Howard has responded to allegations of political pork-barrelling by saying:
"They wouldn't regard it as cynical pork barrelling, they would regard it as saving a vital community service."

But is it a "vital community service" when there are two other, larger hospitals; it has no Intensive Care Unit, no obstetrics and no Emergency Dept?

Other questions to be asked by voters are:

• Will the Federal Government use its financial influence to insist that all workers be on AWA's? Is that want nurses, doctors, cleaners, adminstrative staff want? Does the community want lower incomes?
  
  AND
  
  
• If a Community-grade hospital is so vital, what about the 600+ other regional public hospitals in Australia? Why are they not being funded?

Mr Howard claims the hospital serves a regional population of about "70,000 people". As with many statements made by politicians, there is a "but": that figure includes the population of Burnie and surrounding districts. Devonport and surrounding regions have a population of about 30,000. That's less then half the figure quoted by Mr Howard.

John Howard appears to be being very selective, with the electorate he has chosen, the population figures he quotes, and the selective (even exclusive) nature of this "policy". Such behaviour almost certainly indicates that he his acting in his own interests, and not those of the wider Australian community.

A previous study of the Mersey Hospital saga, dated 2005, can be found here .


John

Minister Holds Info on Haneef

Federal Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, today said that he might not release information he used to decide to cancel Dr Mohamed Haneef's visa, even after a Migistrate had granted him bail, and the DPP subsequently reviewd that case and decided that there was none.

He says that both the British Police and the AFP say it could "jeopardise and ongoing investigation." That might, or might not, be true. The problem is that there has been a lot of redirecting blame.

Politicians and the AFP have blamed each other, and the media, but not themselves. AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty has played a political game, even giving an interview to deflect any blame onto the British Police, the DPP, the media (for covering information released to them!), and a circumspect comment on Australian politicians.

For his part, Mr Andrews said, when asked about lwhen he might be able to release information, "I don't know. I take advice."

That is probably an accurate reflection of how and why he made the decision to cancel Haneef's visa. He took advice from the Prime Minister, obtained some suitable information from the AFP, and made the decision John Howard wanted him to make.

Mr Andrews made further comments to the media that a judicial enquiry was not needed because:

"This process has been overseen by the judiciary at every step. The
investigation and the timing of it, the amount of time that people could
question Dr Haneef was all under the direction of a magistrate.
Secondly,
there was a bail hearing in which the magistrate made a decision.
And
thirdly, the director of public prosecutions personally reviews the whole case."

In saying this Mr Andrews was trying to move away from the purpose of the called-for enquiry: he does not want an investigation into his own, and the government's, actions. Nor does John Howard or Phillip Ruddock.

John

Australia - Tough on Terror

John

The Politics of Fear

A government based on the politics of fear

must take away our democratic freedoms.


How much do we value our democracy?

John

Haneef Charge Dropped But No Visa Yet

This afternoon, the charge against Dr Mohamed Haneef that he provided material support for a terrorist organisation (by giving his pre-paid SIM card to his cousin) was dropped.

The case had been set down for mention this morning, but was delayed, pending a decision by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Damian Bugg. The ABC reported him as saying that "there are matters which have developed as the case has progressed which require examination".

He has been released from prison, but is reportedly going to a Dept of Immigration "safe house".

By any measure this has been a strange case, and it is not yet finished. From the beginning, politicians, particularly the Prime Minister and leading Cabinet Ministers, have had much to say. By so doing, they create considerable pressure on the AFP to produce a "result" consistent with the politics. (aside: it's what the government is trying to do to the Reserve Bank over interest rates)

The sometimes farcical nature of the "evidence" and statements to the court that were clearly wrong, allegations of police writing in his journal, and alleged statements from his interview that were never made led to the almost inevitable result of charges being dropped.

However, it could not be that simple:

• the AFP needed a way out: it would look bad if they had to publicly say that they got it wrong.
• the government politicians, after all their tough talk on terrorism about Haneef, needed a way out. Their posturing would look silly had the AFP admitted their mistakes

So, in steps the Commonwealth DPP. He reviews the tainted "evidence" and decides to drop the charges. Result: both the AFP and the politicians save face, becasue neither had to admit, or further act on tainted evidence.

