Libs Struggle As Kevin Struts The Stage

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

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

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

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

John

Libs Remain Confused

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

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

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

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

John

Women for the Front Line?

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

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

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

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

John

Catherine Hill Bay: Court Overturns Sartor

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

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

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

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

John

Rees: 'I Won't Go'

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

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

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

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

John

Nuclear Barnaby

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

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

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

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

John

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

Govt To Amend RET Bill

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

Some of the changes include:

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

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

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

John

O'Farrell: is it the Young Right?

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

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

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

John

Musings on Emissions Trading

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

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

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

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

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

John

Turnbull Bunkers In

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

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

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

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

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

John

Health, Holidays & Wealth

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

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

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

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

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

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

John

'Utegate' and Political Accountability

On Saturday, I wrote "A picture of an alleged email appears in The Daily Telegraph today, allegedly from Andrew Charlton (senior economic adviser to Kevin Rudd) to Treasury official Godwin Grech. The image in The Daily Telegraph is, indeed a picture, and pictures can be doctored." On Sunday, Kevin Rudd announced that he matter had been referred to the AFP - a tactic that opened the possibility of police interviews of Opposition members, their staffers and Treasury officials.

Today, Monday, the AFP have released a statement confirming the email was fake, but not who created it. "Preliminary results of those forensic examinations indicate that the email referred to at the centre of this investigation has been created by a person or persons other than the purported author of the email." Some news reports indicate the email originated within Treasury.

And so Parliament played the game of political argy-bargy. Kevin Rudd's government dredged up his alleged involvement in the HIH (insurance company) scandal when (now Opposition Leader) Malcolm Turnbull worked for Goldman Sachs as a merchant banker; and wanted to know Malcolm Turnbull's involvement in the fake email. PM Rudd taunted Mr Turnbull with "The leader of the opposition has his fingerprints all over the promotion of this fake email and he knows it." There were questions about a (recently-left) former staffer for Malcolm Turnbull, Paul Lindwall, and whether the AFP wanted to interview him. He has denied any involvement.

The referral to the AFP appears to have worked for Kevin Rudd. Parliament censured Mr Turnbull today, albeit with a vote on party lines only; and Turnbull has effectively had to drop his attack on Kevin Rudd. The opposition has now turned its attention to Treasurer Wayne Swan, who is alleged to have received a fax about the Ipswich car dealer, John Grant, who provided a ute for Kevin Rudd, and who reportedly asked for assistance getting dealer finance.

Much of the mud appears to have rebounded onto the Opposition, possibly one or more Oppositin staffers, at least one person in Treasury, and The Daily Telegraph.

John

Politicians, Children & Accountability

Wow - they say a week is a long time in politics. It's 2 weeks since I last posted and soooooo much has happened.

Just in the last week:

• Former Federal (Coalition) Treasurer Peter Costello has indicated that he will not seek pre-selection for his Melbourne seat of Higgins at the next election. That event doubtless caused much joy and celebration for Malcolm Turnbull and his supporters; and doubtless Costello's supporters, largely the more extreme & right wing in the Liberal Party, felt a little flat. They have no viable right-wing leader. Parliamentarians of all sides played the game, and said nice things about Peter. Even he conceded it was almost a series of eulogies.
  
  It will be some little time before history settles on his real legacy: wannabe Prime Minister, with no guts to challenge John Howard; good/great Treasurer; Treasurer who could have done more in the good times.

• Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young was asked to remove her 2yo daughter from the Senate during voting. Greens leader Senator Bob Brown, and Liberal Senator Sue Boyce have asked for the issue (of children in the Senate) to be debated "so the rules are clearer". Notwithstanding that there is available child-care provided at Parliament House, I think that there are times when outsiders are not appropriate in workplaces. Some people seem to equate "family-friendly workplace" with the ability to take children anywhere. Such a view is, I think, much too broad. Except for the need to breastfeed infants, I think outsiders, including toddlers and children ought not be present in Parliament, especially during House business, debates, votes & Parliamentary Inquiries.

• During The Press Gallery Mid-Winter Ball in Canberra, Liberal Party adviser Anthony Scrinis allegedly grabbed the breasts of up to six women, and "lurched from woman to woman on the dance floor". He worked for Liberals' spokeswoman on Women's Issues Sophie Mirabella for less than a week, and has resigned. I guess most people would take "Issue" with his behaviour. He was also allegedly drunk. Who needs alcopops!? And how have the organizers and alcohol providers fulfilled their responsibilities for responsible service of alcohol? The answer, of course, is that they haven't. I hope we don't get to the stage of having "minders" for politicians' minders .. ooooh, my head hurts at the thought.
  

