NSW Drinking Age

Today’s news carries the suggestion that NSW Premier, Kristina Keneally, that she believes we should have a public discussion about raising the drinking age in NSW to 21. It is currently 18, has been since the early 1900’s.

So, should the state, or Australia as a nation, raise the drinking age to 21?

For	Against
Medical reasons: many doctors suggest that the teenage brain does not cope well with anything more than small amounts of alcohol	Effectiveness: it is unclear how effective the measure would be. It could just shift binge-drinking 18-20 year-olds into parks and residential streets
It could reduce violence near trouble spots.	Violence could be shifted to parks and residential streets
Reduction in vehicle accidents & deaths	Does this simply cause a corresponding shift in the ages where injuries & deaths occur to 21-24, instead of 18-21?
NSW, and Australia, has a high rate of alcohol abuse (binge-drinking) and alcohol-related violence, especially among young people 15-24.	Earlier lock-out (no entry) & closing times have lead to a reduction in violence, without lowing the drinking age.

There are more arguments if you want to do an Internet search.

Other Considerations that might affect the rate of alcohol abuse & related violence, and which we should also discuss in public forums:

• If the drinking age is raised, will in be in 1 step, or staged over 3 years, with a 1-year increase in the legal drinking age each year?
• If we go for a “Lora Norder” (law and order) response:
  • does it include earlier lockout & closing times for pubs & clubs, as SUCCESSFULLY trialled in Newcastle?
  • does it include more police licencing operations?
  • does it include police action every Friday & Saturday night in known trouble areas, such as George St and Oxford St Sydney?
  • how many extra police will the law and order response need, and what will be the cost?
  • how much more are you prepared to pay in state taxes to fund the law and order response, or what extra state taxes will you pay?: higher GST, higher licencing costs, higher car registration, other? This is important because you will have to pay more. An increase in the rate of GST would require approval of all States & Territories.
• Should alcohol advertising be banned?
• should we consider reintroducing the offence of “public drunkenness”? (it was decriminalised in March 1980, but police do still have powers to detain a drunk if they present a danger to themselves, or others. Apparently they are used only in more extreme circumstances, to prevent overloading police resources.) See points 4-5 under “Lora Norder” above.
• Should future licencing consider the density of licenced premises, the total number of patrons who could be served, the alcohol-related history of the area, and the likely effect on the number of alcohol-related incidents?
• Should political donations from alcohol (& tobacco) interests be prevented from pedalling political influence by donating to political parties? mmm… for that matter should we have publicly-funded elections, with no organisations being allowed to donate and strict limits on personal donations? The alcohol industry, in particular pubs and clubs associations are significant donors to the political parties that will make the decisions.

More reading:

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/drinkingnightmare/publishing.nsf/Content/B2D387C687D03FC9CA2574FD007CA91C/$File/Young%20people%20research.pdf

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/last-orders-for-drunken-aggression-20101108-17kjc.html

I do hope our politicians

• declare a conflict of interest, since most of them will have received election funding from donations from the alcohol industry, and pubs & clubs associations, in particular.
• don’t just come up with electorally popular, but ineffective, tough-talk. I do hope they determine what will be good policy, in the interests of NSW, and run with that, even if it costs electoral donations to their party.

 

John

Abbott Wants Elected Judges

At a community forum in Brisbane on 10-November, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said that if courts continue to give “lenient sentences” then Australia will probably move to a system of elected judges. Judges are elected in the US, for example. He indicated that too many judges are handing down sentences that do not reflect community anger at the crime.

I don’t know about you, but I had alarm bells ringing in my head, as follows:

• elected officials are, by necessity, political animals. That means that actions will be directed to suit a re-election strategy. As political animals, they will have political friends, and there will always be the possibility of governments exerting undue influence on the judiciary.
• is Tony Abbott suggesting this, at a community forum, because it sounds politically popular, or does he, & the Liberal Party, want that political influence on the judiciary? The risk with an elected judiciary is that that type of corruption becomes more likely than with appointed judges. It tears at the Separation of Powers, which is fundamental to an independent judiciary. (Joh Bjelke-Peterson, former Queensland Premier, undermined that tenet for his own personal and political advantage, by influencing and using corrupt senior Police.)
• who is Tony Abbott to advise judges on what sentences they should impose? What qualifications does he hold to do that? Should ANY politician be advising judges on sentencing matters? Who should? I certainly believe the best people to judge, are the judges. They have the legal experience, the legal knowledge, the legal resources in case histories,and know the case they are hearing.

