Jessica Watson Home

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

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

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

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

To finish in a uniquely Australian way:
“onyaJess”

John

Federal Budget & Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

Politicians & Political Parties

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

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

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

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

There are at least 3 messages for our politicians:

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

Work hard, and pester your politicians.

John

Political Expediency Pollutes CPRS

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

It was beset by difficulties:

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

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

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

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

John

Corrupt Storm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

Beauty Madness for 9YO Girls

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

The questions spring to mind.

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

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

Madness, sheer, bloody madness!

John

Hospital Reform Driven Wrongly

According to a number of polls, most Australians support the Federal Government in its efforts to improve public hospitals. They support the concept of the Federal Government funding hospitals more directly. Prime Minister Rudd's offer is to withhold 30% of GST revenue from the states and use it, and other federal money, to more directly fund 60% of hospitals' costs.

A number of states, driven by Victorian Premier, John Brumby, have proposed a model of 50-50 funding. That's 50% from the Federal Government, 50% from the states. The Federal Government does not, under his plan, keep any of the GST money to fund hospitals, AND the states would receive the "bucket of money" for hospitals - well States' Treasuries would get the money! I think this has been much of the problem - states use too much of the money on bureaucracies to "manage" the public hospital system. Kevin Rudd's model of direct funding of more local hospital networks avoids some of the bureaucracies, and should give better value.

With state resistance building, Kevin Rudd has added a sweetener - $500 Million, over 4 years to cut hospital waiting times. Federal Health Minister Nicola Roxon has told the media that about one in three patients wait for more than eight hours in emergency wards for treatment. The "plan" is to cut that to less than 4 hours. Of the $500 M on offer, $150 M is on offer from 1 July this year. The sting is that hospitals have to cut the waiting time in ED's in half, BEFORE they get the extra $350 M! Yet in order to reduce waiting times, public hospitals need: more ED doctors, more nurses, more hospital beds (which require more nurses). With about 760 public hospitals throughout Australia, that $150 M represents about $200 000 per hospital, or perhaps 3 nurses for 1 year. That's just 1 extra nurse per shift.

The concept of more money for more "efficient" hospitals is NOT a suitable model of funding for something as important as health. Yes, hospitals need to improve, but to deny funding to a hospital because a political target is not met, is not appropriate.

John

Political Images

Image, Image Everywhere, an' Not a Policy to See. (with apologies to Samuel Taylor Coleridge; ... and the Ancient Mariner)

This week we have had 3 political 'debates': 2 in Australia, and one in the USA. One involved (Labor) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Opposition (Liberal) Leader Tony Abbott. They debated Health reform in Australia, with particular emphasis on improving our hospital system. Both were dressed well, wore significant makeup, and presented the political image they and their minders planned. By all reports, Kevin Rudd won the popularity contest, and the debate. He actually has a policy he wants to implement; the Opposition is still deciding if it has one, or wants one.

In NSW, The (Labor) Premier, Kristina Keneally and Opposition (Liberal) Leader, Barry O'Farrell, debated how good/bad/indifferent is the state, and why each of them should be elected as Premier in March 2011. By all reports, Barry O'Farrell won that debate. He will probably win the NSW election in 2011.

These two debates were really all about image, style, and scoring political points in a setting other than Parliament. After all, televised Question Time does the image of politicians no good at all. I have previously written about the disgrace that it is. Not for nothing is the NSW Parliament called "the bear pit"!

The third debate occurred in the US Congress and Senate, which ultimately passed a Medicaid Bill. Reports indicate it will assist up to an extra 3 million people gain the health care they need. As an Australian, I was astounded when, during Obama's Presidential campaign, there was at least 1 free health clinic organised in rural America - for farmers and their families who could not afford health insurance, but who desperately needed health care. The then US government had abandoned them. Republicans (mostly) are those who opposed the legislation - their view is that one must have money, or an employer, to pay for health care. Everyone else, it seems to the Republicans, can go hang! What a sad indictment on a political party.

Australia, of course, is not immune to poor health policy. We desperately need good policies for Indigenous health, dental care for many, improved aged care, better funding for hospitals, ... (the list goes on)

Politicians everywhere must forget image; they should instead go for the substance of good policy. And WE must tell them so.

John

Cleanup Question Time

This week's Question Time in Federal Parliament had only one difference from many others. The Opposition asked for a series of public. televised, debates on Health Policy. Prime Minister Rudd accepted.

It all came about because the Government used Question Time to bait, and deride, Tony Abbott's record as Federal Health Minister in John Howard's Government.

Question Time usually contains a few "Dorothy Dixer"s - questions from Government backbenchers that allow a Minister/Prime Minister to bag members of the Opposition. They usually shout back insults and the whole process degenerates into a slanging match of insults. So much for MP's concept of Parliamentary accountability and responsibility. It's all about cheap point-scoring and has nothing to do with acountability, responsibility, or establishing good policy. And so it has been for more than 20 years under Governments led by Keating, Hawke, Howard, and now Rudd. "You FRAUD", "You FAKE", "You LIAR", "You LOWLIFE" are what has passed for Parliamentary "robust debate" for far too long.

However, you can be sure that Messrs Rudd and Abbott will be on their best behaviour for the televised debates. They do not want the public seeing the the way they "debate" in Question Time. Yes, I know that's televised live, too; but the ratings? What ratings?

It is time that Parliamentary debates, and Question Time, are properly attended, and properly debated, without resort that by community standards is is both unparliamentary, and unacceptable.

You can write to the Prime Minister, and Leader of the Opposition at the following:

Prime Minster Rudd: http://www.pm.gov.au/PM_Connect/Email_your_PM
Tony Abbott: Tony.Abbott.MP@aph.gov.au

John

It's NOT a Tax! - Libs

In a week when Oppositin Leader Tony abbott has had a great big idea, the Liberals are now denying it involves a tax.

Tony Abbott's policy-on-the-run for 6 months fully paid maternity leave, with actual income up to $150,000/year (ie up to $75,000, but highly variable, and inconsistent) left many Liberal Party members in shock. He had not consulted them, not had the policy approved by Shadow Cabinet, let alone a party meeting, And, he said it would be funded by a levy on big business. (those with incomes more than $5 million) They haven't addressed the concept that different women would be paid different amounts of maternity pay, just because they're richer, or poorer.

It would certainly provide, and require, more money than Kevin Rudd's (Labor) proposed legislation for 6-months paid maternity leave at minimum wage rates.

Tony Abbott used the word 'levy', rather than 'tax', because he's been accusing the Government's Emission Trading Scheme of being "a great big new tax". Following attacks in Parliament about his own 'great big new tax' on business, the Libs have rallied. In a number of interviews, Sharman Stone, Shadow Minister for Early Childhood Education and the Status of Women, said they are not calling it a tax, they are calling it "an investment in human capital".

Big business called it a tax, and don't want it. Taxpayers recognise it as a tax; media interviewers recognise it as a tax. If it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, and is paid like a tax ... The Liberals deny it's a tax. Moreover, if I were a woman, I would not want to be referred to as "human capital" for the use of business as they see fit. Businesses view capital as something from which they want a return. Capital is something to be used. It's impersonal.

We should be debating whether or not the policy is "good policy" not playing with words, and not hiding the details, and flow-on effects of a new tax on business.

The Liberal Party should be straight with people, and say "Yes, it's a tax. IF Australia is to adopt our paid maternity scheme, we need new taxes. Big business will pass on the cost to taxpaying consumers, who will ultimately pay" There, I've said it for them.

