Kevin Rudd & Labor's National Conference

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

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

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

The Analyst

Low Infaltion Figure, Interest Rates & the Federal Budget

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Analyst

An Election Campaign of Fear - Again

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

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

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

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

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

It could be that Mr Howard has much to fear.

The Analyst

Missing Superannuation Payments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Analyst

COAG Meeting - April 2007

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

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

Agreements

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

Disagreements

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

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

The Analyst

New NSW Director-General of Education

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

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

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

Comments:

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

The Analyst

NSW Parliament and Domestic Violence

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

Good on her. But where were the others?

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

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

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

ALL of them.

The Analyst

NSW Liberal Party Leadership Change

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

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

Policies that I believe they must change include:

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

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

The Analyst

NSW Government Ministry 2007

NSW Premier Morris Iemma has announced his new Ministry. It includes 10 new faces, some of them newly-elected MPs. He said it is "The biggest injection of new talent, new energy and new blood into a government, with 10 new ministers."

But 10 new ministers does not rectify the problems. Certainly some previous ministers have been demoted: they previously caused embarrassment to the government.

But unless the NSW Government can find more more money to allocate to services, change might be illusionary. New Ministers will want to stamp their authority, and have different ideas. Department's will probably suffer some restructuring. As Gaius Petronius Arbiter is supposed to have said (about Caesar's restructuring)

"We trained hard, but it seemed that every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized."

Continual restructuring can affect front-line workers' perception of worth and perceptions of burueaucratic attitudes. Again, restructuring does not necessarily deliver better services to people, but it can help to re-focus a department's priorities and it can improve organisations.

The biggest challenges to service delivery will remain Education (Primary, Secondary and TAFE); Public Transport; and Health, especially hospital services.

The proof of effectiveness should start to be seen in 12-18 months.

The Analyst

NEW NSW Government

The NSW State Election (Sat 23-March) has returned a Labor Government with Morris Iemma as Premier of NSW. The seat majority will be similar, but the % swing needed by the opposition to win next time will be reduced.

It's now time to get over the most negative political campaign that I can remember; some say ever. Both sides targeted and attacked individuals.

There were many promises made to the people of NSW during the election campaign. This is now the time to deliver on some of those, and to change or adopt others for the sake of good governance. Much as I don't like politicians NOT saying what they will do, you must now do the following:

• re-new your ministry: replace the incompetent, the megalomaniacs, those with marginal ethics, with competent, ethical people.
• restore the independence of the Public Service, especially the heads of departments, their deputies and Ministerial advisers.
• restore public confidence in the Parliament of NSW by ensuring that Question time is used properly; that Ministers answer questions; that Parliamentary time is not wasted on personal abuse; and that members are not under the influence of drugs or alcohol during sitting times.
• develop a set of proper, ethical standards for politicians, especially those leaving Parliament who want to work for organisations with which they had involvement at Ministerial or higher levels, and which involved the distribution of public money to those organisations.
  
• restore the proper functioning of FOI laws. For the last 20 years governments have been obfuscatory in the extreme when information that might show Government Ministers in a "bad light" has been requested. FOI, especially through the media, is one mechanism where the voting public can gain the accountability it deserves.
• develop a sustainable water policy, by re-examining all options. Relying on a single answer is probably not in the best interests of the people of NSW.
  
• develop a proper public transport policy that includes project management to develop infrastructure and appropriate timetables to carry people quickly and effectively.
• use the State's AAA credit rating so beloved of previous governments, both Labor and coalition. Such a credit rating is only worthwhile to voters if it is used to negotiate good rates for short, medium and long-term borrowings. Those borrowings should be used to develop the infrastructure in transport, health, education and policing that are needed to deliver the services for which you are responsible.
• Ensure that the principles of the Separation of Powers are reinforced - that no politician interferes with the proper functioning of Police work or Educational curricula, for example.

A government that governs well has little need for the myriad of "spin-doctors" that currently plague us; and individual and collective social well-being is increased.

