What Price A Child's Life?

There were two news stories about the murder of two children this week. Yet the results of investigations are very, very different.



West Gate Bridge
Source: National Archives of Australia

 On 29 January 2009, 4-year-old Darcey Freeman died after being dropped 58m from Melbourne's West Gate Bridge. A lengthy police investigation, prosecution preparation and trial led to the conviction of Arthur Phillip Freeman of murder. He had been involved in a custody battle with his former wife, and, shortly before Darcey was dropped from the bridge, he rang her and said "say goodbye to your children". Darcey's 6yo and 2yo brothers saw him drop Darcey from the top of the bridge. Despite being recovered by people below, Darcey later died. Arthur Phillip Freeman was sentenced to life in prison, with a 32 year non-parole period.

In sentencing Freeman, Justice Paul Coghlan said  "Your crime is a most fundamental breach of trust and it is an attack on the institution of the family which is so dear to the community"

Also last week, NT Coroner Greg Cavanagh criticised Northern Territory Police for their lack of investigation of the drowning of an 8yo aboriginal boy in 2009. The boy had been weighted down with rocks in his shorts, and drowned in a waterhole. The case has now been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions after he found a crime had been committed. Police were criticised for: being too quick to dismiss the death as accidental; not protecting and keeping the rocks; not making measurements of, and photographing or keeping other physical evidence; a beer can was not tested for DNA for months after the discovery (the DNA reportedly belongs to a person on remand for child sex offences); the waterhole was not drained and searched; evidence (a pornographic magazine and a singlet) was dismissed as unimportant without being tested. The list goes on.

Any unlawful death hurts society. The killing of a child is especially painful for family, and society. In the Melbourne, Victorian, case, police conducted an investigation which led to trial, and conviction. In the other, it is hard not to conclude that the death of an aboriginal child was deemed not worthy of rigorous investigation by the investigating police. Our society has been hurt twice by this case: once that a child has been killed; and again because the police we trust apparently did not do their job properly.

John

Carbon Tax Debate Hijacked

The debate about whether Australia should, or should not, have a carbon tax is being hijacked. Today in Sydney there were two rallies: one in favour of a carbon tax, and one opposed to any carbon price.

The anti-tax rally, apparently organized by on Luke Jenkins, boasted the support of 22 organizations. All were pro-conservative media (The Australian, The Daily Telegraph); conservative-media journalists (Andrew Bolt - he of the current controversy concerning his comments about some aboriginal people); political organizations (Menzies House); Jo Nova (she has links to the Heartland Institute, which worked with tobacco giant Philip Morris to try to discredit second-hand smoke as a danger to health); One Nation; ... There website is: http://www.nocarbontax.com.au/ I don't doubt that there are extremists associated with, and driving, the organization. They play on one basic human trait: we don't like paying any tax.

Rallies are organized, and the Liberal and National Party politicians invited. It is as if the no-tax power-brokers are waving the tails of the Coalition politicians! Some of them are willing subjects, for their own political purposes.

The pro-tax, pro-climate change rally was organized by GetUp! - http://www.getup.org.au/ - an organization also known to contain some extremists, and willing to criticise all and sundry that don't meet their "social" wishes, including the Labor Party. Like the No carbon Tax group, they attempt to wag the tail of politicians and political parties.

Both rallies are reported to have had about 4000 participants.

So, should we have a carbon tax?? Yes ... and No.

Here, let me say that I think that people are contributing to rising Carbon Dioxide levels; and that increasing Carbon Dioxide levels are a cause of increasing average temperatures of the earth, rising sea levels and (likely) increasing  frequency and severity of extreme weather events. Rational argument doesn't work with climate sceptics / Conservative politics, but:

• NASA (Oct, 2010) has a report that concludes 

"... industrial activity is responsible for the rapidly increasing levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is not surprising then that global warming can be linked directly to the observed increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide and to human industrial activity in general."  http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/co2-temperature.html

• If it comes down to believing the myriad Conservative media & skeptics, or Dr Karl Kruszelniki, I'm mush more inclined to believe Dr Karl

Yes - a carbon tax would work better in a closed economy. That is, one not exposed to, and part of, world-wide economic activity. Taxes, like interest rate movements from The Reserve Bank are designed to change people's behaviour. A carbon tax will help change people's behaviour in their use of carbon-based energy: mostly electricity and petrol. This is because society needs an impulse to change its behaviour, and if people want to not pay the tax, they will change their behaviour.

No - because Australia is part of a 'global economy', and taxes work best in a closed economy, an Emissions Trading Scheme with a capped amount of carbon pollution, or even one that reduces the levels of carbon pollution, is a better option.

A price on carbon is appropriate, the pollution has an economic cost that polluters have not had to pay, and economics says that they should.

John

O’Farrell Finds ‘Black Hole”

(This post has been updated on 30-March))

New NSW Premier, Barry O'Farrell, has released the typical new government "we found a black hole in the budget" media release.
It was not unexpected - almost every new government does it, whether Coalition or Labor.
Mr O'Farrell released a media statement headlining a "$4.5 Billion black hole".
But where did the $4.5 Billion ‘black hole’ come from? The answer lies in events since the last estimates were released.

• the last estimates were released on 15-Dec-2010 and are shown below. the ‘latest estimate’ is reportedly what was given to Mr O’Farrell. The full document is at http://www.treasury.nsw.gov.au/?a=19225 

Budget Results	2010-11 $m	2011-12 $m	2012-113 $m	2013-14 $m
1/2 Yearly Review (Dec-2010)	167	176	432	129
Latest estimate		204	-405	-1,200
Change from 1/2 Yearly Review		28	-837	-1,329

 

Even with the updated figures the estimates give a TOTAL deficit for the period 2012-14 is estimated at $2.15 Billion, not the $4.5 billion quoted by Mr O’Farrell, which includes a new treasury guesstimate, the basis of which is  unknown. Budgets for 2011-12 – 2014-15 will be controlled by Mr O’Farrell and his Treasurer, expected to be Mike Baird.