John

Better Health

I haven't posted for a while, because a relative and good friend had been seriouly ill. Jude died today, from cancer. It really is a most insidious disease. She she is survived by her husband and children.

For the last 5 weeks or so, she has been in hospital, receiving treatment and care from a team of professional people, specialising in cancer, cardiology and palliative care. There have been doctors, allied health professionals and nurses. She reached a stage where doctors recommended only palliative care. We travelled considerable distances to see her each weekend, one Friday and yesterday afternoon. She died peacefully this morning. All have been professional and caring. They have made her, and our, cancer journey that little bit less difficult, but no less emotional.

Her death comes in the week that Kevin Rudd has proposed a partial takeover of hospitals. His plan proposes that the Commonwealth retain 30% of GST revenues, instead of passing them on to the states. This money would be used to help fund local groups of hospitals, which would be managed by local boards. The total funding would be split 60% Commonwealth; 40% State.

I have not delved into the broad plan proposed by Mr Rudd, but I would make the following comments:

• Most people recognize, or believe, the current model is flawed, and inefficient. It encourages cost-shifting between state and Commonwealth-funded services. Each state has its own bureaucratic model.
• We voters do not have to accept the first new plan to come along (Prime Minister Rudd's). We should also be aware that the Opposition Liberal-National Parties want to use such a takeover, of their own 'plan', to resurrect WorkChoices-style industrial relations.

So, let's have have the discussion - we need to. But let's not jump at the first offer made. You wouldn't do that when buying a car, or house. Don't do it with health reform.

Vale, Jude
XXX

John

Political Ethics & Standards Vary

Political ethics and standards of responsibility vary depending on whether a party in in government, or opposition. Consider the following.

Peter Garrett has had a tough week with calls for him to be sacked as Minister for the Environment. The cause: his government's policy of funding insulation in houses. There have been house fires, and deaths of 4 workers employed to install insulation. The Coalition Opposition, led by Tony Abbott, accused Mr Garrett of ignoring 13 warnings about aluminium foil insulation, and the use of metal staples. My understanding is that this is not cause for sacking/resignation, although he must be accountable to Parliament for the policy. The blame must lie with the employers, who bear responsibility for the standard of work, and worker safety. On Channel 7's Today Tonight program, one employee indicated he'd done a Certificate 4 in Insulation Installation in 2 days' training! The course requires 4 units of competency, and I question whether long-term competency can be achieved in that time. Nevertheless, the Opposition has been baying for blood, insisting on Ministerial standards. However, the current Coalition Opposition, when in government 3 years ago (2007), saw no need for an inquiry, or sacking of then Minister, Kevin Andrews, over the deaths of 3 foreign workers under the 457 Visa Scheme which he implemented. They did nothing. The then Opposition, now Labor Government, called it "revolting".

In NSW this week, Labor Premier Kristina Keneally refused to stand down Parliamentary Secretary for Education, Karyn Paluzzano. Ms Paluzzano has been referred to ICAC over allegations she used public money to help fund her (re)election. Premier Keneally has also publicly ridiculed and, possibly tried to intimidate, the whistleblower. Ms Keneally's actions have now been referred to ICAC by the Police Commissioner. Ms Paluzzano is a member of the NSW Labor Right Faction, which installed Ms Keneally as Premier. The Coalition Opposition has called for her to be stood down as Parliamentary Secretary unitl the ICAC investigation is over.

So, politicians apply different standards of ethics and behaviour depending on whether they are in Government or Opposition, & possibly whether their colleague voted for them as leader. Hypocrisy, from all parties?? You decide.

John

Abbott's Climate Change 'Crap'

Having previously decried the concept of climate change as "crap", Opposition Leader Tony Abbott released the Coalition' "Climate Change Policy". Why would Abbott would release a policy on climate change, an argument he described as "absolute crap"?? The answer is ... political expediency. There, that wasn't so surprising, was it?

Pru Goward, then Liberal Shadow Minister for Climate Change in NSW, put it so well in an address to the Lowy Institute in Nov 2007, when she said "the most important part of developing a climate change policy was to ensure it had wide ranging public support" (http://www.nsw.liberal.org.au/ - the headline is 'Climate Change Action Needs Public Support')

That is, the MOST important part of Liberal Policy is that it be electorally popular. No mention of the need for good policy. At all. And Tony Abbott has tried hard to deliver a 'popular' set of slogans and ideas to the following groups:

• farmers, who will not be restricted in the amount of land clearing they can do. Any pollution they create, or vegetation they remove will not be counted.
• big polluters, who are promised $Billions to conduct "business as usual"
• so-called "mum & dad" voters whose only worry is when the next tax cut is coming, and fearful of paying tax for public good (Note: that is not all of us! Many of us DO want good policy)
• Industry, which will not have anything extra to pay. Yes, there are promised "sanctions" for those who exceed "business as usual" levels of pollution, but how much is unspecified. The base level seems to be 2010 levels. The reduction is supposed to be from 1990 levels.
• climate change sceptics & deniers, who will recognise how very little this scheme will do.
• The Liberal Party right-wing, who will have been happy to hear Opposition Shadow Finance Minister, Barnaby Joyce, say he would cut public service jobs to help fund the subsidies. Abbott later distanced himself from this, but didn't specifically rule them out, either!

Tony Abbott further uses some smoke & mirrors. The "same 5% cut as the government" is deceitful, because Abbott't 5% is from 1990 levels of CO2, while the government's is from 2000 levels. The '5%' part is the same, but the amounts of CO2 to be reduced are significantly different - more than 300 000 tonnes of carbon different! The scheme is to be funded from "budget savings" - Barnaby Joyce has already flagged a cut in the number of Public Servants - but Abbott has not committed to where the savings will be made. (Under John Howard and Peter Costello, the Liberal Party targetted lower income earners, and those on unemployment & disability pensions to make savings for middle-class welfare)

So, Tony Abbott has heeded Pru Goward's 2007 advice, and gone for electoral popularity over good policy! "Looks good (in the smoke), sounds good, but it isn't. Now, if we can only get PM Kevin Rudd to improve his ETS legislation from 'ordinary' to 'good' policy ...

John

MySchool Website

The MySchool website (www.myschool.edu.au) was launched this week, amid much controversy. As you read it, remember to "never confuse a test score with an education". The website crashed for significant amounts of time. From an IT perspective, that was either poor planning, or poor implementation because that traffic was foreseeable. I suspect the problem is more likely to be underlying database errors. Serious questions have also been asked about the following:

• the resultant league tables created by the media. Remember the media do this simply to make a quick buck from sales, and possibly to denigrate some schools, or school system.
• the site does NOT give amounts of Federal and State funding in total, or per student. That might well have been politically damaging for Julia Gillard, and the Federal and State Governments. Some reports say such information will be included in the a later version.
• the site makes comparisons between statistically dissimilar groups/schools. eg boys-only schools with girls-only schools; high schools with primary schools; comprehensive schools with selective schools
• the site assumes that all students from a school conform to the demographics of the suburb/town in which it is sited.
• NAPLAN testing and performance does not measure an education.