The Analyst

References and Politicians

This week, Labor's Kelvin Thompson resigned as Shadow Attorney General because he had written a reference for Tony Mokbel, a convicted Victorian criminal.

The reference was to help him gain a liquor licence from the Victorian Liquor Licensing Commission. There are too many grey ethical areas when public officials and politicians write references. Who is it for? Does the politician know them well (not just casually, or know who they are)? ; Could the reference be used to influence another public official? Is that appropriate?

There are really two issues in this matter:

1. Why would anybody, let alone a public official (politician) write a reference for a person they do not know?? An error of judgement, indeed! Certainly unacceptable.
2. The whole purpose of the reference was to influence t he Victorian Liquor Licensing Commissioner. Should politicians, as public officials, be writing references for anybody to take to another public official?
   

Teachers in public institutions, for example, do not write personal references for students. Such references are limited to institutional references about the student's attendance at school, TAFE, university; awards; activities and representative honours. They are not personal references.

Internal party references are one thing, but I believe politicians should not be writing public references on letterheads that identify them as politicians or Parliamentarians, or include any statements that identify them as such, including honorifics.

It's best to be seen to be ethical, than to be caught in ethical shadows.

The Analyst

Rudd, Campbell & Brian Burke

What a week! Revelations that Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd had thrice met with disgraced former Labor WA Premier Burke, occupied much news, Parliamentary and political "10-second" media bite.

Mr Rudd met Mr Burke and others three times in 2005. At the time he was Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, and "future Labor leader". Despite his protestations to the contrary, many political observers see the meetings , including dinner, as political flesh-pressing, designed to enhance Mr Rudd's future leadership plans.

Mr Howard's current Minister for Human Services, Ian Campbell is a WA Senator. Since Treasurer Costello said in Parliament that "Anyone who deals with Mr Brian Burke is morally and politically compromised." Mr Campbell was then Minister for the Environment, and met Mr Burke about a proposed Aboriginal Cultural Centre, to be built as part of a racecourse redevelopment.

It seems to me that, in both cases, politicians and their minders ought to have have avoided any meeting with Brian Burke, or his "management", just because he had been convicted of corruption. That was an "error of judgement" from both of them.

Having made their respective political points, if either side had any evidence of corrupt behaviour, they would have referred it to the Federal and WA police. Wouldn't they?? Well, no, because in the end, politicians look after themselves. Any bagging they do is "part of the game".

Perhaps it is time for a Federal body to oversee and investigate possible cases of corrupt or illegal behaviour by politicians.

In the meantime, I'd be happy if they returned to the job of governing Australia. We need details of plans for a national school curriculum, the Health system needs overhauling, we need a fairer IR system than WorkChoices (and workers employed by Tristar to do nothing productive, need a just outcome), plans for the new Murray Darling Catchment Authority need to be detailed, the budget prepared, and there are nearly 500 Bills before Parliament that have not yet been finalized! (See Below)

41st PARLIAMENT – 1ST SESSION – 2004-05-06-07
BILLS INITIATED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
(but not yet passed)
Bills introduced in 2004 — 93 (Including 11 received from the Senate)
Bills introduced in 2005 — 182 (Including 24 received from the Senate)
Bills introduced in 2006 — 188 (Including 32 received from the Senate)
Bills introduced in 2007 — 34 (Including 3 received from the Senate)

And there's a Federal election due before November! Get on with the real job of governing.

The Analyst

Political Involvement

The elections are here!! Yessss - I get to determine who we pay as our local representatives (State & Federal), and I get to make some noise about issues that concern me, the community in which I live, the State and the country. Oooh, that's a lot of responsibility. It is, and we voters should use it wisely.

There are people who say "politics is boring" or "I don't care, I'll just donkey vote". I suggest the donkey vote (numbering straight down the ballot) is well-named: only an donkey would not not use their vote wisely. In our democracy we have many freedoms. With each freedom comes a responsibility. Because we have the freedom to vote, we also have a responsibility to vote wisely, and in the interests of our community, state and country.