• The estimates only go to 2013-14, BUT … there’s always a ‘but’ … Mr O’Farrell has included a guestimate for 2014-15, not included in the forward estimates by Treasury. The ABC reported

… Claire Curtin from Standard and Poor's says there is no threat to the state's credit rating at this stage.

"A significant proportion of the $4.5 billion number is both outside our outlook horizon and the forward estimates period," Ms Curtin said. …

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/29/3176184.htm

• The new budget report will account for the ‘worst-case’ – it’s what Treasury does for incoming governments.
• It also accounts for the result of Labor’s sale of publicly-owned electricity assets, the extra expenditure involved, including developing a coal mine for a private company, and the subsequent loss of income from them. Former Labor Treasurer, Eric Roozendaal, is responsible for that.

All up – I do not doubt there is a hole in the budget, but I am not sure it’s a big as BOF said.

Perhaps, in the spirit of new ‘accountability’ promised by Mr O’Farrell, he might release the basis of his budget deficit in 2014-15, approximately 42.4 Billion, by his reckoning. Everyone’s allowed one dream per day – I guess I just had mine.

John

Liberals to Rule NSW

Yesterday's election saw the Liberal-National Parties win government in NSW. The Labor Party (ALP) has governed for 16 years. Barry O'Farrell will be the new Premier of NSW. Outgoing Labor Premier, Kristina Keneally, conceded defeat and congratulated Mr O'Farrell last night.

The result has been largely a foregone conclusion. Even before the election campaigning started, polling showed that voters had deserted the ALP. The following table shows 2-Party-Preferred voting intentions of NSW people surveyed from Dec-Jan to March this year.

Month	ALP	Coalition
Dec - Jan	39%	61%
Jan-Feb	38%	62%
March	37%	63%

The figures I saw last night indicated an approximate distribution of 36% ALP and 64% Coalition
Newspoll (http://www.newspoll.com.au/) states that:

These surveys were conducted on the telephone by trained interviewers among voters throughout New South Wales. Telephone numbers and the person within the household were selected at random. The data has been weighted to reflect the population distribution of New South Wales. The latest survey is based on 1,000 interviews among voters. The maximum margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points

That means that, despite a small difference in actual numbers, the polls have essentially showed no statistical change between January and polling day. This means that the election result was not influenced by either leader, nor by their party advertising. Any claims by the Coalition that its campaign advertising about a carbon tax influencing the result will be, at best, ‘spin’. Spin really refers to political false advertising.

The Coalition, as of this morning, expects to have 66 of 93 seats. Of those 66 seats, 17 are held by the National Party; 49 by the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party could govern in their own right. It remains to be seen how much ‘weight’ they will throw around in the joint party room on Monday morning!

Kristina Keneally has indicated she will not stand for the leadership of the ALP in Opposition, saying she believed the new leader should be unencumbered with decisions of the past. Policy and decisions have been made by a few, with their political interests being the driving force. With as few as 19 or 20 Members of the Legislative Assembly, and no new members, the ranks of potential leaders are thin. They include:

• John Robertson, who moved from the Legislative Council (LC) to the Legislative Assembly (LA). He has been the most widely mentioned in the media. He has “baggage”. As representative of Unions NSW, he vigorously, and vociferously, opposed the sale of NSW electricity assets. He was ‘given’ a seat in the LC by the ALP party machine, then promoted to Minister for Transport. Suddenly, his opposition to the sale of our (people-owned) electricity asset wasn’t a problem, and he kept quiet during the sale. As Minister for Transport, he oversaw what many voters believed were myriad problems: ferries, trains, busses.  At best, he will be a party-machine installed stop-gap, who could kick heads. He will not kick heads in the party machine, although that is what is required! after all, they will largely be responsible for the politicking that might well install him as leader. John Robertson has baggage, will likely remain unpopular with voters, and will not win an election.
• Carmel Tebbutt, former Deputy Premier and Minister for Health. She carries less baggage than John Robertson, but hospitals are still a problem area for voters, and she might not have the backroom influence or power that John Robertson is likely to have. This, incidentally, was one of the perceptions about Kristina Keneally. Being personable, hard-working , logical and caring doesn’t count in the current NSW Labor machine, even if those qualities are recognised by voters.  Being from the left faction, Carmel Tebbutt will not be popular with the right-wing party machine.
• Nathan Rees: – ‘been there, done that’, and was not popular with voters, nor with the right-wing of the ALP.

The Coalition will expect to rule NSW for at least 8 years (2 x 4-year fixed terms). It will likely take that long for the NSW ALP to purge the party machine, give more say to rank and file members, and rebuild policies based on the interests of the people of NSW, rather than the interests of some party power-brokers.

John
PS expect the budget in late May 2011 to 'slash and burn', especially the Public Service, a traditional target for incoming governments, with only token trinkets for some newly won seats in western / south-western Sydney and, perhaps, one or two big-ticket schemes to be announced, but not funded, and with no delivery in 2011-12.