Nevertheless, it was announced with much fanfare, and many media appearances from the Federal Education Minister, and Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard. This gives some clue to the sites real purpose: it is politically-driven. Ms Gillard wants to fight public and private school teachers, and state education systems. She wants what every Minister for Education wants: to be the 'Great Education Reformer'! The tests of reform will not be the media interviews, the press releases (with photo), or Parliamentary comments. The test of her reforms will be: more equitable distribution of public resources; provision of more staff for public schools (lower class sizes have been shown to improve educational outcomes). While she's at it, Ms Gillard might work to restore Federal funding for TAFE and Universities to reasonable operating levels. They have been screwed for money since Paul Keating was Prime Minister, and John Howard continued the policy almost relentlessly. I think that Julia Gillard won't do it, in which case she will have failed the public education reform test.

As for the MySchool site, and its data:

• remember, like investing, "past performance is no indicator of future returns"
  and
• "Never confuse a test score with an education" (John)

John

Politics Has No Holidays.

We've been on holiday for a few weeks. There has been so much to catch up on returning.

Politicians have holidays, too. But not, it seems politics, and the leaders of the major political parties are never far from a microphone, a journalist, and a 10 second gabfest.

Julia Gillard has been kicking deftly at a number of targets. Public School teachers, the Australian Education Union & its state teacher affiliates, and Private School teachers and teacher unions, and some parent organizations have come in for some sharp words over their opposition to the national publication of schools testing data. In one interview she even exhorted parents to approach teachers (directly) about thier school's, and students', performance. The message has been 'don't mess with me, I'm the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister for Education'. So there!

Tony Abbott has hit the media with his advice to women to remain a virgin till marriage. That's not something he practised, and he didn't advocate it for men. Still hasn't. On this issue he seems to have used all of his appalling 'people skills' to have 51% of the population thinking 'who's he to tell me what to do or not do?', and the rest laughing at him. Nevertheless, for all Abbott's lack of people skills, perhaps the underlying issue is one of the sexual health of people. The Australian Government website http://www.sti.health.gov.au/internet/sti/publishing.nsf/Content/young makes the following points:

• the rate of STI's is increasing. ie more people, mostly 15-29 have more infections.
• Young people, 15-29, account for 75% of cases
• HIV is increasing again
• insufficient people use condoms, and using a condom reduces the chance of getting infected. (not that they provide absolute protection)

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott might have been better to raise the issue of rising rates of STI's on the health and well-being of people, rather than trying to preach to just 51% of the population. And Deputy PM Julia Gillard wasn't going to miss the chance to score easy political points against him. Shame she didn't come up with any sensible suggestions for policy.

2010 will be a year of politicians looking after politicians, and the chance to get (re)elected. It's a (Federal) election year. Good policy, and intelligent public debate, along with a functional Parliament, remain a dream.

Sir Henry Parkes said "All great questions will be dealt with in a broad light and with a view to the interests of the whole country." - Tenterfield Oration, 1889, arguing for a Federal Government. He is undoubtedly spinning in his grave at the cheap antics of our politicians.

John

Advertizing Fast Food And Racism

KFC has withdrawn an ad it used in Australia showing a Australian cricket fan sitting amongst West Indian cricket fans. The West Indian cricket team has just played 3 tests against Australia, and will play some one-day or 20/20 games soon. The concept was that everyone's happy when fried chicken is provided, that the product makes it "too easy" to quieten opponents' supporters, and the support for different teams is less important when the advertised product is provided. That is largely how viewers in Australia considered the ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjT4HjWrreI&feature=related

However, some people in the US have taken offence, calling the ad racist, because it stereotypes African-Americans as only eating fried chicken. It is within their rights to take offence - that is driven partly by their individual, and collective, histories, and the societal context they have applied to the ad.

Is the ad racist? What's racist? Is racism a behavioural thing? That is, an action. Or is it driven by a n ideology that a person's outward appearance, or nationality, determines their position in society? I think there are elements of both behaviourist and ideology that drive racism. The behaviourist element often arises from those who act with a mob mentality, or who have not learnt to treat all people with respect. People who lead others to commit racist acts - some politicians, community 'leaders', some 'shock-jocks' in the media - are undoubtedly driven by an ideology.

I understand that in a different society, where there are different sensibilities, there are some who have interpreted it differently and have been offended. However, I do not believe the ad was created with any racist intent, and should not be seen that way. I'm not aware of any West Indian cricketer, or supporter, who has been offended.

John

Happy New Year: What I hope For

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

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

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

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

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

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

:)
John

Merry Christmas

One of the better slogans I saw during the preparations for Christmas was this sign, outside a church:

"Christ - not available in stores"

Merry Christmas, and Happy New Year to all!

I will be having a few days' break to celebrate.

:)

John

Mary Mackillop - Australia's Saint-In-Waiting

"Looking for something
We can rely on
There's gotta be something better out there
Love and compassion
Their day is coming
All else are castles built in the air
And I wonder when we are ever going to change
Living under the fear till nothing else remains"

So sang Tina Turner in "We Don't Need another Hero"

We have found something today: Blessed Mary Mackillop, founder of the Sisters of St Joseph of the Sacred Heart, has had a second miracle confirmed by the Vatican. She will be confirmed as Australia's first saint sometime in 2010.

You can find more information about Mary Mackillop, and the order she founded at:
http://www.southaustralianhistory.com.au/mackillop.htm
http://www.marymackillopplace.org.au/museum/education_resources.asp
http://www.sosj.org.au/about/index.html

"We don't need another hero": politician, environmentalist, or any other. Mary Mackillop acted on her motto "Never see a need without doing something about it". She worked for the poor, the disadvantaged, the isolated. She was concerned with human dignity, not redistributing wealth to the wealthy, not avoiding taxes, not drugs and parties and "celebrities". Mary Mackillop was concerned about people, and did something about it.

What about you?? You could help with a charitable donation. Choose your favorite charity; see your local church, synagogue, mosque, temple; or checkout the following websites.

http://www.vinnies.org.au/
http://www.thesmithfamily.com.au/
www.charityhampers.com.au/salvos
http://www.salvationarmy.org.au/

Help someone else - all you feel is good! I did.

John

"Cop-out-en-hagen"

The statement issued by world political leaders at Copenhagen is being spun as a good outcome. The only outcome is that there is, indeed, a document signed at Copenhagen. The world's leaders of developed, and developing, nations would not want to have spent as much money, time, travel, even carbon pollution to go home with nothing. So, an agreement of sorts was the most likely outcome.

The "outcome" such as it is, has been rejected by the countries most at risk, including the island of Tuvalu, as being a sellout. Almost all of Tuvalu's income comes from selling Internet Domain Names - the ones ending in ".tv"

The document

• is not legally enforceable.
• allows each country to set its own targets. Targets will be lower than expected, and have little effect on increasing temperatures, increased severity & duration of drought, or rising sea levels.
• allows each country to check itself - there is no independent verification - and write its own report. I wonder what people will think of politicians writing reports about themselves!

The politicians have sold out the world, their people, their children. They sold out because they had a selfish agenda: to not give what they should, to want more than they should, to pollute more for a fist full of dollars. That is their shame, and the shame of their government, and their families.

Plato viewed the world as having 2 planes: an (ideal) plane of perfection, and a plane of reality. In the ideal plane all people are virtuous, acting ethically and justly. The plane of reality is an imperfect copy of the ideal plane, and people only see occasional glimpses of good. There appears to have been not much goodness driving negotiations in Copenhagen.

Politicians have committed to meeting in Mexico next year to try to enhance the agreement. Many will doubt their ability to tighten the agreement, based on the "commitment" not shown, and selfishness that was shown, at Copenhagen.