The only acts still to be played out are a "review" of new material by the Minister, Kevin Andrews, who might grant Haneef back his visa, as part of a deal that Haneef leave the country voluntarily. Such a deal, if it came about, would mean Haneef would eventually leave the headlines, the vocal Government Ministers could move on to other "pressing" matters, and they would hope the public would forget the terrible politics of this matter.

John

Post Script
Saturday 28-July-2007
Dr Moahamed Haneef will leave Australia tonight, from Brisbane.
Immigration have returned his passport, but not his visa, and he has been banned from speaking to the media.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said his dicision not to return the visa was lawful, on advice from the Solicitor-General. He did not remind people that Section 501 of the Immigration Act does not require him to act justly, or that it allows him to act on his personal "discretion".

Mr Andrews, John Howard & Phillip Ruddock will heave a collective sigh of relief, and hope the public forget.

Howard: Concentrated Power

John Howard loves to centralise his power. He does not like State Labor Governments. He likes to behave, and present himself, Presidentially. He bears himself up, he sees off the troops he sends, even though he is NOT Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, as is President Bush. HIs Presidential style could be to impress George W Bush; or to be compared to George W Bush. There is some irony in that "Presidential" style: he is, after all, a monarchist.

He has concentrated poweer in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (PMC), and in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO). Ministers and members of the Government do not make statements without having them approved by his office.

He has shown himself to be an idealogue. He decided to use Corporations Law to make Work Choices; he is considering using it, or passing specific legislation, to take control of water. He announced his takeover of Aboriginal settlements in the NT, becasue he could.

In all of these things, he has "announced", then tried to force the hand of States and Territories. There has been no consultative cooperation with the States: he announces.

John

CPI, The Reserve Bank and Interest Rates

Today's release of the June-07 Quarter CPI figures has had mixed reception.

The Treasurer, Peter Costello, chose to look backwards over the previous 12 months, and quoted a 12-month inflation figure of 2.1%. This is low, but higher than the expected 1.9% for the 12 months.

But voters, and the Reserve Bank, need to look a little deeper. The June 2007 Quarter CPI was, overall, 1.2%: it seems not much, but if that were sustained over 12 months the annual inflation rate would be about 5%, a figure that would make both the Treasuer and the Reserve Bank turn white with fear.

The graph below shows the CPI and Housing Loan interest rates since December 2005.
(Data from: Reserve Bank of Australia and Australian Bureau of Statistics)

As you can see, the fluctuations inthe Home Loan Interest Rate match very closely the changes in the CPI. When the Reserve Bank meets next week, the chart suggests that it will raise the official cash rate. Banks and other lenders will increase their interest rates.

The Reserve Bank is independent of government, but you can bet your bottom dollar the government will be trying to pressure the Reserve Bank into not raising interest rates. Based on history, it is "almost certain" to raise them; if not next week, then at the beginning of September.

If interest rates rise at all, it will be bad news for John Howard: he relies heavily on his "economic management", but homeowners are already stretched, and a rise in interest rates is not a good economic look.

John

Rudd 'Cuts It' in Tasmania

Kevin Rudd has followed Prime Minister to Tasmania. Mr Howard was there last week promoting Liberal Party candidates. There he had an embarrassing moment on radio, when he forgot name ofhis party's candidate.

Today, Labor Opposition Leader Mr Rudd has announced $20 million to support the forestry industry in Tasmania. Here, he has been very careful: at the last election then leader Mark Latham upset the union representing forestry workers, which then supported John Howard.Mr Rudd does not want a repeat: he wants to secure as many seats as possible, especially those that were once Labor seats. The union has swung its support in favour of Kevin Rudd. He will therefore probably win seats from the government at the election.

Politicians and political parties sometimes dilute policy for political ends: this is one of those occasions, despite concerns about the Gunns Ltd proposed plant in the Tamar Valley, near Launceston. The dilution of policy is undoubtedly good politics, given the events of last election. Politics is often about compromise: it's just that there are rarely any winners in a compromise. Except Gunns Ltd, in this case. They did, after all, pay the unionists to demonstrate in favour of their proposed timber processing plant in the Tamar Valley, near Launceston

John

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