Incoming NSW Government Tasks

Sometime next Saturday, 26-March, many expect there will be a new NSW Government, one led by Barry O’Farrell of the Liberal Party. the National Party will his Coalition partners in government. As a voter, I have a list of things that will need his urgent attention. These tasks will help prevent members of his government behaving in ways about which he, the media, and many voters have been critical.  I believe that whoever wins government, Barry O’Farrell, or Labor’s Kristina Keneally must:


Kristina Keneally







Barry O'Farrell


1. Remove Ministerial discretion in planning matters. Current legislation gives the Planning Minister the opportunity for personal discretion, and provides an atmosphere, and fosters a culture where, decisions that would otherwise be deemed unethical or corrupt are allowed; even encouraged, by relationships with other politicians, lobbyists, and developers. Witness, for example, the spate of approvals given by Tony Kelly in the day before the government went into caretaker mode. Most of those decisions concerned the development at Barangaroo, to the benefit of Lend Lease. One of those allows Lend Lease to develop a car park without having to remove toxic chemicals from the ground. Legal? Aapparently. Ethical? ?
2. Ensure ethical standards. All other sections of the “public service” are bound by ethical standards and Codes of Conduct, but apparently, politicians are not. The current Parliamentary Standing Committee on Ethics is toothless. It can do nothing to reprimand, nor take any action against, any MP who acts unethically.  Indeed, there appears to be no Code of Conduct which explicitly outlines expected and prohibited behaviours of Parliamentarians. That means, provided a NSW Parliamentarian does nothing illegal, they cannot be found to be corrupt, regardless of how unethical their conduct might be perceived.
3. Restore political neutrality to the Public Service Senior Executive Service. The current SES has a number of people, including Directors-General, whose appointments are perceived as tainted by political connections. Not all, but some of them. It is likely their contracts will be either terminated, or not renewed. The incoming Premier must act ethically,and disallow the practice that has politicised the public service, solely to give Ministers a highly-paid “Yes, Minister” underling. Any political appointments hinder free, but honest advice, and degrade our democracy.
4. Restore the esteem of our social infrastructure. Public Schools, Public Hospitals, Public transport, TAFE, Community Services all need to be promoted, and seen to be valued by Government. Only then will the public’s esteem grow.
5. Restore Standards of Question Time Behaviour. People call our Parliament “the Bear Pit”. Many don’t respect Parliament, nor the politicians that give it the bad name. Enough said.
6. Retain Public Assets in Public hands.  Public School land is not, for example, an asset to be sold to developers, or to private schools. It would be sensible, and appropriate, for example, to include a caveat excluding public school land sold to private entities being used for educational purposes.  (see also Points 1, 2 and 4 above)

If all the above sounds fine, but terribly idealistic, even naive, then think about this:
“If you don’t aim to hit the bullseye, you’ve got no chance”

Let’s annoy and harangue our politicians and leaders till they do what the ought to do.

John

NSW Ethics Shmethics

The last Liberal-National government in NSW was led by Nick Greiner. In 1992 the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC), which he established, found him to have acted corruptly. This was later overturned in the courts, because what he did in offering Terry Metherell a senior Public Service position was not illegal, and there were no ethical standards for politicians.

“Ian Temby found Premier Nick Greiner had acted corruptly. Greiner had offered a place to Terry Metherell with the purpose of removing him from Parliament to the advantage of the governing party. Eventually, the courts found in Greiner's favour. The court's reasoning was that Greiner had not acted illegally. The sole basis for a finding of corruption was, therefore, if he had breached a code of behaviour by which he was bound. The courts found that, although public servants and other officials were bound by well established codes of behaviour, politicians were subject to none of them. In effect, unless they break the law, politicians can’t be corrupt in NSW because they have no ethics.” (Chis Hurley, 2004) http://www.infotech.monash.edu.au/research/groups/rcrg/publications/0406rmethicsch.pdf

The irony was that Nick Greiner had campaigned partly on the alleged corruption of the previous, Labor, NSW Government, led by Neville Wran.

 

NSW voters, individually and collectively, have a good sense of what is right and wrong. Many see the last-minute changes to regulations by Planning Minster Tony Kelly, to the benefit of Lend Lease, as being unethical, even if not unlawful. So, too, the allegations of document shredding by Labor Ministers and staff will be seen by many as corrupt. It has been reported that current Labor Premier, Kristina Kenneally, has ordered the destruction of “thousands” of potentially damaging sensitive documents, and that she “expect(s) all public servants, be they in the bureaucracy or government advisers, to be following that direction” 

 http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/greens-concerned-at-labor-shredding-documents-before-nsw-election/story-e6frfku0-1226020642333#ixzz1GezirtsZ

 

There is a NSW Parliamentary Ethics Committee. The NSW Parliament website says:

“This Committee has the function of carrying out educative work in relation to ethical standards applying to Members of the Legislative Assembly as well as providing advice on the standards. The Committee can also consider matters of privilege referred by the House.”

However, the Committee can not take any action against any member, even if the member is deemed to have acted unethically! It is toothless.

 

Many people believe political ethics have taken a beating under the current Labor Government. But will an incoming Liberal-National government change the rules if those rules mean its own members & Ministers must adhere to a set of standards not previously achieved in NSW? Remember, too, that elements within the Liberal Party are opposed to ethics classes in NSW public schools.

 

Will anything change? Ethics, Shmethics, if you ask me.

 

John

Carbon Costs

Let’s be clear: All our political parties, The Greens, Labor, Liberal and National Parties believe climate change is occurring. This is despite Tony Abbott’s well-publicised comment about the science  being “crap”, and despite some nay-sayers. Most of the nay-sayers are from the Liberal & National Parties. It is a politically convenient position, allowing big-polluting supporters to continue to pollute.