• Opposition parties are always looking for blood, especially of a Prime Minister. And so PM Kevin Rudd finds himself at centre of a storm over allegedly misleading Parliament about his / his office's interference in a government OzCar vehicle financing scheme to help a car dealer obtain finance. The dealer, John Grant, previously donated a ute for Mr Rudd to use in his electorate. A request for assistance was allegedly sent from the Prime Minister's Office to a Treasury official. A picture of an alleged email appears in The Daily Telegraph today, allegedly from Andrew Charlton (senior economic adviser to Kevin Rudd) to Treasury official Godwin Grech. The image in The Daily Telegraph is, indeed a picture, and pictures can be doctored. The Government claims the email does not exist, and The Telegraph has not released the original to any other outlets. Treasury officials, including Godwin Grech and his boss have told a Senate Inquiry that they cannot find the email on any system. It would be expected to be still on a server, or backup. Even if an individual "deleted" it, that does not delete it from the server. THere might have been inappropriate advances, but in the absence of definitive proof - an original email extracted from the servers - it remains an allegation / suspicion.
  
  Kevin Rudd is not the first, nor will he be the last, PM to have allegedly misled Parliament. There were at least 2 allegations against John Howard: one over a meeting with the owner of Manildra ethanol producer (it later received Government funding) and the Trish Draper travel affair/rort.

Ahhh, politics, nothing changes, except the players. And they don't learning anything from their political forebears in terms of behaviour.

John

Human Decency Lost, And Found

This week has seen a string of events that have reflected badly on our humanity, and one sad event that has reminded us that there is hope.

"David Gabriel Watson, 32, was sentenced to four-and-a-half years' jail on Friday after pleading guilty in the Supreme Court in Brisbane to killing his new wife, Christina (Tina) while scuba diving in north Queensland in October 2003." ( http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5630644/scuba-death ) He will server 12-months in gaol, with the remainder of his sentence suspended. He will then be free to return to the US, whence he came.

"A couple whose baby daughter (9-month-old Gloria Thomas) died after they treated her with homeopathic remedies instead of conventional medicine have been found guilty of manslaughter." ( http://www.smh.com.au/national/parents-guilty-of-manslaughter-over-daughters-eczema-death-20090605-bxvx.html ) Thomas Sam is also a qualified doctor. A custodial sentence for both parents seems likely.

The Chaser's War On Everything - a satirical show that has included stunts such a character dressed as Osama bin Laden attempting to gatecrash the APEC conference in Sydney (they gave themselves up after security failed to stop them) - has been suspended from ABC TV for 2 weeks after public outrage over their "skit" on dying children. "The ABC was inundated with callers outraged by the "Make a Realistic Wish Foundation" skit in which Andrew Hansen and Chris Taylor ask actors playing hospital bed-ridden children what they wish for. When one little girl asked to meet Hollywood actor Zac Efron, she was handed a stick instead, with Taylor asking 'why go to any trouble when they're going to die any way'." (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25584801-5001021,00.html )

So much for the tacky, the inhumane, and just plain criminal. However, we were sadly reminded that human decency, compassion, and skill can all be combined. The sad event concerned (Prof.) "CHRISTOPHER O'BRIEN, the world-renowned cancer specialist who died from a brain tumour last night, acquired many honours during his career, including being made an officer in the Order of Australia, to be announced in the Queen's Birthday honours list on Monday." (http://www.smh.com.au/national/tumour-claims-cancer-specialist-20090605-bxc6.html) There will be a State Funeral for a man whose medical peers, and all who knew, or were treated by him, acknowledge his human compassion, understanding and surgical skill. Professor O'Brien's passing has helped to remind us that there are good people, and we can aspire to emulate them. Vale, Professor Chris O'Brien.

John

Rudd's First Ministerial Resignation

Joel Fitzgibbon resigned today as Minister For Defence. He has had a number of "troubles" in recent months including: the SAS pay bungle; undeclared gifts of trips to China paid for by businesswoman Helen Lu, this week there were revelations of hotel accommodation paid for by NIB Health Fund; and meetings involving his brother (as Chief Executive of NIB Health) and Defence officials. Two inquiries, one where Defence Signals Directorate investigated itself, have cleared the Department of spying on the Minister.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd seemed to acknowledge the "mistakes" relating to proper accountability when he said "The minister has accepted responsibility for these mistakes, they are mistakes in relation to accountability, there have been a number of them."