We, the people, must contact our politicians, and tell them we want significant action on climate change, and we want binding international agreements.

John

Nats Accuse Abbott of Treehugging

Tony Abbott's plan for an alternative to an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) or Carbon Tax, has hit a snag - his partners in Opposition, the National Party. Together, they were instrumental in using the Senate to block, a second time, an ETS proposed by Kevin Rudd's Labor Government.

As the Liberal Party worked on an alternative to an ETS, National Party Senator Ron Boswell, has hit out at a key element - planting more trees, and granting (financial) incentives to farmers to do so.

Mr Boswell's reasoning is that farmers shouldn't plant trees, and governments should not pay them to do so. Fair enough - he wouldn't want to be socialist in his ideas of financial support for farmers ... oooh, wait a sec, yes he does. The Nat's policy is is often summarised as 'privatise profits, socialise losses'. And climate-induced long-term drought and diminishing farm viability will be socialised with government support: at least, that's the Nats' view. There is no doubt that more of our primary industries need to be restructured, particularly in the Murray-Darling Basin. John Howard, to his credit, did it for the sugar industry.

Boswell's a dinosaur, and Tony Abbott, as Leader of the Opposition, should tell him so.

John

Alcoholic Violence: Is Society Stupid?

Over the weekend police in all states & territories, and New Zealand, had simultaneous operations on drunkenness and violence. They particularly targeted 'hot spots', including Oxford St, Kings Cross and George St in Sydney.

From the data so far, it looks as though the publicity telling people it was happening had absolutely no effect. None. Zilch. So are we as a society, and the people concerned, so stupid that there was no change in behaviour?? Well, yes! People still went out with the purpose of getting drunk; people still carried knives & machetes, looking for a fight; people still thought they could indulge in illegal drug-taking. One TV actor, Todd Lasance, was allegedly caught with cocaine. 'Who?' you ask - well he's a person who wants to be known for his acting on the tv soapie Home and Away, wants to got to the US to further his career; and, yes, just another drug addict. Perhaps the tv show 'Stupid, Stupid Man' was written with the likes of him in mind. If convicted, the US might deny him entry.

More and more people are beginning to think the solution involves some or all of the following:

• restricted opening hours for licenced premises. That is, the time they can be open, and the closing time.


• enforcement of the RSA laws. Many establishments and nightclubs are clearly NOT fulfilling their legal and social obligations for a quick buck. Those not complying with the Responsible Service of Alcohol laws should be shut down. Repeat offending licensees should be banned for a period of years, and repeat premises should have a licence suspended, and not reissued at that address for some years.


• higher rates of referral to drug and alcohol counselling

Me? I went to a party on Saturday night, had a few drinks, remained sober, and had a good time.

Those who go out to get drunk, and the premises that serve them, need to be targeted. I cannot see a reason why licenced premises need to be open beyond, say 1:30 am; or why drunks should be free to violently roam the streets. Nor can any taxi driver!

OK, I confess that all reads a bit like a weekday shock-jock, a species of which I am not fond. However, we, individually, and as a society, need to address the issue of alcohol, its irresponsible service by licenced premises, violence, and the people who go out to get druink and be violent.

John

Keneally First NSW Woman Premier

At a special caucus meeting at 6pm today, the NSW Labor Party dumped its Premier, Nathan Rees, and elected Kristina Keneally with support from Joe Tripodi /Eddie Obeid's Right Faction. They had installed Nathan Rees, from the Party's Left Faction, as Premier just 14 months ago. They'd called Morris Iemma's bluff, and dumped him. Like (dumped Federal Liberal Leader) Malcolm Turnbull, Nathan Rees continued to talk. Correctly, he cited those in the Party who have weekly tried to white-ant him, and his leadership. Like the Liberal Party, the NSW Labor Party will never recover until the likes of Joe Tripodi and Eddie Obeid are gone. Bitter factional power-broking only breeds disloyalty, treachery, and, ultimately, a long time in Opposition.

The Left Faction's Carmel Tebbutt will remain as Deputy Leader.

Just like the Federal Liberal Party, the NSW Labor Party is a (rocky) horror show ...

(Joe Tripodi & Eddie Obeid, wearing black fishnets … I mean eyebrows, and cloaked in developer funds )
It's so fatuous, oh fantasy free us
So you can't see us, no not at all
In a caucus meeting, with manic intention.
Well-secluded, We see all.
With a stab in the back, You're in the Premier’s seat
And nothing can ever be the same
We’re spaced out on power, we are in control
Let's do the Labor backstab!
Let's do the Labor backstab!

(Kristina Keneally, with high-pitched, shrill voice)
Well I was walking down Macquarie Street just a-having a think
When a snake of a guy gave me an evil wink
He took me in, he took me by surprise
He had a Right Faction and developers' eyes.
He stared at me and I said ‘yes’
Ethics meant nothing, never would again
Let's do the Labor backstab!
Let's do the Labor backstab!

(with apologies to all from The Rocky Horror Picture Show)

John

Related article:
http://truepolitik.blogspot.com/2009/12/libs-jump-to-right-with-abbott.html

Libs Jump To The Right With Abbott

The Federal Liberal Party today elected former student priest, boxer and journalist Tony Abbott as its leader. At its Party meeting, a leadership spill motion was carried. (Then) Leader Malcolm Turnbull, Joe Hockey & Tony Abbott all contested the leadership. Joe Hockey, who, like Turnbull, believes in climate change, was eliminated in the first round of voting.

The party then split the vote, with Abbott winning 42 votes to 41, with 1 member absent for health reasons, and 1 deliberate informal vote. Tony Abbott then fronted the media, telling them the party is now united. (having won by just 1 vote!)

There were reports of a song & dance for the press ...

(Tony Abbott) It's astounding. Time is fleeting. Madness takes it's toll...
(Julie Bishop) Ahh...
(Tony Abbott) But listen closely...
(Julie Bishop) Not for very much longer...
(Tony Abbott) I've got to keep control.
I remember doing the Lib division.
Drinking those moments when The Far Right hit me.
(Tony Abbott & Julie Bishop) Electoral void would be calling.
(Libs) Let's do the Lib division again.
Let's do the Lib division again.
(Voters) We just jumped to the left.
(Libs) Let’s go th’ far right.
(Voters) We want an ETS.
(Libs) We all cover our ears. But it's The Far Right.
They really drive you insane.
Let's do the Lib division again.
Let's do the Lib division again.

(with apologies to all from The Rocky Horror Picture Show)

:)

John

'The Crew Are Revolting, Sir'

So said Fletcher Christian to Captain Bligh, when Christian led the mutiny on HMS Bounty. (at least that's the story") They might well have been spoken by Liberal Senator Nick Minchin to Malcolm Turnbull yesterday. Seven Liberals resigned form the Shadow Ministry, including: Nick Minchin, Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith, and Senators Eric Abetz, Mitch Fifield, Mathias Cormann and Brett Mason.

It is a mass desertion of their leader, and a treacherous act of disloyalty on their part. The resignations came after a motion to declare the leadership vacant was lost, meaning most of the party effectively voted to keep Mr Turnbull as leader.

Turnbull's shortcomings have included:

• being too 'small-l' liberal, as in the mould of the Liberal Party created by (later, Sir) Robert Menzies. He is, therefore not part of the extreme right wing of the party.
• his wealth is recent - not 'old money'
• not being from Melbourne's rich establishment
• not having a Parliamentary henchman to bully dissenters in his party. John Howard used Senator Bill Heffernan and, occasionally, Wilson 'Ironbar' Tuckey.