What IS different is the politics. The Liberal & National Parties have abandoned the policy of an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) their former leader & PM, John Howard. Labor, having promised action on climate change under Kevin Rudd, and now Julia Gillard, have been unable to resolve the details of ETS to satisfy the Greens and Independent MP’s & Senators. The result is a proposed interim carbon tax, to be replaced by an ETS in 3-5 years. So, how do the policies compare?
The Greens (main points)

• binding national emissions targets for 2012, 2020 & 2050, with a 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020
• detailed strategy to reduce emissions from energy, transport,  industry, waste & land management
• future energy needs to be met by sustainable, renewable energy sources
• an equitable transition to a low carbon economy through a range of market-based and regulatory mechanisms reflecting the real costs of greenhouse gas emissions
• address the social impacts of the transition to a low carbon economy
• establish a national system of energy efficiency targets

See: http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/climate-change-and-energy

Labor Party (current policy)

• 5%-15%  reduction on 2000 carbon dioxide emissions by 2020
• carbon tax (details to be advised), with a transition to an ETS in 3-5 years.
• “businesses with the highest levels of pollution will have a very strong incentive to reduce their pollution.”
• “The Government will then use every cent raised to:
• Assist families with household bills
• Help businesses make the transition to a clean energy economy
• Tackle climate change”

See: http://www.alp.org.au/agenda/environment/carbon-price-mechanism/

The Coalition (Liberal / National Parties)

• 5% reduction on 2000 carbon dioxide emissions by 2020
• “direct action” involving:
• an Emissions Reduction Fund (funded by taxpayers)
• “incentives” for businesses
• penalties for businesses that pollute beyond “business as usual levels”. Penalties to be set “in consultation with industry”.
• plant trees, but not on useful land for farms
• solar & biofuels

See: http://www.liberal.org.au/~/media/Files/Policies%20and%20Media/Environment/The%20Coalitions%20Direct%20Action%20Plan%20Policy.ashx

Comments:

1. policies from Labor and Liberal-National Parties have been subject to change to suit particular political climates at the time.
2. the economics of a carbon price are complex.
1. Electricity use might be more economically “elastic” than previously thought. See http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/conspicuous-conservation-means-less-is-much-more-cool-20110118-19v75.html People in Sydney have REDUCED their “average electricity consumption in Sydney fell by 6 per cent between 2005-06 and 2009-10”, while the price increased by 50%
2. Petrol, though, seems to be rather “inelastic”. That is, people will continue to buy, almost regardless of the price. But they can exert significant political resistance. remember, John Howard reduced the tax on petrol after it first hit the $1/litre mark because of the political backlash from motorists. He couldn’t, and wouldn’t, continue to reduce it, though,and petrol is well over $1/lire now.
3. Taxes, including a carbon tax or ETS, are designed to force a change in people’s behaviour. Think of the effect of increasing interest rates on household spending – the effect is similar if people pay more tax.
3. Consumers will pay one way or another: a carbon tax / ETS means they will pay pay as they use, and change behaviour accordingly; an Emissions Reduction Fund means they will pay through other taxes, and will not associate the (mostly income) tax with carbon pollution.

Summary

	The Greens	Labor	Liberal / National
Quality / Idealness	9 / 10	6 / 10	5 / 10
Practicality	5 / 10	5 / 10	6 / 10
Effectiveness	8 / 10	6 /10	4 /10
Cost to Energy Consumers	Very High	High – via “cost”	High – via tax

Whatever the politicians do, I believe we should all strive to reduce our carbon emissions. We should do so because it is a good thing to do, because it will reduce the rate of increase in our costs, and because it will improve our environment.

See also: http://www.thepoliticalsword.com/post/2011/03/07/Tony-Abbott%E2%80%99s-Great-Big-New-Tax.aspx 
John

Climate Change Compromised

Compromise usually means that no one gets what they want, and the compromise is accepted by all because they realise that no one is completely happy, but everybody got something.

 

So it is with today's announcement that, from July 2012, there will be a fixed price on carbon (pollution), with an eventual move to an Emissions Trading Scheme in about 3 years. (2015) Business, especially big business, wanted, and lobbied both Coalition & Labor Governments for it. Then Labor PM Kevin Rudd acceded to this, and former Coalition Minister and then Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, supported it. The right wing of the Liberal Party shafted him, and installed Tony Abbott as Leader of the Opposition. Abbott promptly labelled climate change as 'crap', in direct opposition to Australia's Chief Scientist, and the CSIRO.

 

Last year's Federal election resulted in a hung Parliament, and Julia Gillard only became Australia's current Labor Prime Minister after gaining the support of Independent MP's. The result included a multi-party Committee on Climate Change. The Committee members are listed at http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/multi-party-committee/members.aspx Prime Minister Gillard Chairs the Committee. No Coalition members are listed, although the Coalition was invited to nominate 2 members of the Committee.

The compromise reached by the Committee is a fixed price on carbon for 3 years, then a transition to an ETS. All parties have compromised:

• The Greens wanted an ETS, including on-farm activities.
• Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor wanted an ETS, not including on-farm activities. They represent rural and regional voters.
• Labor wanted an ETS, but different from that, and it had twice lost a vote in Parliament.

So, all parties wanted an ETS, except the Coalition which chose not to have members on the Committee. However, none could agree on the form of the ETS. Hence, a compromise, fixed-price on carbon, that shows they want to do something about climate change, but none have got what they really wanted. If it is introduced, I hope that imported goods are also subject to it, including the carbon-cost of transport to Australia. Otherwise, companies manufacturing in Australia will be further disadvantaged.

Politics is sometimes defined as 'the art of comprommise', but it seems to me that it often compromises good public policy.

John

Healthy Change From Gillard

Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced proposed changes to the Health Funding agreement to be discussed, and possibly agreed, at the COAG meeting on Sunday.

The proposed changes include:

• Dropping the proposed loss of 30% of GST to the Federal Government. Ms Gillard referred to it as a "merry-go-round of GST money". It was to be used to raise the Federal Government's funding from 40% to 60% of health funding.
• the proposal for the Federal Government to fund 100% of out of hospital health services.
• direct funding of hospitals has gone. This is a good thing, I think. Direct funding by bodies under the control of a Prime Minister, Premier, or Minister removes some transparency, and allows for politically-driven funding. Think WorkChoices, where the independent Industrial relations Commission was disbanded, and a federal pay authority established under the effective control of former Prime Minister John Howard.
• The Federal Government will commit to funding 50% of future increases in health funding, subject to "performance targets" being met. This is less than the 60% under the previous model, and indicates to the states, especially those led by Liberal Party Premiers, that the cost of retaining control over all their GST is that the Federal Government will commit less.
• Funding will be paid by Federal & state governments to a new Health authority, to be independent of Federal & state government interference, similar to the Reserve Bank. This is a much improved policy to the direct funding model previously proposed by Kevin Rudd.

