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

John Howard's Water Plan

Prime Minister John Howard has pre-empted the Labor Party with a proposal for a national water plan. Some reports suggest it took 4 months to plan.

The plan can be found at: http://www.pm.gov.au/docs/national_plan_water_security.pdf
It consists of 10 points, and is conditional on the States handing over all responsibility for the Murray-Darling Basin to the Federal Government.

The 1o-point plan was announced in typical Howard style: big heading, followed by big dollar signs. The fine print is barely reported.

The fine print includes:

1. the $10 billion is spent over 10 years - it doesn't sound nearly so much then.
2. Part of the plan is based on the detrimental effects of reforestation in the Murray-Darling Basin. It ignores the fact that at least some of this is designed to overcome the serious effects of dry-land salinity, especially in southern NSW and northern Victoria.
3. Control of the Goulburn (Vic) and Murrumbidgee (NSW) Rivers is included in the fine print
   
4. part of the $10 billion will be spent on a a new Federal bureaucracy - the Murray-Darling Basic Commission (MDBC)
5. the above new MDBC will be under Ministerial control - ie subject to party political influence. This ought to be a major stumbling block for the Queensland, NSW, Victoria, SA and the ACT.

While the Labor Party has been caught short with the unexpected release of such a policy, the policy does nothing to lessen the effects of global warming or Australia's disproportionately high rate of greenhouse gas production. It does give the promise (hope?) of money for irrigators/farmers. These people are traditionally strong supporters of the National Party, and John Howard's Liberal/National coalition government, and they will appreciate the financial sweetener.

John Howard is creating a history of gaining, and centralizing, political power within his ministries. Here he is asking the states to cede their constitutional rights and hand over power to a body that will be under Ministerial control. *WARNING! Warning! There is danger here"

The concept of a national authority to "govern" the Murray-Darling Basin rivers is a good one. Such an authority needs to be independent of government and free from party political interference, real or perceived. The proposed Murray-Darling Basin Commission ought to be free of politics and Ministers: it ought to have the same independence as the Reserve Bank.

The Analyst

Australia Day Speeches and Politics

News that NSW Opposition Leader, Peter Debnam, had to be forced to tone down an Australia Day speech because it was too political is nothing less than shameful.

Australia Day is a day when we celebrate community, being Australian, being a multicultural society, and welcoming new citizens.

That Mr Debnam wanted to use a formal speech welcoming new Australian citizens to talk Party policies can only reflect badly on him and his party. It should have been a speech to welcome new citizens, not a speech to belittle multiculturalism and incite right-wing intolerance.

The Analyst

Federal Cabinet Reshuffle 2007

John Howard's cabinet reshuffle sees a new PR image occurring: Workplace Relations (WorkChoices) is to have the smiling, amiable Joe Hockey. Amanda Vanstone has been dumped from Immigration, and the Ministry.

In both these cases John Howard needed a fresh face, preferably one that won't be associated with conflict and bad news. Kevin Andrews, as Minister for Workplace Relations, oversaw the introduction of WorkChoices and the demolition of the Federal Industrial Relations Court. He was always a tough-talking, ride roughshod type of Minister. Amanda Vanstone has had to front the media on many occasions, almost all of them associated with bad news: bad news about detention centres involving "The Pacific Solution", mistreatment or maltreatment of detainees, or their incarceration conditions. Voters have begun to associate both with bad things.

Malcolm Turnbull's accelerated approach into Cabinet (a position as a Parliamentary Secretary was only created last year) will see him opposing Labor's Peter Garrett. A smooth-talking Merchant Banker / lawyer versus a former rock star with considerable environmental and street cred. It will be an interesting battle.

The crux of Mr Howard's reshuffle seems to be to put softer-looking people in the Cabinet hot-spots of Immigration and Workplace Relations; and a high-profile NSW banker in charge of the Environment and Water.

The Analyst

The Australian Flag at The Big Day Out

Organisers of this week's Big Day Out concert have previously issued a statement that they did not want anyone to bring the Australain flag to the concert. Their reasoning was well-meaning: they wanted to avoid the possibility of trouble stemming from a few people who might use the flag as a visible rallying point and who want to cause trouble.