There will almost certainly be a leadership spill on Monday. Malcolm Turnbull has indicated he will not stand aside, at least for today. Number-crunching on the week-end might indicate resignation is better than the alternative. Tony Abbott has indicated he might stand. Senior party members are urging a Joe Hockey-Peter Dutton ticket. As an aside, having Peter Dutton as the Deputy would almost certainly force the renegade Queensland branch to find him a safe seat.

Neither Abbott, nor Hockey, will be able to unite the Liberal Party. The only hope of winning an election in the next 10 years is if the Liberal Party dis-endorses all those involved in the current stupidity, disloyalty, and conspiring to have the extremist right wing take over the Federal Liberal Party. They should start with those who have publicly contradicted, belittled, undermined, resigned from Shadow Ministries. Until they do, the Liberal Party will remain in disarray, and will not be a viable, strong Opposition, let alone an alternative government.

John

Politicians 1, Good Policy 0

It looks as though the politicians have won. Using politics as a base for legislation just does not work.

The "negotiated" legislation on an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) has resulted in any good policy being abandoned, for the sake of politics. Politicians of all persuasions have ignored the reports from the CSIRO and the IPCC; ignored the science and asked: 'what's politically expedient?'; 'how can I confuse the people with double-speak and pseudo-science?' and 'which big polluters donate to my party?' Except The Greens - they, at least, appear to base their position on something approaching the science of climatology.

The information available to politicians includes information similar to that found in a book by A. Barry Pittock, Climate Change: The Science, Impact & Solutions, 2nd Ed., CSIRO, 2009. Consider the following, from Page 2.

"The World Meteorological Organization ... has declared that 2005 and 1998 were the two warmest years on record ... The decade of 1998-2007 was the warmest on record. ...Since the start of the twentieth century the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74 ±0.18(degrees Celcius), and the linear warming trend for the last 50 years ... is nearly twice that for the last 100 years.

Note that when scientists give such estimates they usually include a range of uncertainty." (Ed. something politicians don't give)

You can read the full sample chapter at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/samples/Climate%20Change%202nd%20Edition.pdf
and information about the book at:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/pid/6010.htm

So, among the politicians:

• The National Party says Climate Change is not happening. They obviously haven't consulted many rural communities and farmers about the effects of climate change on farm viability over the last 50 years!
• The Liberal Party is divided, and divisive. They have abandoned any pretence at good policy for the sake of infighting, disloyalty, and personal political ambition. (to lead a divided party)
• The Labor Party (Government) has abandoned good policy for the sake of political expedience.
• The Independent and small-party Senators seem to have no idea about good policy. This might not be as surprising as it seems: they were Senators for much of the time John Howard was Prime Minister.

To summarize:
Politicians have abandoned any semblance of good government, and good policy for Australians. For their own purposes! Politicians 1, Good Policy 0.

John

Good News Week!

A group called "Something Corporate" had a song called "Good News". Part of the song goes:

I wanna read good news good news
I wanna be innocent again
I wanna read good news good news
But nothing good is happening

This week, some good things have happened:

• Conjoined Bangladeshi twins Krishna and Trishna have been separated after a marathon series of operations lasting more than 30 hours. A team of 16 doctors and nurses separated the twins, joined at the head. In intensive care in a Royal Melbourne Hospital, the twins are reportedly doing "exceptionally well". Many have cried and hugged each other: nurses; doctors; their guardian, Moira Kelly; and many people just listening to the news. In a Banglashi orphanage they and no hope, and no prospects. They were brought to Australia two years ago by the Children First Foundation. The rescue, the bringing to Australia, the operations and the care reflect much that is good in our humanity, and much that is good about Australians.
• Paralympian Kurt Fearnley, a man with no workable legs, and missing the lower part of his spine, has "walked" the Kokoda Track on his hands and arms, in 10 days, finishing at Owen's Corner. He did it to raise funds for disabled people, while remembering the suffering of those who fought in WWII. The Kokoda Track (some call it Trail) was the scene of bloody battles between Australian and Japanese forces in WWII. You can read some of the history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kokoda_Track, and http://www.kokodatrail.com.au/history.html. Australians remember the heroism and hardship experienced by Australian soldiers.

These two, isolated and singular, events, give our society cause to reflect on the good side of our humanity. Bravo.

John

Howard Tilts At Rudd

John Howard has given an interview to The Sunday Herald Sun, former Liberal Party PM John Howard has criticised (Labor) Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, while attempting to apply gloss to his own history.

Current PM Rudd is criticised for:

• "spend(ing) the bank balance that Costello and I left behind"
• "symbolic" only gestures such as the apology to the stolen generation
• signing the Kyoto Protocol, which he also called symbolic. Certainly there was an element of symbolism, but it also signified Australia's change of attitude towards climate change, a matter on which John Howard dithered and obfuscated. He went on to say that what Kevin Rudd has done/is doing is almost the same as what he took to teh election he lost: he was 'gunna' do it too. Never mind that he had more than a decade to do it, but did nothing about climate change!
• considering a time frame for withdrawal from Afghanistan, a matter which he says "would be seen as a huge defeat for the West and an enormous morale boost for Islamic terrorism." Here, Mr Howard is greatly overplaying the significance and proportion of Australia's contribution. Yes, the work done by Australian military personnel is important, and one of which we should be proud. But Mr Howard is deliberately overplaying the significance of Australia's involvement, partly to enhance the public's memory of his own self-importance. Australia ranks about 97th of approximately 164 countries in the number of active troops per 1000 head of population. (in 1996, when Howard was still PM). Source :Wikipedia The work we do has a higher level of importance than some others, but John Howard's assessment of our contribution is overstated.
• his response to increased numbers of 'boat people'. He only says that he "stopped the boats". He didn't, boats still came. However, as with financial advice "past performance is no guarantee of future returns" by Howard.

John Howard said he would not have provided $900 cheques (tax rebates) from his surplus, nor does he indicate if he would have spent ANY money to alleviate the effects of the global financial crisis on the Australian economy, and "ordinary Australians"! He might have spent none, to protect his beloved surplus, and used Paul Keating's line about a "recession we had to have" (under Howard & Costello)!?

If John Howard, or any other current or former politician of any persuasion, wants to criticise a successor, they need to "speak up, and put up". Mere political criticism & glossing self-image is self-indulgent, and contributes nothing that would help develop good public policy.

John

Pollies, Bl**dy Pollies!

What is it with politicians? Yes, I know they like to micromanage everything, and are especially vulnerable to the merest whiff of changes in polls. And their minders like to manage everything from the clothes they wear to the assertions they make, to the questions journalists can ask them.

However, all this "management" means they forget about their whole raison d'etre: to develop and implement good public policy for the betterment of our society. Instead, they indulge in unfounded assertions; cheap, political point-scoring; invalid arguments and unfounded assertions; and "talk tough" bluster.