The changes are largely politically driven to gain the approval of states which have a Liberal Party Premier, including Barry O'Farrell who is expected to be NSW Premier after the 24-March election. Politics is, after all, the art of compromise.

Liberal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has, predictably criticised the changes, calling them "the biggest backdown since the surrender of Singapore" (in WW2). Abbott has a history of criticising absolutely everything from the Federal Government, so his comments are no surprise.

It was disappointing that no journalist, not one, asked Abbott the following questions:

• Mr Abbott is this new proposed policy 'bad policy'? [Abbott would have effectively answered 'Yes']
• If it is such bad policy, why will 2 Liberal Premiers, and one Premier-in-waiting, agree to it?

Also disappointing was that no journalist asked Ms Gillard:

• Ms Gillard wasn't the direct funding model, proposed by former PM Kevin Rudd just bad policy, because it opens the possibility of future governments funding hospitals for their own political ends, and isn't it better that state governments be given a pool of funds to allocate to hospitals through their Health Departments? [this would have been awkward, because it would require criticism of Kevin Rudd's proposals, something she was at pains to try to avoid]
• GST revenue to states will fall during some future economic downturn. How will health funding be affected by future economic downturns, given that the states use GST money to partly fund health?

  John

Abbott's Levy Too Far

Tony Abbott has sent an email to Liberal Party supporters, at the end of which he asks for a donation to fight the (proposed) flood levy. It will really be a short-term addition to the rate of Medicare Levy. Both sides are playing politics with this.

The email bears Tony Abbott's signature, and will have been approved by him, but would have been sent by a political staffer.

Notwithstanding the words of the email, Tony Abbott has no bipartisan cooperation in mind, and has, indeed, been pressuring the Independent MP's to support him and bring down the government.

The post script plea for donations to campaign against flood levy is rather tacky in its implication. That is, that there should be no levy, and perhaps that taxpayers should be more self-centred and contribute less to society. It is Liberal Party philosophy that "user pays" ... unless there is political capital to be made for them.

Abbott's plea seems to be backfiring. It seems that some older members/supporters of the Liberal Party actually think using an income tax levy to rebuild infrastructure is entirely appropriate, and Tony Abbott risks alienating not only Liberal supporters who hold such beliefs, but many Queenslanders, too. Queensland is a state vital to both parties' electoral success.

For its part, members of the current Labor government have hit the media with criticism of the email, again for purely to score political points. Abbott tried to laugh it off, saying he believes Labor emails also solicit donations. But it's what he doesn't say that's important here - that Labor has not asked for donations to fund ads opposing a mechanism to rebuild infrastructure after a natural disaster. It was just tacky and rather cheap politics by Tony Abbott & the Liberal Party. So is the "point-scoring" by Labor.

John

The Politics Of Rebuilding

This week saw a return to normal partisan politics.

Having flown the kite in the media, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced the proposed addition to the Medicare levy to fund the reconstruction of public infrastructure, especially in Queensland. The levy will fund about 30% of the reconstruction and will be collected for only 1 year. It will levy an extra 0.5% of income over $50000 and less than $100000; and 1%  for incomes over $100000. You can see the proposed weekly effect at http://www.smh.com.au/business/how-the-flood-levy-will-affect-you-20110127-1a69i.html 

Politically, Julia Gillard wants to ensure the budget surplus as promised in 2012-13. It will be her first surplus, with the previous and current Labor Government having rightly gone into deficit to ensure Australia did not slide in recession during the Global Financial Crisis, but she also needs to prove wrong Tony Abbott's assertion that Labor would never deliver a budget surplus. Never mind the extenuating global financial and exceptional flood-induced circumstances.

Meanwhile, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott and Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey have been relentlessly pursuing the "great big new tax" line in as many 5-second media grabs as possible, rather like Chicken Little's "the sky is falling, the sky is falling". His solution to finding the extra money is to cut government programs and other spending. Again, for political purposes, he suggests dumping the National Broadband Network. This is despite his alternative plan from the election being generally regarded as slower, and creating more congestion in the Internet wireless bandwidth.

Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey have been critical of the levy, because it's an income tax levy. But they supported the levies introduced and imposed by former Liberal Prime Minister John Howard: the gun buy-back levy after the Port Arthur massacre, and the airline flight levy to pay employee entitlements after Ansett went broke. They also both proposed an income tax levy to fund a paid parental leave scheme at the 2010 election. A levy on income tax is not a philosophical problem for them; the problem is that they are not in government, and they therefore see the need to whinge about it.

Meanwhile Abbott has also applied political pressure to the Independent MP's, with whose support Julia Gillard remains Prime Minister. There's nothing "bipartisan" about that, despite any public comments to the contrary by him.

Tony Abbott's negative politics, which reinforces the selfish "why should I pay more" and "I already donated to the flood relief" attitudes will be a challenge for Gillard, and Treasurer Wayne Swan, to overcome. We have just celebrated Australia Day, and given ourselves a pat on the back for wanting to help our society. To now whinge about a 1-year small levy to help rebuild our flood-ravaged physical and social infrastructure is, perhaps, hypocritical, selfish, and not the kind of Australian we say we want to be.