The resignation comes at a time when some reforms are overdue within the civilian arm of the Dept of Defence. Also, British MP's are looking for any hole in which to hide from public scrutiny over rorting their allowances; and increasing scrutiny on Australian politicians.

Former Prime Minister John Howard did much to diminish accountability and Parliamentary responsibility, mostly to protect his political allies. One would hope that Kevin Rudd, having bit this bullet, will further insist on his Ministers and members having proper accountability. Note that accountability refers to the concept that a Minister is answerable to Parliament for the performance of their Department. It is however, a Minister's responsibility to declare gifts, and to claim only those expenses incurred. Joel Fitzgibbon had, perhaps by force, been both accountable and responsible for his actions/inactions. Restoring both accountability and responsibility ought to be one of Kevin Rudd's missions; reforming Question Time is another.

Voters will hope that Joel Fitzgibbon is the last of Kevin Rudd's Ministers to resign, because all the others will have learnt their lesson from Mr Fitzgibbon's public shame.

John

Postscript 5-Jun-09
Senator John Faulkner has taken on the position of Minister for Defence following Joel Fitzgibbon's resignation. Senator Faulkner is an experienced Minister, and politician. He has shown himself to be coolly forensic in Senate Estimates hearings, an approach that should serve him well in this difficult portfolio. (Defence has a somewhat chequered history of its treatment of Ministers)

So Long, Sol

Telstra's now-former CEO, Sol Trujillo, has left early. He was due to to finish at the end of June, but he left in May, and left Australia. He proceeded to badmouth Australia in a BBC interview, calling us racist, and being here "like stepping back in time". I wonder how much the BBC had to pay him for the interview. Australia is not racist. It has a small number of people who are, as with every other country. Australians' dislike of Sol Trujillo is not based on race, but his "achievements".


In 4 years as CEO this is his list of achievements:

• took A$30 million in pay & bonuses


• took a confrontational, even belligerent, approach to Industrial Relations. He offered his employees dreaded, and dreadful WorkChoices: individual contracts which offered no pay rises for up to 5 years, and a reduction in conditions. He took large increases, and exceedingly generous bonuses


• Telstra's share price has fallen from just over A$5 to just over A$3. Concerns about the share price slide were expressed by the former Coalition Government as far back as 2006, well before the current Global Financial Crisis.


• Trujillo brought over two US friends. Phil Burgess was charged with taking on the Australian Government and the ACCC (competition regulator). They lost. Trujillo seems to have thought that privatising a government-owned monopoly must automatically create a private monopoly. To its credit the (then Coalition) Federal Government did not.


• Under Trujillo's leadership, some reports suggest that the rate of customer complaints against Telstra increased by 240%! ( http://apcmag.com/telstra-complaints-skyrocket-240-during-the-trujillo-years.htm )


• Perhaps contributing to the rise in complaints, Telstra's total workforce has fallen from 56000 to 47000 people.


• Trujillo oversaw Telstra's bid to install Australia's proposed new broadband infrastructure. He knew the bid did not meet tender requirements; and apparently believed that public (government) money should be used to build national infrastructure which would be privately owned and controlled by Telstra, to the detriment of competition. The bid failed; and Trujillo's last failure might well leave Telstra in a poor strategic position.

It is entirely possible that Sol Trujillo's legacy might be as a prime example of "what not to do as CEO/manager". His name might live in corporate training manuals for years.

So long, Sol. You won't be missed, or forgotten.

John

Swines Spreading Flu

The number of Australians reportedly suffering "swine flu" - H1N1 Type A is NOT really swine flu -has grown significantly over the last 3 days to at least 65 cases. Many have returned from cruise ships, flown in from LA, or been in contact with those who have.

Many returning from the cruise ships have been told to stay in "home quarantine" for at least a week. However, it seems some parents didn't follow the message with sick teenagers being allowed to go to work at a fast food outlet at an Epping Plaza (northern Melbourne) shopping mall. The Mall, and food outlet were closed for some time. Such behaviour, from the parents, and the teenagers, is socially irresponsible. The teenagers might be forgiven for their naivete, but the parents ought to have known better.

So too, health authorities who allowed possibly infected passengers from the cruise ship Pacific Dawn to fly from Sydney to Queensland. Quarantine should have been in Sydney, at least until the blood test results were confirmed. Immigration, and Federal and State Health authorities have a responsibility to do more than say 'stay home for 7 days' - it is clear that more cases of this human swine flu are arriving in Australia, and that those identified as being at high risk need to be cleared by their GP before returning to work. While anti-viral drugs, such as Tamiflu, might help reduce the severity of symptoms, they are not a vaccine, and their widespread use would not be appropriate. A vaccine is not likely to be available till at least September.