Mr Ian Gray, Chief Magistrate of Victoria, in a presentation to the Sentencing Conference (February 2008) addressed the issue of “Sentencing in Magistrates’ and Local Courts in Australia” to the National Judicial College of Australia.

In it, he presents arguments:

• against elected judges (by Chief Justice Gleeson)
• for greater independence for prosecutors, especially Police prosecutors in Magistrates’ Courts, and more resources to achieve that
• that question those who would publicly give sentencing advice to judges
• that focussing on the result of a particular sentence, without understanding the intricacies, similarities and differences with other cases would be departure from principles of justice. (a statement by the majority of the High Court of Australia)

It is these last two points that really are the telling points against Tony Abbott’s suggestion. It would be best if politicians, and governments of all persuasions argued against a suggestion that might well have been driven by political opportunism and populism.

You can read the full text of Chief Magistrate Ian Gray’s presentation at:

http://njca.anu.edu.au/Professional%20Development/programs%20by%20year/2008/Sentencing%20Conference%202008/papers/Gray.pdf

John

Political Vacuum

As Stephen Conroy defends the National Broadband Network (NBN) from criticism by an OECD report, there are also other things to consider.
The OECD has criticised a number of policies. The Federal Opposition is beating its slogan drum, and both sides of politics have much to work on.

The policies comments on Australia by the OECD include:

• Response to the global financial crisis: Tick. Good for Labor, unhelpful to the Liberal/National Parties' Coalition.
• GST: Cross - the OECD believes it's too low, and we should tax (fresh) food. Not good for either Labor, or the Coalition. Flat taxes are regressive, and hurt those with lower incomes more. Neither side wants to raise taxes, even if they should to fund the services taxpayers demand.
• NBN: Cross. The OECD believes it's anti-competitive. Unhelpful for Labor, good for the Coalition, which doesn't want it.  The Coalition wants the private Internet and phone companies to build a spaghetti network of copper and wireless. But wireless is already overcrowded, not likely to get any better, and none of the companies want to invest in new infrastructure.
• Emission Trading Scheme: Cross. the OECD believes we should have one. Not good for either Labor, or the Coalition. The criticism stems because Labor has not implemented this policy, or even a simpler carbon tax. It was spooked by voters' acceptance on the Coalition's sloganeering.

Meanwhile Tony Abbott has been spruiking his "stop the boats" slogan in Parliament. He does this knowing that he doesn't have to. Indeed, he doesn't even have to have a policy - just a slogan. Meanwhile the UN has expressed its concern about "off-shore processing", including Labor's Timor solution, and the Coalition's "Pacific Solution" on Nauru.

The fact is that many of the OECD's criticisms, but not all, stem from the fact that our politicians, and their parties, do not, and will not, determine good public policy and run with it. They simply spend too much time palying politics, and paying 'media advisers' with taxpayers' money.

John
 

Social Evils Hide Behind Behind Sports Skirts

It’s been more than a week since Canberra Raiders Rugby League player,Joel Monaghan, fronted the media to resign from the club as a player. The NRL had also been reported as considering deregistering him as a player.
The images of alleged bestiality with a dog that had been released onto the Internet and reported in the media had finished his career. Much was written about the alleged bestiality, and that it was a drunken prank that occurred as part of ‘Mad Monday” – annual binge-drinking events tolerated by Clubs, and the NRL.
The NRL, QLD, NSW and Australian representative teams, and Brisbane and Newcastle RL clubs are sponsored by beer companies. These entities have a vested interest in not reducing the alcohol consumption of players, nor of the public who go to see the sponsors’ ads … err ..game.
An acquaintance talked about the “the devil” in the drink, and the actions of players who were present, and did nothing, and of those who took and publicised the photo, or photos. I agreed that it  was certainly unethical and morally wrong for Monaghan’s “mates” to stand around watching the alleged act, but doing nothing, and to take and release photos. In its derivation “devil” comes from ancient Greek (& later, Latin) words which mean “accuser” & “slanderer”.
Joel Monaghan, and other sports professionals who have suffered public embarrassment or humiliation, has paid a very public price for his binge-drinking and alcohol-induced stupidity. But there are devils within his team, and his group of “mates”. They are culpable because they did NOTHING to stop actions they knew to be wrong; took photos of it; and now remain anonymous. Those reactions are, truly, “devilish”. For its part, Canberra Raiders club has said it would not try to identify the player who leaked the photo. They are happy to retain the “devil” and do nothing about him.