Such use aof the flag, and trouble, had occurred last year at the Cronulla riots. There were also people from far right-wing Nationalist groups trying to recruit some of the people involved.

The problem is not with the Australian flag. The problems lie with the people and concepts that the flag represents a white Australia, and that it should be used as a rallying point in the same way, and for similar purposes, as the Nazi flag. These concepts and the people who preach them are inappropriate, and not what our flag represents. It represents a "commonwealth" of states, where people work for the betterment of the country and all its people.

The organisers of The Big Day Out concert have retreated somewhat from their earlier statements, and are discouraging, rather than banning, people bringing the flag. Friday is Australia Day - a day when all Australians should join together and celebrate; recognising that Indiginous Australians predated white settlement, but that all Australians work and live together in a multicultural society. Let's party! Be Happy.

The Analyst

Petrol Prices, Economics and Politics

ACCC Chairman Graeme Samuels has made a rare public statement, this time about the slow, or non-existent, fall in the price of petrol. The price of petrol in Australia is set by the oil companies. They follow, more or less, the price of crude sold on the Singapore market. Recently, it seems have been "more" ... for the oil companies.

The ACCC quite powerless, but can try to “name & shame” oil companies that it believes are not dropping prices. Interestingly, some service stations in Sydney dropped their prices this afternoon ... AFTER MR Samuels' statement was released.

The price of petrol has historically been quite inelastic – it is controlled by only a few companies ( an oligopoly) & demand is reasonably constant. This conforms roughly to Keynesian economic theory for goods run by an oligopoly. However, after petrol hit $1 / litre a few years ago, it is more likely to suffer falling demand if price rises quickly /stays too high, as people react and complain.

Deputy PM Mark Vaille has said the Federal Government would look at more powers for ACCC if needed. Here it is caught in political push-pull. Oil companies are significant donors to political parties, but the Government could suffer voter backlash about the continuing high price of petrol, as as happened previously. Then, the Federal Government fixed the amount of fuel excise, in order to reduce the CPI increases in excise, and therefore price. It wants to avoid a voter backlash because there is an election this year.

The Government would like to think fuel price in Australia would be set by “free market forces” (demand/supply). Here, it reverts to Keynesian economics, rather than the “economic rationalism” theory it uses elsewhere. The reality is it needs to have a mixed economy where there is some government regulation in order to prevent excessive price blowouts. This might well include giving the ACCC greater powers to fine, or otherwise penalise, oil companies, and their executives. When it's personal, executives are more likely to be responsible and conform to regulation.

The Analyst

Childcare, Taxes and Corporations

Let me express at the outset that I have no personal interest in childcare at the moment. My children are too old and I have no grandchildren. However, a friend has asked me to express an opinion, and I am not shy of doing that.

Some facts:

• Childcare in Australia has become big business. ABC Learning and Childcare Centres Australia are both large corporations, making multi-million dollar profits. Several Federal conservative politicians or leading members of conservative parties have significant shareholdings in one or more of these corporations. This is not to say that they have done anything corrupt or illegal, but the Federal Government does provide the subsidy that these corporations collect, directly or indirectly.
  
• In 1991, John Howard's (Federal) government, opened up childcare to private providers.
• In the years since 1991, the cost of childcare has risen greatly, to the point where Federal Government "subsidies" account for 60% of the fees charged.
• Ann Mann, author of "Motherhood", researched levels of cortisol in children. Cortisol is a stress hormone (like adrenaline). She found children cared at home had high levels in the morning, which then became lower as the day progressed. Children in childcare had high levels, even in the afternoon.
• There are mostly 2 "types" of childcare centres: community-based, and corporate.
• Corporate childcare centres, by their very nature, must concentrate most on the shareholders profits. Part of this is to place quite restrictive budgets in its centres.
  
• ABC Learning Centres, like others, receives 60% of its funding from Federal Government subsidies. This represents about 40% of its $250-$350 million income in 2005. It used a large amount of money to sponsor a national basketball team, and to buy paraphernalia from some of its players and coach. If it had no subsidies from taxpayers, it could still make $150-$200 million!
• Meanwhile (meanly?!), childcare workers remain one on the lowest paid groups of adults in Australia.
  