Consider the following:

• Kevin Rudd's "tough talk" on unlawful migrants/refugees. Many Australians had tired of the Liberal Party's, and John Howard's, inhumane treatment of such people. John Howard, and his Government (all of the current Opposition, and them some) were criticised by the UNHCR for their inhumane policies. What does Kevin Rudd do: almost exactly the same. Why? He's afraid the polls (voters) might not like a more humane set of policies.
• Kevin Rudd indulged in more gratuitous political jibes in Parliament over Malcolm Turnbull's leadership, or lack of control, of his Liberal Party members. Specifically, loose canon Wilson Tuckey, and later Sen. Nick Minchin.
• Malcolm Turnbull still cannot stop his Liberal Party cohorts from speaking out of turn; or lead them to wards a sensible, public-interest-based Climate Change policy. The policy many of them want is subsidies for big polluters.
• Malcolm Turnbull, in a media interview, argues that, if reports that Sri Lankans still aboard a Custome vessel off Indonesia had been processed by the UNHCR in Indonesia are true, then Kevin Rudd's argument that external push factors are creating more boatloads of asylum seekers in all wrong. What he should be arguing is that, if true, these people should be returned to Indonesia, to follow proper assessments by teh UNHCR. However, he denies outside influences: the humanitarian disaster befalling Tamils in Sri Lanka at the hands of their (Sinhalese) Government, and increased movement of refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq. Turnbull's argument is wrong, he knows it, the journalists interviewing him know it.

Sadly, few, if any, journalists working for commercial media question the arguments from any politician. The possible exceptions work for the ABC current affairs shows. Kerry O'Brien springs to mind. The commercial press has largely become complicit in the political hoodwinking of voters, by politicians. That's how the politicians, and their minders, want it. We need to change it. Journalists should ask difficult questions, and politicians should feel discomfort if their arguments are invalid, and their policies inhumane, or not in the public interest.

John

Rudd Uses A Howard Solution

Prime MInister Kevin Rudd this week showed that, under pressure, he resorts to fairly standard political behaviour. The pressure on dealing with boat-people came from the electorate (well, the poll surveys) and the media.

His response, particularly during media interviews was to "talk tough", trying to make the electorate warm to his handling of the issue, use lots of repetition of the "tough talk". Under pressure during an interview with the ABC's Kerry O'Brien, Kevin Rudd retreated into bureaucratese: that language which sounds overly complex, uses confusing language, and is sanctuary under pressure. Even the bumbling, Turnbull-led Liberal-National Opposition managed a few hits; at least until Wilson Tuckey opened his mouth, and let the Prime Minister and other Government members deflect attention.

Today's announcement of $50 million in extra aid to Indonesia to help intercept boatloads of unlawful migrants/refugees has quickly been dubbed "the Indonesian solution", much like John Howard's use of Nauru became "the Pacific solution". I wonder whether the UNHCR will report on Australia's current policies, and practices!

John

Nuclear Poll Reporting

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

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

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

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

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

John

Telstra Investor: Tell MP's To Help Us

Telstra's second biggest shareholder, Australian Foundation Investment Company (AFIC) , has provided its investors with a letter to send to MP's. The letter hopes to influence MP's to disallow any structural breakup of Telstra, because that might hurt the share price. ie the letter is lobby MP's to protect their investment. Here, I declare that I do not hold any Telstra shares.

The government proposes to force Telstra into separating its retail ('telco') and infrastructure businesses. The reasons for this are:

• Telstra has long drawn the attention of the ACCC because of its anti-competitive practices
• Telstra has a significant history of belligerence against the Federal Government (former and current), as it seeks to exercise monopolistic business practices
• the sale of Telstra "lock stock and barrel" to form a private, largely monopolistic company was always bad policy. (from the previous Federal Government led by John Howard)
• Telstra made only a token, even mock, tender for the rollout of the National Broadband Network (NBN). Its tender deliberately did not meet specified requirements, and it was excluded. It then complained about its exclusion!
• establishing a separate business entity would mean that Telstra (the retail telco) would be forced to pay similar, or identical, rates to its competitors for access to the infrastructure. It would open the retail telco to more competition.

AFIC's letter seeks to impress upon MP's the need to protect their money (investment). But that is not the role of either MP's, or Government: they have a democratic responsibility to act in the best interests of ALL Australians. I believe that protecting the investment money of a minority by allowing Telstra to set the agenda, would be contrary to the best interests of Australians, contrary to our democratic ideals, and unethical.

MP's should vote FOR the structural reform of Telstra.

John

Turnbull's Ultimatum

Malcolm Turnbull has publicly put his job on the line. The Federal Liberal Party, and Opposition leader, has indicated that he might "walk away" from the leadership if the Party does not show some discipline (over Climate Change) and support his policy of negotiation with the Government on an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)

The Opposition, and the Liberal Party in particular, has been under significant pressure to negotiate, while significant numbers of backbenchers run like media tarts to speak against it. Frankly, it is time the Liberal Party tapped a few MP's and Senators on the shoulder - "it's time to go". Wilson Tuckey springs to mind. The Australian newspaper reports that up to 2/3 of Liberal backbenchers do not want to negotiate with the Government over an ETS.

I think it was politically dangerous for Mr Turnbull to make his ultimatum publicly, outside the party room, and without a henchman. (John Howard had Senator Bill Heffernan, among others, and ruled the Party Room with an iron fist.) Without having a decision made by all members, in a closed party room, Turnbull risks having no decision, no discipline, and a continued procession of media tarts denying climate change. Meanwhile, Deputy Leader Julie Bishop has been polling those same backbenchers, trying to shore up her own position. She is certainly being prepared if Turnbull has tripped himself.

John

Libs Struggle As Kevin Struts The Stage

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is undoubtedly enjoying strutting the world's stage. Having had breakfast with former US President Bill Clinton on his (Mr Rudd's) birthday, he has bathed in the compliments of both Clinton and current US President Barak Obama, while being a co-host of the plenary meeting with world leaders. They will meet in Copenhagen in December where it is hoped that leaders will commit to some action on climate change.

Meanwhile Liberal Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has been relegated to speaking to conservative organisations, where he has been preaching to the converted about how the Labor Government's stimulus packages are not the reason Australia has done remarkably well in the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). This flies in the face of the opinions of Treasury Secretary, Ken Henry; Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens; myriad respected economists and business commentators; and voters. It was, according to Mr Turnbull, the (former) Liberal-National Government's "four pillars policy" about no mergers between the big 4 banks. He forgot to mention that this had been a "6 pillars" policy - 4 big banks, and Life Insurance companies AMP and National Mutual - instituted by then Labor PM Paul Keating, but unilaterally downgraded to just the 4 big banks by then Treasurer Peter Costello in 1997.

Mr Turnbull, and his Liberal Party, are also under pressure on Labor's proposed bill on Climate Change. The party is riven with disagreements, and has been challenged by Labor to come up with workable amendments by the end of October, before Parliament resumes for a short time in November. Kevin Rudd, and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, know that the Liberals will not be able to achieve this. If they vote down the bill, Kevin Rudd will have a reason to call a double dissolution election.

Such an election, if held in the first 6 months of 2010, could see The Greens, and Labor, improve their numbers in the Senate, with the Greens possibly holding the balance of power. The Liberal and National Coalition parties, and their conservative independent supporters, could be reduced to Senate also-rans. This is a real dilemma for the Liberals: risk losing Senate seats and Senate power and relevance, or vote for a climate change bill which is divides their party. Oh, what a feeling - not!

John

Libs Remain Confused

Federal Liberal Party members remain confused. Last week Malcolm Turnbull refused to rule in or rule out a return to WorkChoices. His fence-sitting was driven by two opposing forces: his innate recognition of the injustice that drove the WorkChoices policy of reducing the wages of ordinary Australians, while executives reaped double-digit rises in their salary packages; and the more extreme right wing of the party that still beats the WorkChoices drum, and whose support he needs. His leadership is simply not sufficiently strong to properly bury WorkChoices, or any other euphemistic name that the party cares to use.