Canberra Raiders and the anonymous “devils” they are protecting demean the player, his family, the NRL, and our society. They are allowing anonymous people involved in the incident to get away with no consequences, no responsibility.
John

Big Brother Pollies tracking You

Today's news carried a story about the websites of politicians using cookies, including so-called 3rd party cookies to track the web movements of visitors.

Most politicians have websites. The politicians named include: NSW Premier Kristina Keneally (Labor); NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell (Liberal), Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott (Liberal), and teh website of The Greens. All the websites reportedly placed 3rd party cookies. ie cookies from anther website not related to theirs. None of the websites indicated they used them. Some of the cookies were Adobe Flash cookies: these are NOT deleted when you use the "delete cookies" setting in your browser.

Flash cookies can be removed. See the following sites:
http://www.itworld.com/internet/118784/how-murder-a-flash-cookie-zombie 
http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager.html 

More worryingly, these politicians, from all parts of the spectrum, are, I believe, unethical in their use of such tracking cookies because they do not inform visitors to their site that they use them, and do not offer an option to turn them off. They will not be alone in that: many companies, including the target-de-joeur banks, use flash animation in their sites. Personally, I've never much liked Flash: it is more likely than other software to crash any of my browsers, and their cookies seem largely aimed at generating business income, and not user  convenience.

At the macrommedia site (link above), work through each of the Settings Manager links on the LHS. (see below)

Cut the politicians, corporations, and others that want to track you. If they collect enough data about you, it could be used to identify you!

John

Federal Politicians Work Too Hard

Do they? Last weekend, Federal Liberal MP, Dr Mal Washer, said that the longer working hours for current MP's and Senators are "unsustainable". The argument is that the tight numbers in the House of Representatives mean that MP's have to be available to rush to the House if required by their Party.

Previously a number of MP's from either side of politics could mostly absent themselves from the House or Senate without any great consequence. there was also a "pairing" arrangement, which meant that if a member were absent on Parliamentary or government business, a member of the other side would either absent themselves, or abstain from voting. (Liberal) Opposition Leader tony Abbott refused this practice as a routine matter, and has only decided on a "case-by-case basis". this increases the uncertainty, and the requirement for members to at least attend Parliament House.

The second thing that has increased over the last 10 years is the amount of time politicians spend on "party-political" duties. That is, using work time, and taxpayer-funded advisers, to perform work for their political party.

Thirdly, the time spent on seeking advice about, preparing, rehearsing, and finally presenting the 3/5/10 second media grab has increased exponentially. These mostly consist of untested political assertions, short slogans (remember, I discussed 'sloganeering' during the recent election) designed to get attention, but contribute nothing to any debate on issues. While there is undoubted pressure from sections of the media for a media grab, politicians are not bound by duty to be media tarts. And rather too many of them are. 'The media' is seen as something to be managed, to be used for party political advantage, and for self-promotion. Too often whether a story will look good in local news, News Ltd papers, Sky News, or other media is more important than working towards good policy and contributing to sensible, rational debate.

I don't doubt that politicians work long hours. I just question how many of all the hours, and taxpayer dollars, are spent on the job we employ them to do, and how many are spent on party work, and self-promotional work. I do think that, if the thoughts of Dr Mal Washer are valid, politicians need to restructure their work, to focus on their work as representatives (of either voters, or states), and to have better defined times when they are available to the media.

John

Hockey Alone on Economics

Joe Hockey is alone on economic policy. Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, was stunned into silence this morning when asked if he supported Hockey's 9-point plan to control the banks. Twice he was asked if he supported Hockey's plan; twice he  gave an unrelated response. Later, he was asked if that was all just a bit of a misunderstanding withe 9-point plan. His reported response was "Umm ...", followed by a longish silence.

Later still, Abbott made phone calls to radio stations with essentially pre-prepared statements and answers.

Meanwhile, Jon Howard said that Hockey is "not in the same league" as (former Treasurer) Peter Costello. On 22 October, The Australian reported: "Senior Liberal MPs, including frontbenchers, told The Australian yesterday they did not agree with the position Mr Hockey had taken on the banks and said it demonstrated lack of judgment. "This is certainly not Coalition policy," one frontbencher said."

Among the ideas were:

• legislation to regulate the interest rates banks can charge.
• An investigation by the Prudential Regulation Authority to investigate the risks banks take.
• More pressure from the ACC on alleged price-collusion the big 4 banks
• other points in the plan are more difficult to find,  but legislative regulation of the banks is definitely contrary to the Liberal Parties free-market policies.