Voting is like knowledge and skills that you have: "use it, or lose it". Vote wisely.

Then there are those whose political involvement is to create trouble and violence. Some of those protesting against US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, in Sydney, are professional troublemakers. They have criminal records, Police intelligence can identify them in multiple incidents causing trouble and provoking violence. A few, in Sydney, appear to have been US citizens. I think there would be a good case for cancelling their visas, and detaining them until such time as they are deported. For those Australians that cause that cause trouble repeatedly, I think a case for a control order could be made. eg not approach within 10 km of a venue on a a particular day/days. We don't need troublemakers - they harm our democracy.

The Analyst

A "Green" Federal Government?

The Federal Government's announced plan to eradicate the incandescent light bulb and replace it with energy-efficient compact fluorescent tubes is a good one. All parties have applauded it. It would be implemented with legislation by 2010, and there are projected savings of 800,000 tonnes of CO2 per year. Relatively, this is a small amount, but there must always be a start.

On Monday, the Federal Government ruled out other changes: changes to planning laws, including inefficient electric hot-water systems, which they said was a "State matter".

Nevertheless, this is an issue that ought to be pursued. Making multiple, smaller changes can have an impact, and reduce the RATE at which we pour greenhouse gases into the air. However, it could be argued that we need to reduce not just the growth, but the absolute amount of CO2 to start undoing the damage we've already done. This means we also need to look at the "big users" - cars (in total); air conditioned buildings; industrial, commercial and governmental use of energy.

The Federal Government has set a standard for intervention in State affairs in other areas: Industrial Relations (WorkChoices); Murray-Darling Basin proposal; Health and Education. While I do not agree with the financial blackmail of States, I do believe that the Federal and State Governments must work together cooperatively , to achieve better results for all Australians (voters!). Perhaps it would be timely to remind them of the costs of building and maintaining the infrastructure of ever more power stations. Budgetary implications seem to be the only blunt instruments they understand.

The Analyst

NSW - The Leaders TV Debate

Last night (16 Feb 07), I watched the televised debate between the NSW Premier, Morris Iemma, and the Leader of the Opposition, Peter Debnam.

Well, it was called a debate, and was under the direction of the very capable Quentin Dempster. Both leaders looked good for TV: hair cut; makeup; lipstick; suit, shirt and tie impeccable. Their words had suitable makeup, too. Lots of covering up as both leaders spoke, but didn't answer, some questions. Specifically, both would not answer questions about whether Sydney people should move to Level 4 water restrictions, which restrict the use of drinking water for gardens and hard surfaces. NSW hotels and clubs organizations give generous donations to the major political parties, and the political parties want the money! So, neither leader would give a commitment about alcohol availability that would reduce the level of alcohol-related violence! Money talks, indeed.

Peter Debnam waffled on, but did not answer Quentin Dempstr's question about whether he would still call the Police Commissioner to tell the Commissioner to arrest particular people. Mr Debnam had previously made such a statement. He did say there are "tens of thousands" of bureaucrats in "ivory towers" (to sack, or remove). You can be sure, thought, of a multitude of new spin doctors just for him, if he's elected as Premier. Morris Iemma already such a multitude.

Morris Iemma had problems with water issues, and resorted to the deceptive terms "recycled sewage" - a term he knows is incorrect, but which plays on voters psychology. He also had problems acknowledging the Labor Party's 12-year history, and tried desperately to isolate things to only the 18 months he's been Premier. He was not entirely successful.

The "debate" was probably a draw - a result both sets of spin doctors wil try to say is an outstanding success for their particular employer. It involved, visually and verbally, a lot of impressions and "airbrushed" words, but lacked specifics on too many details.

This voter would want more detail.