This flu is apparently likely to be more severe in younger children, older people, and those who are otherwise frail. Most people will not suffer severe symptoms, yet they have a social responsibility to ensure that they are not responsible for spreading to other people. If you're told to stay home, stay home. If your children are sick, do not send them to school, sport, or work -keep them at home; yes that's inconvenient, but it IS socially responsible!

John

Kevin Rudd's Unfinished Business

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has unfinished business. Specifically he has two formerly independent bodies determining wages, that are not independent.

In 2005, John Howard effectively sidelined the Federal Industrial Relations Commission, which had been presided over by Judges, and established his own "Fair Pay Commission", using Federal Corporations Law to do so. In October 2005, then PM Howard announced Melbourne Professor Ian Harper as the first Fair Pay Commissioner. Far from being independent, the Fair Pay Commission, and Prof. Harper, sat as a unit within the Dept of Employment and Workplace Relations, under the control of Minister Kevin Andrews, and Prime Minister Howard. It was always subject to political interference: that was one way that Howard could lower the wages of Australians in real terms. As an example, witness the extended delay in announcing the Fair Pay Commissioner, that the Commissioner was a political appointment by Howard, and the extended delay in announcing considerably-less-than-CPI wage increases.

The Australian Fair Pay Commission still sits within the Ministry (Dept of Education, Employment & Workplace Relations) where the current (Deputy Prime) Minister Julia Gillard, and PM Kevin Rudd can still exercise considerable political influence. It is the political interference and the policy of using the Commission to lower the wages of the lower paid workers that so rankled the union movement, and many other Australians. Under the current structure, kept by Kevin Rudd, that can happen again. The Australian Fair Pay Commission is NOT as independent as was the Federal IR court. It is no wonder, then, that the states & territories have not signed up to Kevin Rudd's proposed industrial relations takeover. Only Victoria has signed up. The states, with some historical justification, given the history behind John Howard's partial takeover, with the political objective of lowering average wages, have a distrust of the intentions of this and future Federal Governments.

The second unfinished business concerns the Remuneration Tribunal. In 2001, John Howard made Tony Abbott "responsible for" the Remuneration Tribunal. It had once been a statutory independent body that reported to Parliament, not to a Minister or Prime Minister. Every pay rise was justified because the "Remuneration Tribunal is an independent body". Politicians of all parties made similar announcements, knowing that it is patently untrue. It reports to the Minister, and indirectly to the Prime Minister. Malcolm Turnbull said it on 2o-May-09; Kevin Rudd said it though a 'spokesman' on 28-Apr-09.

I believe it is a good idea to debate the Federal politicians' salaries, their allowances and associated auditing requirements, and how they are determined. Not surprisingly, the pollies don't want any auditing of how they spend their allowances, or how frequent flier points earned from Government business might be used for personal travel of family & friends. But for politicians to continually refer to "the independent remuneration tribunal" is specious at best, and more likely, deceptive, on their part.

Kevin Rudd has unfinished business with both the politically abused 'Fair Pay Commission' and the less-than-independent Remuneration Tribunal.

John

Further Reading:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/27/1069825896823.html
http://www.jape.org/component/option,com_remository/Itemid,26/func,fileinfo/id,37/

What the NRL Must Do

Volumes have been written this week about Andrew Johns, his involvement in group sex with a NZ woman 7 years ago, his sacking by both Channel 9, the Melbourne Storm NRL team, and the NRL.

I would make the following points about the matter:

• what Johns did was wrong: allowing other players to enter; cheating on his wife; knowingly indulging in behaviour that might contribute to the spread of STD's; many would argue it was ethically, even morally, wrong.
• Australians have a term for those other players who "got off" on watching - we call them 'wankers', and it's a term of derision. It might well be literally & figuratively true, given how they've scurried into the shadows this week.
• those team members who took part, and the club officials, who knew of the behaviour, and did nothing, are also responsible. Legally, it might be called "accessory after the fact". Although no crime appears to have been committed, the 'fact' ahs brought the game, and the reputations of some people, into disrepute.
• the NRL has concentrated on players only, and Johns in particular. The media has largely done the same, although the Daily Telegraph (15/5/09) carried front page silhouettes of other players allegedly involved.
• having been complicit in the scapegoating of Johns, it now behoves the NRL to provide appropriate counselling for Johns, and his family.