For all the bagging Hockey has received, a new Banking Inquiry might not be such a bad idea. They make noises about rising costs of funds (ie overseas interest rates,because about 2/3 - 70% of their loan funds are sourced overseas. However, they quite deliberately left out the bit about the high $Aus benefiting them enormously while they (re)negotiate their 3 and 5 year loans!

Deregulating the banking sector created an oligopoly: the big 4 banks control the vast majority of home loans, and they flex their individual & combined market power. Their repetitive statements about the need to increase interest rates is classic consumer softening by repetition and frequency. It should be resisted, especially in light of the significant increases in their profits, and profit margins! An inquiry is one way, but not the only way, for more people to be aware of this information, and counter the banks advertising-by-repetitive-statement tactic.

For all that, I believe Joe Hockey is rather alone in the Liberal Party on economic policy, and the "amended", watered-down plan taken to Shadow Cabinet and ultimately approved by them was really them saving Hockey's backside. They won't do it too many more times.

John

Hockey's Bank Bashing Blooper

This week saw Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey indulge in a little bank-bashing as he tried to score a few political points and be seen as 'hero' to those with a mortgage. It seems to have backfired, on a number of levels.

First, he proposed legislative controls on bank interest rates. That is, he has proposed either aan extreme socialist policy, or an extreme right policy. It is certainly a policy that seems contrary to Liberal Party policy and beliefs, which say that "we simply believe in individual freedom and free enterprise". Legislating interest rates is contrary to both of those beliefs. Malcolm Turnbull, perhaps the Liberal Party's only moderate with any public profile, did his best to distance himself from the comment. Tony Abbott said nothing. (Aside: John Howard and Peter Costello would have publicly decried the suggestion and privately carpeted the perpetrator, while making public statements about banks not needing to raise rates.). Liberal backbencher Don Randall said it was a "typical lunatic fringe idea", not realising it had come from a member of his own party with leadership ambitions.

Second, he proposed an inquiry into the financial services, particularly of banks. The concept is worth considering, but Hockey showed he was just a talking head by indicating he had no plan for any terms of reference.

It seems that, in his quest for a headline and populist policy, Joe Hockey has somewhat alienated members of his own party, and earned the criticism of business and economists, especially in the media, and the Government. While Tony Abbott does not want the instability, real or perceived in polls, associated with a reshuffle, Joe Hockey's days as Shadow Treasurer could well be numbered. Post-Christmas / New Year would be, perhaps, the least damaging time for an Opposition reshuffle.

Populist announcments are never good policy.

John

A Saint For All

I have been on holidays for several weeks, so I apologise now for not posting.

Last night Mary MacKillop was sanctified by Pope Benedict. Some have already pooh-poohed the idea, questioning why people would believe in miracles. But faith is a difficult thing to explain. Self-belief is important to our psyche; it is the basis of our self-confidence. Self-confidence increases the chances of success in the things we do. But self-belief and self-confidence are not measurable, in the same way that a length of timber can be measured. Nevertheless, the personal and social effects on a person lacking in self-belief and self-confidence can be clearly observed.

As an abstract concept faith is also difficult to measure. It stems from the confidence in the truth, or trustworthiness, of a another person; a thing; or a concept, such as "God", or the tenets of a religion. Yet the works of people who truly live according to a philosophy of goodness, whether secular or religious are tangible evidence of their faith.

Mary MacKillop was a strong Catholic woman. She set about improving the lives of individuals who were poor, disadvantaged and outcast. Along the way, she upset some people, predominantly me of power in a patriarchal church in a patriarchal society. Yet her faith sustained her, and with the help of others, and her own strength of character and faith, she prevailed.

Her life, her work, and the work of her nuns did make significant material difference to the lives of others. In that respect alone, she is worthy of recognition. Her elevation to sainthood in the Catholic Church is one way that it recognises her work, her life, her faith as a beacon of Catholicism. The work and life of St Mary MacKillop should also help us to focus on how we can help others; and how our society, our politicians treat others.

As an aside, I believe (there's that word again) that everyone in society should do work for society, other than their paid employment and family commitments. As for me, I have been a member of a service organisation, I donate blood or plasma regularly (it's an unpaid donation in Australia), and I help with tasks at my local church.