Brendan Nelson gave his valedictory speech to Parliament this week. In it he again voiced his opposition to an emissions trading scheme (ETS). Malcolm Turnbull, his successor as Liberal Party leader, could not get to the backbenches quickly enough to shake hands and finalise Dr Nelson's departure. Imagine, then, the Libs' surprise the following day to see Brendan Nelson being appointed as Australia's ambassador to the EU and NATO. He becomes the latest example of former Liberal Party MP's and Senators to be appointed to Labor Government positions. His ambassadorial role will see him argue Australia's case for an ETS! No sign of an appointment for ex-Prime Minister John Howard, though.

Internally, the Liberal Party remains divided on WorkChoices, an Emissions Trading Scheme, leadership, the need for and size of an economic stimulus for Australia. In short, they remain a rabble, led by a man who cannot improve his electoral approval, where all but one of the women have been pushed into the background, and which cannot seem to agree on many policy matters with their Coalition "partner".

Malcolm Turnbull has not shown sufficient leadership to draw together the different elements in the Liberal Party. He seems to be there under sufferance, in which case he will likely be replaced when those elements congeal after the next Federal election in 2010, whereupon he will be replaced, possibly by Joe Hockey.

John

Women for the Front Line?

Federal Defence Personnel Minister, Greg Combet, has indicated the Federal Government wants to break down military gender barriers in the Defence Forces. The intent is to attract more women to the forces, and allow them to join combat units. Mr Combet wants physical capability, rather than gender, to be one of the determining factors. Women currently make up 13% of the forces, not in combat roles, and the Government would like to increase the proportion of women in the defence forces.

But Liberal backbencher and former infantry officer Stuart Robert thinks the idea is "outrageous". He went on to say "My concern is that really only Israel and a handful of countries whose very existence is threatened have gone down this path - the rest of the Western world hasn't" . He forgot to mention women in the Chinese and Russian military; hardly nations facing extinction! Also, his statement, per se, is not an argument for not allowing women in combat roles. Just because we, and others, haven't done it before, doesn't mean we shouldn't.

There will be women fitter than many Australian men. The criteria should only be whether service personnel can do the tasks required of the job. There are men who want to join particular combat units, but who are rejected. Just ask anyone who wanted to be a submariner, or join the SAS.

The Defence Forces should not lower physical and mental standards for combat units. That would be embarrassing, even humiliating to the men, and women, who joint the unit. But gender is not an argument for denying anyone the opportunity to train and be assessed.

John

Catherine Hill Bay: Court Overturns Sartor

Former Planning Minster, Frank Sartor's, approval of a development at Cathering Hill Bay, south of Swansea, near Newcastle.

As then Planning Minister, Mr Sartor, accepted the advice of the Planning Panel. He appointed members of the panel, so any references to it being "independent" outght to be questioned. Rose Corp's development application was ranked very low on the Planning Department's list of preferred developments for the lower Hunter Region. It's approval was contingent on the deal to transfer some land to the State Government, in return for planning aproval, and land.

Residents of the old coal-mining town, and from other nearby, small settlements, objected. Today, the Land And Environment Court has declared void the former Planning Minister's approval of the development.

While the method, the deal and reasoning behind the development approval appear to be discredited by the court's decision, I think it is unlikely that the State Government will challenge it. The court's decision, though, does not mean there can be no development at Catherine Hill Bay; it just means that Frank Sartor's decision was not valid. I wonder how much of it was his idea - as Minister for Water, Sydney Water employees had two 'terms of endearment'. They were 'The Big Drip' if he had an idea, or 'Cranky Franky', if in his usual mood.

John

Rees: 'I Won't Go'

NSW Premier Nathan Rees, has held a press conference and stated: "I am and will remain the New South Wales Labor leader". He then said it again, just in case the assembled journalists didn't understand. Or, it could have been repetition to reinforce his own idea.

Like any other political leader, he remains in the job only while he has the numbers: the support Joe Tripodi & Eddie Obeid (ther is irony in the right wing onf the Labor Party acting as power brokers for a left-wing Premier), the NSW Labor Party, and the Caucus.

Kristina Keneally also fronted the media to deny that she had been approached by Joe Tripodi, or anyone else, and that Premier Rees had her full support. She also questioned how much of the current, and on-going, media speculation was driven by the media. Fair question: there is no doubt that some journalists, and some media outlets have their own political agenda. How much of the speculation is media-driven, and how much comes from disgruntled Labor Government members is unknown. There is probably some of each.

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell, held a media conference to say, 'Bring on the election'. As if that were news! Having stirred the election pot, he probably chuckled all the way back to his office to watch the mayhem. Politics, n. a daily dose of unreality, reported ad nauseam by the media.

John

Nuclear Barnaby

Following is an extract of a speech given by Queensland Liberal-National Party Senator, Barnaby Joyce, on 24 August 2009 to the National Party Federal Council.

"... One of the agendas we must start looking at is nuclear power. We must
be serious about it. ... We export this product all around the world, we obviously think it is philosophically correct to export it to everybody but we don’t believe we should use it ourselves.
Then you have the query that everyone will put up well do you want one in your backyard? That’s the ultimate payback, but do you want one in your backyard? Well I bet we can devise a plan so that I do. You give me my power at half price I’ll take one. I’ll take one tomorrow and if gave every council in Australia the right to have a referendum to ask if you want one we’ll give you your power at half price, that is your choice. And then just let the Australian people make the decision. That would be a nice way to go about doing business. Let the Australian people make the decision about whether they want to do it."
http://www.barnabyjoyce.com.au/Newsroom/Speeches/PublicSpeeches/tabid/73/
articleType/ArticleView/articleId/949/Senator-Barnaby-Joyce-Transcript-of-Speech-Nationals-Fed-Council-2009.aspx

I'm not sure that, as an accountant, he has done his sums properly, nor the politics & practicalities of nuclear electricty management. His solution is simplistic - if we offer cheap electricity, people will approve a nuclear power station in their locality, or a location near other Australians. He hasn't addressed the costs of construction, operation & maintenance, waste disposal, decommissioning and disaster planning. His solution is: "offer cheap, and they'll let you build". But his implied assertion that nuclear-generated electricity will be half the cost of that produced by coal ought to be treated with much cynicism. The 'hip-pocket nerve' of many Australians might look for a cheap way out, as they have done with cars, and they might look to reduce their costs by reducing their use of electricity. An ETS, so opposed by Barnaby, is not so much a tax, but a mechanism of social engineering to change the electricity consumption habits of (all lights ON, ALL night) businesses and individuals.

If Barnaby Joyce wants to debate the merits of nuclear power for Australia, he has hindered his cause by not doing his (accountancy) homework and by simply shooting his mouth off.

John

Some references:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeCostOfNuclearPower
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9248&page=2
http://news.anu.edu.au/?p=1340
http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nuclearpower/01.htm

Govt To Amend RET Bill

Kevin Rudd has agreed to amend the Renewable Energy Target (RET) Bill, after making an agreement with the Opposition. The Bill will force electricity suppliers to source 20% of the ir energy from "renewable" energy sources. Users will pay a higher price for electricity, but it will help reduce the amount, or the exponential growth in the amount, of greenhouse gases by us Australians.