The Analyst

John Howard Attacks US Senator Obama

On the weekend, Australian Prime Minister John Howard attacked a US Presidential candidate. That an Australian Prime Minister would interfere with the process leading to a US Presidential election, is an act that should be deplored: it is NOT Australia's, nor the Australian Prime Minister's, right to be critical of another country's political candidates.

John Howard has the right to disagree with Barack Obama's policies. Obama certainly argued that the invasion of Iraq was wrong. But for the Prime Minister to descend to the level of personal attacks, and to advise al Qaeda leaders to pray for Obama to win, is inappropriate.

Mr Howard today said that he was not sorry for the personal attacks, and that it was alright, because the "democracy is strong enough". Mr Howard has a history of not saying sorry, and is now showing a degree of arrogance. He, and his senior ministers, also have a history of choosing a position/statement and defending it to the death - even when it is clearly wrong. And so, with that history in mind, Australia's Foreign Minister, Alexander Downer, jumped to John Howard's defence. Mr Downer said that John Howard "feels passionate about the issue". That doesn't make the abuse acceptable.

Other US politicians dismissed Mr Howard as inconsequential. In the big scheme of US politics, that's almost certainly correct. With 1,400 troops in the Middle East, Australia has committed just 0.006% of its population to the Middle East war: the US has or will commit 10 times that percentage. If Mr Howard wants to speak up about commitment to the Iraq war, he should be promising many more troops. He can't - Australia doesn't have the military muscle. Perhaps Senator Obama was right to dismiss John Howard's words as "empty rhetoric".

The Analyst

Mr Howard Tells Voters What We Think

Today's press (11-Feb-07) carries an "exclusive" interview with Prime Minister John Howard.

In it he tries to tell us, the readers / voters, what he wants us to see as the issues in the Federal election due this year. He won't be alone: the Labor Party will do the same when it is ready.

He wants us to think that Water is a big issue. It is. It is currently (still) a State issue for State management. But John Howard wants to take it over, and for us to believe that his big-dollar promises will "fix it". The States have baulked because of a lack of detail. But that's how John Howard works the media and public opinion: Big HEADLINES, big DOLLARS, but FEW DETAILS. Only after he has the political power does the real agenda surface.

He wants us to forget about global warming, or at least think less about it. It is embarrassing enough for him to have had to begrudgingly acknowledge that, well, maybe it is happening after all. But he doesn't want to have to do a complete reversal - that would show him as being two-faced.

He wants us to think that his version of "national security" is an issue. Or at least that the opposition couldn't possibly handle that: the sub-text he wants is that "they're the Labor Party - they can't do National Security". We voters must ask him "Why not?"

He tries to dismiss the (newish) Labor leader, Kevin Rudd, as having the support seen in a "honeymoon period" of a new leader. Mr Rudd does enjoy some popularity because of that: the test will be in poll results in two or three months time.

His "interview" did not touch on other matters that are of interest to voters: would the Federal Government take control of all Health matters? It certainly doesn't want to, because it would be forced to allocate much more money, to those areas of current State responsibility, than it gives the States now. It doesn't want responsibilities that are politically sensitive - even if they are in the national interest. There IS more money for aged care (a good thing), but forget about the hospitals.

This staged interview was purely so Mr Howard could tell us voters what we think. At least what he wants us to think. The Labor Party will do the same when it is ready.

The Analyst

NSW Police - Authorized & Real Numbers

The NSW Police Force has a legislated "authorized strength" of just over 15,200 officers. (Jan 07) Last week almost 800 new officers attested at Goulburn, and were appointed to Local Area Commands. Many might have been appointed to politically-sensitive areas. ie to areas where Government politicians are anxious for votes.

However, there have been suggestions that anything from 10%-20% of officers are not available at any given time because they are on: secondment to Ministers /Premier / ICAC; annual leave; long service leave; sick leave, including because of stress; restricted duties; or suspended from duty.

Successive NSW Governments have managed Police numbers by having few recruits join in the years following an election; then extremely large numbers attesting as Police Officers in the month or so before an election. This has been part of the "Law and Order" campaigns.