So, is Andrew Johns a scapegoat? Yes - in biblical times a scapegoat was the goat upon whose head the sins of the people were laid on the Day of Atonement, and which was afterwards sent off into the wilderness (Lev. 16: 21-22). This seems to fit with the actions, or inactions, of the NRL, Channel 9, the Melbourne Storm, Johns's former team-mates, his most recent work-mates, and a multitude of social commentators. There is abundant literature on the psychology of scapegoating (See http://www.birchmore.org/html/scapegoating.html for an example.) Essentially, scapegoating is a form of bullying whereby others (see above list) avoid admitting to, or consequences of, their wrongdoing. In Johns's case, he appears to have been chosen because of his higher profile that the others.

While Johns had pleaded his 'me culpa' publicly, somewhat reluctantly, and under considerable psychological strain, the others, players and officials, have retreated to the shadows like cowards.

Here are my suggestions for the NRL, but applicable to other sports, male & female:

• ban alcohol sponsorship: ban new contracts, and the renewing of existing ones. Start with your own representative teams. Ban players, officials, clubs and associations from alcohol sponsorship. If you choose to provide alcohol to your teams, do it behind closed doors, with no outsiders; none. Yes, I know the Brisbane Broncos are sponsored by a brewery, some players drink like they're in a brewery, and some have brought themselves, and the game, into disrepute becausse of it. Ban it anyway.
• don't just target one player. All players involved need to be reported, if too cowardly to own-up. Officials bear responsibility, too. If it was right to sack Johns from any role with the NRL, it is right that officials who knew should also go. You can't have one rule for "the players" and another for officials: that would be hypocrisy.
• For away games, especially, it is no longer appropraite to let players do as they please. At home, and away, players represent the club, the team, and the NRL. Consider inviting the girlfriends, parners, wives.
• introduce a common code of conduct for officials, and players; and enforce it with significant bans. eg cannot be a club official, or be involved club management or board; if an NRL contract is terminated, it ought to be concurrent with a ban on playing.
• the player education program about how treat women should be extended to all officials, including NRL managemenet, who should attend with the players. This will let them see just how bad are the attitudes of some players towards women.
• given the claim that this is a common occurrence, test every NRL player for STD's. Do it discretely, and the results should be private, but players should know this is a possible consequence of their chosen NRL lifestyle

John

Budget Realities & Politics

Did I say I was busy in teh last post?! - you bet I have been. For the record, however, I have NOT been working on the Federal. or any State, budget.

As far back as 2000, John Howard's & Peter Costello's budgets were in, or near, "structural deficit". They recorded a "surplus" because they won an economic lottery - overseas demand for our minerals ensured huge amounts of taxes paid that were outside the normal economy's scope; and they sold more of Telstra and the country's Internet infrastructure. You can read more of the expert discussion on the ABC's 7:30 Report of 10-May-200. Further, in February 2005, Treasury Secretary Ken Henry warned the Howard Government that the US current account deficit could (would?) cause a severe economic correction in the US, with worldwide implications. John Howard's response was "There's no prospect, in my view, if you're asking me for my view, there is no prospect of the American economy crashing." ! Either his skills weren't as good as he wants us to believe, or he was being deceptive.

For their parts Labor PM Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan, have a budget that looks "tough, but socially responsible", but which is has some poor policy choices: a second attempt at an alcopops tax; lots of money for universities, and school infrastructure, but not much about the extra funds public schools and TAFE will need for students staying on after the COAG "compact"(15-20 year olds will be either at school, or receiving training to help with teh recovery)

Alcohol ought to be taxed on its alcohol content, not the type of drink (beer, spirits, alcopop, wine) Further, if the desired socailly engineered position is to reduce alcohol consumption and binge drinking, the cost ought to escalate at higher levels. ie not a linear tax based on %alcohol, but a tax based on an exponential curve.

The Lib/National Coalition's plan to raie the tobacco tax to reduce the budget deficit and discouage smoking won't work - it will just be a regressive tax. And the Liberal PArty still accepts donations from ... tobacco companies. Malcolm Turnbull knows the increase in tax won't stop smokers. Essentially they show the same traits as drug addicts - by and large they will pay whatever price is asked. So the increase is just an greater regressive tax, and tobacco consumption will be unchanged.

I think means testing the Private Health Insurance Rebate is worthwhile. Effectively it is means whereby the government pays 1/3 of the private premiums. Mind you, the Coalition will oppose this measure, despite their fundamentalism on "user-pays"! Turnbull is still playing the "I'm-in- Opposition,-so-'No' " game.

As far as the already-distributed cash handouts go, Australia relies heavily on the retail sector, because reforms to industry have effectively reduced the contribution manufacturing makes to our economy. In that respect, they will likey mean the structural deficit will not be as great as it could have been.

John