John

Australia Day 2011

Today is a public holiday, Australia Day. It's a day when we Aussies:

• celebrate being Australian
• remember the arrival of 11 convict ships, on 26-January-1788,  under the command of Arthur Philip.
• recognise the achievements of many Australians, at National, State, and local levels. Significant numbers are receive Australia Day Awards. The official Australia Day Awards. There are also Australia Day honours. We often refer to them irreverently as "gongs", as in "She/He got a gong for ..."
• have a BBQ with mates, or go to a cricket match (involving Australians vs an international team) in a one-day game.
• we welcome people from overseas who have chosen to become Australian citizens.

But our society is not perfect. Politicians, of both sides, continue to develop politically-expedient policy, rather than good public policy. On occasions they act unethically, even if not unlawfully. Perhaps the most recent example is the suspension (proroguing) of NSW Parliament in December. An election is due in late March, but it is widely viewed as an attempt to hinder or stop a Parliamentary Inquiry into the sale of NSW electricity supply and generation companies. We need to tell our politicians that we require higher standards of behaviour from them. We have groups of people whose purpose is to marginalise, or intimidate other people: there are Asian and Middle-eastern gangs; criminal motorcycle organisations; organised crime (think of the Underbelly series about both Melbourne & Sydney); far right wing, neo-nazi, racist groups. We still have poor & disadvantaged people in our towns and cities, and in remote areas of Australia, whose welfare and health are similarly below the national standards.

Australia Day is a time when we are proud of our achievements, recognise particular individuals, and encourage and show our mateship. I hope we also vow to work for an even better Australia. Goodonya! I'm off to watch the cricket (Australia vs the Pommies. we lead 3-0 in a best of 7-game series)

John

Insurance Inquiry Needed

As many people in multiple states are suddenly finding, what constitutes a flood changes with almost every insurance company. Some insurers, Suncorp among them, have said they will honour claims for flood damage, which is a nice piece of PR in a disaster. However, some of the companies it owns, AAMI among them, have already denied claims for flood damage using the “fine print” definitions to argue a “rising river event” is not the same as a flood!

Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, has indicated aggrieved policy-holders might be allowed to give evidence to the Parliamentary Inquiry into the Queensland floods.

The Federal Government has already expressed some concern about the fine print definitions of what constitutes a “flood”, and, while the Insurance Council of Australia (ICA) proposed a standard definition in 1998, it was rejected by the ACCC, because of a number of concerns it had. (www.accc.gov.au/content/index.phtml/itemId/841725 )

The ACCC left open the possibility of approval for a new common definition from the ICA: none appears to have been forthcoming. So, the insurers continued to use their fine print and differing definitions, and rely heavily on the fact that many (most?) consumers don’t read the contract, but rely on the explanations given by a sales person, who might, or might not, be intent on meeting a sales target and achieving a bonus.

If you want to contact APRA about insurance, go to http://www.apra.gov.au/contact/form.cfm

It would seem timely for a full and open inquiry by APRA into all aspects of insurance policies to be held. I think it should be held concurrent with, or very soon after, the Queensland Government’s inquiry into the floods. I suspect that the Insurance Council of Australia and an assortment of industry lobbyists will now be in politicians’ ears trying their best to prevent such an inquiry, or at least try to dilute any terms of reference. It should examine all definitions of various events: flood, fire, storm, and other events.

I hope that the following does not represent the typical insurer of people in Queensland, or anywhere else in Australia.

John

Aussie Floods 2011

I cried this week – more than once.

I cried at the devastation wreaked by the floods in Queensland. Much of southern Queensland (Qld) has been affected, but it is not the only region. The mid-northern city of Rockhampton was inundated by floods on New Year’s Day, 2011. Today’s news said that roads to Rockhampton were only just opening. The floods have affected 3/4 of Queensland. They are the worst floods since 1974. Each blue balloon below is a town or city affected by flood.

I cried at the images of the “inland tsunami” centred on Grantham, in the Lockyer Valley, and Toowoomba, west of Brisbane.

I cried for the people who died, and for their families and communities. I particularly cried when I read the story of Jordan Rice. He, his mother and younger brother were swept away in their car at Toowoomba on Monday. When a rescuer, tied to a rope, came to drag them to safety, James insisted they first take his younger brother, Blake, who is 10. When the rescuer came back, James, and his mother Donna Rice, were swept away from their car, and died. Jordan Rice was 13 years old. He gave his life, so that his younger brother could live. Read the full story in The Brisbane Times.

I was, and am, angry at the 10 people who have been arrested for looting. It is a despicable act to steal from people, but more so when those people are affected by a disaster of this magnitude.

I cried again today as I watched the multitude of volunteers who came to help the people of Brisbane and other areas affected by floods. More than 7000  55000 people turned up, and registered as volunteers, just today. TV images showed all sorts of people: skilled trades people; truck drivers; unskilled people with buckets, brooms, shovels; young, middle-aged, and children all came to help people they didn’t know. One young woman, asked why she was volunteering, said she was not affected by the floods, and .. “I’m Australian”. Cue the Australian chant:
“Aussie! Aussie! Aussie"!”

“Oi! Oi! Oi!

“Aussie!”

“Oi!”

“Aussie!”

“Oi!”

“Aussie! Aussie! Aussie"!”

“Oi! Oi! Oi!

Across the country, people have donated money (very important after the immediate recovery), clothes, food, services, time to help people they don’t know, and likely never will. The outpouring of community spirit from emergency services, charitable organisations, ordinary community members is not only inspiring; it is the glue that strengthens our community, our nation.

See:
www.qld.gov.au/floods
www.vinnies.org.au/Qld-Floods
http://www.abc.net.au/emergency/flood/ (has many links)

I went to the Blood Bank this week to donate plasma. It wasn't as busy as it is normally. While many of you have contributed, I read today (http://www.donateblood.com.au/news-events/qld-news-events/queensland-floods-affect-blood-collections )that Queensland’s blood collections are down, because of the floods, and because donors have more important things to do. So, if you’re not in Queensland, not affected by floods in other states, and you can, give blood. In AUSTRALIA, see http://www.donateblood.com.au/ , or call 131495 (Australia only)

And let's not forget people in other states affected by floods: NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania.