But this is not good management - it generates headlines and large numbers, and to that extent it suits the politicians in government; and opposition parties will promise large increases in numbers.

Proper, responsible management by the NSW government would see the following:

• a more even intake and appointment of numbers, according to actual need, rather than the "feast or famine" model favoured by politicians. In this model, large numbers of police are appointed shortly before an election, to be announced, and re-announced by politicians for the benefit of politicians

• the legislated strength of NSW Police increased by about 15%, so that actual available police in Local Area Commands are close to what they should be now. This would accommodate the numbers of officers not available for any of the reasons outlined above. (2nd paragraph)

Both of these suggestions will not only be good management, but should help to boost Police morale, because they would have numbers approaching what they should have, and because they would be less used as a political football near election times. Both of those are desirable outcomes.

Are the politicians only concerned with the politics of providing essential State services, or with proper, appropriate management by responsible government??

The Analyst

NSW Pre-Elction Survey

This weekend's papers carry a story about NSW voter intentions, perceptions and perceived issues for the NSW state election on 24 March.

Peter Debnam continues to lack the skills to create a favourable image with NSW voters. He just does not seem to present well in the media. Voter perception is that NSW Premier Morris Iemma is a "good bloke" who isn't responsible for the mistakes and failures of the Labor Government under Bob Carr, presents well in the media, and that he has a much higher rating as preferred Premier that Opposition Leader Peter Debnam. This is the same problem that the Federal Labor Party had when both Simon Crean and Kim Beazley were Federal Opposition Leaders.

State politicians have, in recent elections, loved to run on the Lora Norder (law and order/crime/police numbers) ticket. The published survey rated crime a distant 6th priority, behind Health, Water, Economy, Education and Environmental policies. Mr Iemma, as with previous Premiers, was prepared to make much of the newly attested 750-800 new police graduates that have just started work. Voters are saying that they recognize the politicization of such numbers at the time of elections.

Health, particularly hospitals and numbers of nurses is seen as more important. NSW likes to have university-trained registered nurses because the Federal Government funds the universities, and therefore the training costs. Accordingly there are few state-funded trainee enrolled nurse positions, even though this could alleviate the shortage of nurses quite quickly.

Water is an important issue because Government ministers have said that Sydney people will not drink recycled water. This week Mr Howard (Prime Minister in a Liberal Party government) tried to tell NSW voters that Mr Iemma (Labor Party) or Mr Debnam (Liberal Party) would introduce recycled water after the election. For it's part, the NSW Labor Government said that "we're not at that stage yet" and that a desalination plant would be the first option: a good statement that tries to placate any voter response, but doesn't actually say that they would not introduce recycled water programs.

Whoever wins voters with their water policy will probably win the election.
If neither party can win the hearts and minds of voters with water, it is likely that the Labor Party will win office again.

The Analyst

Council Parking Charges

There is a story today (1 Feb) story that Mayor of North Sydney, Genia McCaffery, is charging variable rates for resident parking permits, with higher charges for "gas-guzzling" vehicles. She has said that, as President of the Local Government Association, she will encourage other councils to "go greener".

Her Council, North Sydney, raised more that $175,000 last year. How much went on programs to counter or reduce greenhouse emissions? NIL. That's right, nothing. It went, apparently, to fund the program to collect the money. There are no reported changes to the types of vehicles, no reduction or counter to greenhouse gases. The money is being spent to run the program to collect the money. That is disgraceful. Mayor McCaffery, and other North Sydney councillors, ought to be ashamed. Other Sydney councils have now said they will consider such a charge - they have either not thought through this issue properly and/or see only the potential revenue.

If they want to raise more revenue, they should seek more appropriate rises in the general rate by application to the NSW Government, and seek increases in charges for services such as garbage collection. To create charges and fees that are used to collect the charges and fees is bureaucratic stupidity.

The Analyst