Some of the changes include:

• the Bill will be introduced on its own. It was initially coupled with the Emissions Trading Scheme Bill (ETS), which was voted down by the Opposition, and small-party/independent climate-change 'sceptics'.
• the use of 'waste' methane from coal mines to generate electricity will be counted as 'renewable'! While the term is debatable, it is better to use the methane this way (and generate CO2 ) than allow the methane to simply escape into the atmosphere. Methane is much worse as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
• more compensation for large energy polluters, such as the aluminium industry. Householders will pay more to offset the higher compensation.

Opposition spokesman on the Environment, Greg Hunt, called the described the changes (including the need for householders to pay more) "a victory for common sense". That fits with the Coalition's manifesto that business, particularly big businesses, come before householders.

Not included, but on Barnaby Joyce's (National Party leader in the Senate) wish list are nuclear power stations. Presumably he knows they need lots of cooling water, and will be happy to have them 'liberally' located along Queensland's coast. Queensland is his home state and the state whose constitutional interests he is supposed to represent. I just wonder if his National Party voters want them in their backyard. I wonder if any Queenslanders want nuclear power stations in their backyard.

John

O'Farrell: is it the Young Right?

NSW Liberal Opposition Leader has been urged by some in his party to clean out some of the "older" members. He has been told they risk becoming an old, one-term government if, as expected, they win the next NSW election.

The "too old" brigade includes Brad Hazzard, who is 58 now, and will be 60 after the next election. Too old?? There are some in their 60's now who, perhaps, might consider retirement - except that they, too, will want to be part of a Liberal-National Party Government. They have not held power since Nick Greiner lost to Bob Carr in 1995. (aside: many could only dream of a generous pension on retirement at 60-odd)

But is that the Party is concerned that those with experience will be too old? We will have to wait and see who they propose to take the place of the "oldies". In my opinion, it is that the more extreme right wing wants its acolytes in a Liberal-National government after the next NSW election in 2011.

John

Musings on Emissions Trading

Federal Liberal Party & Opposition Leader, Malcolm Turnbull, has kept his job. But he likes to test the waters. He released the new, updated Liberal-National Parties' policy on an Emissions Trading Scheme before the party discussed it. Yes, former PM John Howard used to do that, but no-one was game to criticise him. Turnbull could do it because he knows there is no-one else who could be leader. No-one: they are all tainted with the decisions of John Howard, Turnbull among them, but none of the others has the leadership ability, or public charisma of Turnbull: and HIS rating sits lower than a limbo bar!

The new Coalition Emissions Trading Policy, devised by Frontier Economics with a tight brief on what to protect has the following main features:

• agriculture is excluded. Yes, there is no cost for those who wish to clear-fell trees. It is after all, an "agricultural" activity.
• emissions-intensive industries get 100% free permits. (& perhaps a free lunch with the current Opposition Leader?)
• electricity producers, those who burn huge amounts of coal & generate huge CO2 emissions, would get a baseline & credit system. Free permits up to a baseline, then they have to pay. The problem is that the baseline will be so high, it will be largely meaningless.
• the coal industry (miners) gets more help
• electricity price rises have been kept to a minimum (so that consumers & industry don't need to change their usage habits, thus keeping profits up)
• claims of a 10% reduction in greenhouse gases hinge on the goodwill of polluters to buy carbon credits off-shore. Like the Government's "up to 25%" this is not a fixed target, only a "best - possible - outcome -if - the - gods - are - kind" figure.

Malcolm Turnbull hopes this will be politically popular - that's why he's done it - but voters should never confuse popularity with good policy, and already questions are being asked about the policy, and the Government has launched a PR attack, in, and out of, Parliament.

We'd really rather they argued rationally, but politics is all marketing these days, isn't it? Bloody marketers!

John

Turnbull Bunkers In

Following the release this week of the Auditor-General's Report on the "utegate" affair, Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull has largely retreated to teh bunker. He gave brief media interviews defending himself. He did not defend former Treasury official Godwin Grech, who provided the fake email to him. Indeed, he did not even mention his name. It was left to teh media to remind people that Mr Grech is now in psychiatric care. No-one form the Liberal Party, let alone Mr Turnbull or his advisers, has visited Mr Grech. They were quite prepared to use him, and he is alleged to have approached them. Former Liberal Party Deputy Peter Costello didn't help with his media interviews saying that Mr Turnbull did not apply any "due diligence" on the now-known-to-fake email.

Now, some in the Parliamentary Liberal Party are proposing Andrew Robb as a possible Leader. He was one of John Howard's more right-wing Ministers. It is also likely that the more extreme right of the NSW Liberal Party are working to gain preselection for safe Liberal seats in NSW, for both the next Federal election (2010) and the NSW State election in 2011. That bodes badly for Malcolm Turnbull, whose views are more centrist.

The week's economic news hasn't been that good for the Liberal/National Coalition either. Unemployment has remained at 5.8%, rather than rising to 6%, and more jobs have been created, although most are part-time jobs. But they have made nothing ... nothing ... of the rises in underemployment. This is an issue both the past Liberal National government and the current Labor Government don't want to discuss. They are the hidden unemployed - those with jobs, working les than 35 hrs/week, and who want to work longer.

Emissions Trading Scheme legislation is also due to be debated this month, and the Liberal/Natinal Coalition still can't decide what's best for the country - vested interests or an emissions trading scheme to help lower greenhouse gases, which contribute to drier, less productive farmland; and which will threaten the coastal homes of many people. MMM ... vested interests, or people. It's such a hard decision!

The bottom line is, we need politicians to act in the interests of the people. The Liberal Party is too busy playing politics, including internally, to be useful to anyone.

John

Health, Holidays & Wealth

I'm back - I've had 5 weeks off, an extended break. I felt refreshed, till I went back to work last week. I've been just as busy as ever.

The big news is the release of a report into Australia's health system by the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission. It confirms what many pople already knew.

The health system focusses too much (more than $90 b) on ill-health, rather than wellness
like campaigns against smoking, binge-drinking, too much sugar et al. Australians don't change the habits that adversely affect their health. Like smokers and drinkers they KNOW the messages about healthy living; they just choose to ignore them! Well, many people. Yet the report highlights that these lifestyle diseases consume more than 2/3 of the health budget! The report says "We have a health system skewed to managing sickness rather than encouraging wellness."

The recommended change in focus to preventative health has been welcomed by many. The politicians will be wary of being seen to "take away".

Hospitals remain a festering sore. They were once one of the jewels in the crown of State rights, and responsibilities. While Kevin Rudd has talked tough about how states have to reform hospitals, the States will argue strongly & concertedly to keep them. But the public knows that hospitals are underfunded, understaffed, and over-populated. NSW hospitals routinely operate at 99%-107% of bed capacity, because they don't have the budget to operate (pun intended) at the best-practice level of 85%-87% of capacity. Such levels would have seen considerably fewer operations delayed because the hospitals' priorities had to change to those with the H1N1 virus ('swine flu').

Money! Whichever of the reforms are implemented, partially or wholly, it will cost. Even better health in the long term costs, as people live longer, and acquire more age-related conditions. If voters want a better health system, they need to better fund governments. Ouch - that means more tax money. Voters will need to decide: better health care, better health programs, better hospitals; or a 2-cups-of-coffee-a-week tax cut? The effects on singular personal wealth might be ever-so-slightly dented, but communal wealth will increase significantly. Kevin Rudd shied away from questions about how any reforms might be funded. No surprises there - no Prime Minister wants to announce increases in taxes.

John