The childcare benefit (CCB) paid by the Federal Government is supposed to make childcare affordable. It can be paid to parents at the end of the (financial) year, or as a co-payment to the provider. With the rise of corporate involvement in childcare, and the increase in fees, I'm not sure it's making childcare affordable - rather, it seems to be making corporate shareholders richer.

I believe the time has come when we must consider a system of public childcare, similar to public education. This would have the following benefits:

• Proper government control of standards
• Establishment of national standards
• Improved pay for childcare workers
• Consistency of care and programs, while still allowing tailoring to suit the cultural and social needs of local communities.
• Using public money for public good, using public resources.

If they want a change in how childcare is delivered, parents and other voters must make enough noise in the media.


The Analyst

Holiday Road Toll and P-Plate Drivers

Operation Safe Arrival ran from 22-Dec-06 till midnight on 5-January-07. In that time there were 19 people killed on NSW roads, more than 16000 were booked for speeding; more than 1000 were booked for driving with proscribed amounts of alcohol; and more than 1000 were booked for seat belt offences!

Of the 19 killed in NSW 4 were P-plate drivers; 1 was a 4-month old passenger of a P-plate driver and the other 14 had full licences.

Much has been discussed in the media about bans and further restrictions on P-Plate drivers, and they are certainly disproportionately represented in the holiday road toll. But what about the rest: 15 people died at the hands of people with full licences. I had an experience where a car about 200m in front, on a good dual-carriageway, dual-lane highway, lost control on the outside of a gentle curve, fishtailed, then spun through about 540 degrees. The tyres were useless after. The driver? - an man, about 40 years old, driving a performance version of a family car, who was speeding (about 120+ km/hr) There were 5 or 6 cars alongside and immediately behind him.

With 16000 drivers (repeat sixteen THOUSAND drivers) fined for speeding in NSW over 15 days, the impact of "double-demerit points" and the advertizing for drivers to slow down is having minimal impact.

Solution: - those drivers fined for speeding, alcohol and seat-belt offences during times of "double demerit", should automatically have their licence suspended for 1 month, on-the-spot! A hole punched in their licence indicates a cancellation. Their licence can be re-issued after paying the appropriate fine and taking the receipt to an RTA office. Drastic? Yes, but at least those people putting the rest of us at risk will be off the road for the holiday period.

The Analyst

Ban Surgery for Smokers - Surgeon

Today's news carries a story where a surgeon says that denying smokers orthopedic joint replacements, reconstructive surgery and other elective operations was justified in a health system with limited resources because it was more risky and expensive to operate on them.

There are many views on ethical dilemmas: making the most efficient use of resources for the common good creates many such dilemmas. Respiratory surgeon Matthew Peters' suggestion is, I believe, wrong, but it needs more than a cry of "you can't do that".

Dr Peters' position uses the base arguments of: operations on smokers are more risky; smokers take longer (that whom?) to recover from surgery; the benefits to smokers might not be as great as for others.

There are many groups of people for whom surgery is a higher risk than normal: people who use too much alcohol; drug users; those who have suffered significant trauma because of their own stupidity; people who play sports, and want to return to doing the same things; older people; and very young people. Denying surgery to one group of people who have a higher risk, but not targeting other groups is not a reasonable basis on which to operate (so to speak).

Some groups of people do take longer to heal, and need more time and resources from hospitals: very young infants, and older people are two such groups. Do you deny them surgery.

We do not deny people because of the cost. We do not say to any group "Sorry, this operation costs a lot, so you can't have it." Not to any group.

On what basis do doctors decide on surgery? Need, and benefits. Before any surgery, doctors will examine the risks and the benefits. They will discuss them with the patient, if that is possible. If the possible risks outweigh the possible benefits, it is likely that the surgery would not proceed.

For long-term smokers, the risks for some surgery might outweigh the benefits - but that needs to be judged on each individual case, not on a "class" of people. The same applies to all other cases.

The Analyst