John

Australia's 2011 Challenges

Belated Happy New Year. I've been holidaying with family, so haven't posted. Nor did I looked at work emails, or use a computer between Christmas and New Year. I didn't miss them, even though, like many people, I consider them "tools of trade/life".

For 2011, Australia and its people have much to work on. While politicians will set the direction we take, each of us has both a personal and social responsibility to work towards a fairer society, and to help our communities - local, state and national.

Our politicians must address the following:
Tax reform - the Henry Review
Superannuation reform - the Cooper Review
Climate Change - Emissions trading Scheme or simple, but effective, Carbon Tax. Business lobbied for an ETS, believing they (or some of them) could make money from it. Also important are plans to protect coastlines, infrastructure and possibly restructuring some food-production industries.
Health and Education - Health funding and responsibilities for the myriad health services are still a dog's breakfast covering mostly State & Federal Governments. For hospitals there are proposals giving control to local boards. For Education, Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard has already flown the kite for direct funding of public schools, with Principals responsible for budget, hiring and firing, and "performance bonuses" to teachers selected by the Principal. Principals would be accountable to a local board, as with hospitals. Such approaches will only enhance the perception of "bean-counter" reluctance public health & education. Such a penurious approach will limit health and education services, based almost solely on local budget considerations. I do not believe these are good policies.
Economics - recent floods in NSW and Queensland, in particular, will require significant relief funds from governments, will lead to higher food prices for at least 6 months, and will adversely affect regional, state and the national economy. The effects of global economic conditions will also have an impact, especially from the US, European and Asian economies.

Individually, each of us must start, or continue, some form of service to our communities. Sometimes that is through aspects of our work, or donations to charity, help with local community organisations, such as Lions, Apex, Rotary, SES, Theatre, sporting clubs, local Church ...

For 2011, I'd like you to consider donating blood or plasma. Not everyone can, but I'm a regular donor - it's one of my community contributions. I've made about 100 donations, but there are people who have donated more than 250 times! In Australia, blood donations are freely given, and are provided free to people who need them. Many employers, and awards, allow some time off for employees to give blood. IN AUSTRALIA, see, http://www.donateblood.com.au/ , or call 131495 (Australia only)

While you're at it, consider becoming an organ donor - IN AUSTRALIA, see www.hic.gov.au/organ, or call 1800777203, or see your Medicare Office.

John

Merry Christmas 2010

As we prepare for Christmas with family: children, parents, brothers, sisters, cousins, in-laws; and/or friends and strangers, it is good to reflect on the reason for Christmas.

For Christians, it is a celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ; a time to remember the messages of hope, redemption, peace, love and generosity of spirit.

For a secular society, it is a time of hope, for wishes of peace, love, family, and generosity.

The messages are remarkably similar.

Merry Christmas to everyone.

For a modern, digital, take on the story of the nativity, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkHNNPM7pJA

John

NSW Suspends Democracy

The NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, has effectively sidestepped democracy. The NSW Governor, Marie Bashir, has prorogued (suspended) Parliament at the Premier’s request. It was not scheduled to be prorogued till late February. Writs for the election are scheduled for about the 4th March, 2011. The NSW Parliament will not now sit until April 2011, after the election. However, because the government is not in caretaker mode , the Premier is still free to make major policy announcements.

The move means that any meetings and deliberations by a Legislative Council inquiry, from today, are unlikely to be recognised. The inquiry was to examine the sale, the involvement of individuals and possibly the legality/ethics of the sale. By suspending Parliament two months early, Premier Keneally and others hope to avoid official public and Parliamentary scrutiny of their actions.

The last few months have seen the NSW Government, led by Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, move to sell NSW taxpayer electricity assets.

Following are some of the facts that are known:

• Treasurer Eric Roozendaal, and some Treasury officials, are known to ”treasure” the state’s AAA credit rating, and have been reluctant to invest in electricity infrastructure for many years.
• NSW Treasury expects to gain more than $5 Billion form the sale of taxpayer-owned assets.
• The transactions are expected to take over 2 years.
• 11 board members of Eraring and Delta Electricity resigned, believing the sales of their trading rights were not in the interests of the NSW state-owned companies.
• NSW Treasurer Roozendaal replaced the 11 board members at night with political yes-men.
• Tony Maher, who resigned from the Board of Eraring on 14-December has described the sale as “a mad dash for cash”.
• The NSW Government is creating privately-owned companies that will form an oligopoly of electricity suppliers.
• Origin energy gains Country Energy and Integral Energy (retail suppliers) and the output from Eraring (power generation)
• TRUenergy, a Hong Kong company, gets EnergyAustralia, and the output from Delta West and some smaller generators
• Elizabeth Knight, writing for the Sydney Morning Herald on 16-Dec, wrote that “the purchase of the long-term supply contracts with gentraders Eraring (acquired by Origin) and Delta Electricity (bought by TRUenergy) went for bargain-basement prices”
• The Sydney Morning Herald reported, 16-Dec-2010, “A UBS analyst, David Leitch, said: "NSW households are in for higher electricity tariffs and more people at their front door, trying to get them to change electricity supplier." Note: he said more people, not more suppliers.

Speaking to the ABC about the 11 directors who resigned, Roozendaal said “They were not looking at the public policy objectives of the government. They were not looking at the benefits to the taxpayers; they were looking narrowly at what they believed was interpreting the responsibilities for their organisations." But aren’t company directors supposed to act in the interests of the company, and shareholders?
ASIC sets out the duties of directors thus:

1. be honest and careful in your dealings at all times
2. know what your company is doing
3. take extra care if your company is operating a business because you may be handling other people’s money
4. make sure that your company can pay its debts on time
5. see that your company keeps proper financial records
6. act in the company’s best interests, even if this may not be in your own interests, and even though you may have set up the company just for personal or taxation reasons, and
7. use any information you get through your position properly and in the best interests of the company.

Given the above, especially point 6, there might well be serious questions asked of the directors so hastily appointed by Eric Roozendaal, whose only task, it seems, was to act in the political interests of the Treasurer, and Treasury.

The Legislative Council inquiry, so swiftly sidestepped by Premier Keneally, might well be the public inquiry we need to have.


John

Different Welcomes

For two of the last three weeks, Australians welcomed, gushed and had periods of personal hysteria during the “Oprah Winfrey’s Ultimate Australian Holiday”. She was gracious, generous, almost gushing in her praise of Australia, and Australians. Journalists, and media outlets, covered the minutiae of her movements. I heard one journalist say words similar to ‘We believe Oprah is in her car. Oh, my God’.  It was, after all, a promotional tour organised by Tourism Australia. She appears to be a nice lady, well-known, wealthy, and we welcomed her with open arms. We spent considerable amounts of money to pay for her tour, including adding a big “O” to the Sydney Harbour Bridge.


Contrasting this, was the most terrible crash of a boat-load of asylum-seekers on Christmas Island, on Wednesday. Boat arrivals, and the treatment of asylum-seekers have been the subject of UNHCR criticism. Under former (Liberal) PM, John Howard, the UN was critical of the harsh regimes in detention centres, especially Baxter Detention Centre in central Australia, and of the ‘off-shore’ processing centre at Nauru. (Labor) PM Kevin Rudd, and now Julia Gillard, have been criticised for the length of time it takes to repatriate people whose asylum claims have been denied.

The photo at right shows a woman’s t-shirt that says “bomb the boat” at a community meeting in Northam, WA in November. I do hope she’s not gloating at the loss of 30 or more men, women and children on Wednesday 15-Dec-10 when the boat sank at Christmas Island. Similar meetings and sentiments have been held in the Adelaide Hills, SA.

Australia should not have an open-border policy. But there are people in Australia, and elsewhere, who want to take the ‘Christ’ out of Christmas. Our politicians, of all sides, have led the race to the lowest point, in the quest for a vote, as they try to buy the votes of xenophobic and racist voters. That is our shame, and theirs.

Merry Christmas. I just hope you’re not seeking asylum.

John

Swan Parries at The Banks

Treasurer Wayne Swan has announced measures to increase competition in the banking sector. In Australia, the big banks -  Commonwealth, National Australia Bank, Westpac/St George and ANZ – hold most of the market. They also effectively own a number of second-tier banks and mortgage providers. For example the Commonwealth Bank own Bank West, Wizard Home Loans and has a 33% stake in Aussie (Home Loans)

The banks act a a classic economic oligopoly. The mortgage market is effectively controlled by only a few large corporations. They have increased interest rates on loans above the increases announced by the Reserve Bank, are largely unaffected by political “pressure” statements of the current (Labor) government, and the previous (Liberal-National Coalition) government. They have not increased rates on their savings accounts, and have reduced the rates on some term deposits in the second half of 2010.

The measures announced by Mr Swan include:

• banks to issue a one-page fact sheet detailing repayments, total amount repaid, and URL’s of websites where rates can be compared
• exit fees to be abolished
• ACCC to be given power to investigate price collusion. In an oligopoly such as run by the banks, public comments about ‘we need to raise interest rates’ also acts as a signal to other banks, and softens-up the public before the almost simultaneous rise by the banks. The practice is called ‘price-signalling’, and stifles competition.
• credit unions and building societies will be allowed to issue ‘covered bonds’.
• former Reserve Bank Governor, Bernie Fraser, will be asked to investigate how technology can be used to make it easier for consumers to switch mortgages, and savings accounts.
• credit card reform will limit or ban over-limit fees, unless the consumer deliberately allowed it.

The announcement was orchestrated as a full press conference, with the Treasurer, Assistant Treasurer & Minister for Financial Services & Superannuation, Bill Shorten, and the Treasurer’s Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, David Bradbury. It was, by any measure, a media “event”, designed to maximise publicity about taking on the banks, and improve the government’s approval rating. Former (Liberal) Treasurer, Peter Costello used to put on such shows, at which he also revelled in his displays of sharp wit.

It remains to be seen whether the Liberal-National Opposition will support the legislation, designed to increase competition, and give more power to consumers, or support the big banks in their opposition to competition. The history of the Liberal-National opposition since losing government in 2007, and the 2010 election, has been to support big business and oppose, or obstruct, most legislation introduced to Parliament by the government. I suspect it will try its best to obstruct and delay as much as it can.

John

I Love A Sunburnt Country

The following is the 2nd verse of a 6-verse poem called 'My Country'. It was written by Dorothea Mackellar

I love a sunburnt country,
A land of sweeping plains,
Of ragged mountain ranges,
Of droughts and flooding rains.
I love her far horizons,
I love her jewel-sea,
Her beauty and her terror -
The wide brown land for me!

It is the best-known verse of this poem, a poem that spends 5 of its 6 verses professing the author's love for different aspects of Australia. Following are some images that I hope reflect some aspects of that amazing verse.

In December 2010, many parts of the plains of NSW are experiencing flooding, with every west-flowing river between the Namoi R. in the north to the Murrumbidgee R. in the south having flood warnings. Some people will be lucky to be allowed home in time for Christmas, let alone have a habitable house.

If you're in Australia, please consider a gift to a charity that will help people at Christmas. Try The Smith Family, St Vincent de Paul, The Salvation Army as a start.

I love a sunburnt country ... but geez, she can be hard on us.
John

Drought...

... and flooding rain

rugged mountain ranges

the wide brown land