Johnb

Abbott In Full Tantrum mode

Parliament resumes on Tuesday. The pollies are ready. Nearly. Prime Minister Julia Gillard is still trying to sort out the positino of Deputy Speaker. Tony Abbott put the kibosh on any aspirations Alex Somlyay might have had in his last term for the position, and the Parliamentary allowance it carries. The deal would have required Somlyay, or any other Coalition Deputy Speaker, to 'pair' with the Speaker. ie to not not vote on no-confidence, and possibly some other, motions. Tony Abbott's office staff released a statement on Mr Somlyay's behalf. It was quickly and publicly denounced by Mr Somlyay as not his, but he was lent on, and later withdrew from negotiations for the position. Labor has since had negotiations with another Queenslander, Peter Slipper, who missed both the Liberal Party meeting, and the Coalition's Joint Party Meeting, but this, too, seems like it will fail.

Meanwhile Tony Abbot, and his minions, have been flogging the message of "all bets are off", there will be no 'kinder, gentler politik' as promised by Abbott while he tried to woo the Independents so he could form government. It's like a warning of one enormous tantrum-to-come when Parliament resumes. Prime Minister Gillard, and her minions, repeat the message of Abbott-as-wrecker. If there is an early election, watch for it to be repeated ad nauseam.

Mr Abbott does not want Parliament, or Ms Gillard's Government, to work - his interest is the interests of the Liberal Party, and his desire for power. Ms Gillard's interest is to retain power long enough to have some "beneficial" (read 'popular-with-voters') legislation & policies, to increase her chances of an outright victory at the next election.

John

Abbott Cops a Kloppering

Marius Kloppers has publicly stated his preference for a carbon tax. Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, must have fainted. Kloppers was instrumental in the advertising campaign against the mining super profits tax, is head of the world's largest resources and mining company (BHP Billiton).

Kloppers is an experienced business man and engineer. He most certainly wants the realistic 'best' for his company. European countries are already moving to limit carbon emissions and have improved their energy efficiency since the 1980's, following oil crises in 1973 & 1979 which saw the supply of oil limited, and its price rise significantly. While there is plenty of coal for BHP to mine, sell, & use, Kloppers perhaps recognises moves within the world's economies to limit carbon emissions.

A carbon tax is simple, fixed and easily incorporated in business plans. An emissions trading scheme (ETS)was favoured by John Howard (who resisted actually doing anything) and the previous and current Labor Governments under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. But under ETS, carbon permits would be traded, like shares, on current and 'futures' markets. Their price, like shares could fluctuate wildly, making business planning more difficult. There have also been suggestions that, with such a low level of proposed reductions, an ETS would achieve little except make 'winners' and 'losers' in business.

Kloppers might well be making a pre-emptive strike to achieve a level of certainty his business needs. Nevertheless, a carbon tax might well be a worthwhile inclusion in Australia's plan to reduce carbon emissions from its people, and its businesses.

Also, remember that some of the media, notably News Ltd publications The Australian and The Daily Telegraph will argue against carbon reduction on the basis of their support for the opposition Liberal  Party.

My view is that we should probably have a combination: the carbon tax introduces a level of certainty, and a limited ETS reduces the effect of the open-market price volatility.

The last thing Tony Abbott wanted was for a significant business leader to publicly state his preference for a carbon  reduction scheme, let alone a carbon tax! Phone calls will made, and emails sent from the Liberal Party. So too, press releases and media grabs from a congo line of Coalition members will be cheap as chips from the Opposition.

You can read more at:

• http://www.asb.unsw.edu.au/newsevents/mediaroom/media/2009/march/Pages/emissionscarbontax.aspx 
• http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/216/45883.html 

John

Gillard Announces Ministry

Prime Minister-elect Julia Gillard has announced her Ministry to start Labor's second term of government. It is, as you know, a minority government, dependent on The Greens and 3 Independent MP's.

You can read the full Ministry at http://www.smh.com.au/national/the-gillard-ministry-20100911-155qc.html . After swearing-in on Monday, they will be listed (via a link) at http://www.aph.gov.au/whoswho/index.htm

There are some things worth noting:

• Kevin Rudd, former Prime Minster, has been given Foreign affairs. That was widely tipped, following a deal made between him and Julia Gillard during the election campaign. It also recognises his standing within the Parliamentary Labor Party.
• Former Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith, has been given Defence. He insists it's not a demotion, and this is still a senior Ministry. It also paves the way for the government to drop construction of 12 new submarines at Adelaide. Defence military officials are not convinced that lessons have been learnt from the rather disastrous contracts for Collins-class submarines. Only one of the six is currently in service. The new submarines were a project which had the support of Kevin Rudd, when he was Prime Minister.
• Peter Garrett has moved to Education, away from environmental repsonsibiities. He had problems with the home insulation scheme, in particular.
• Former Minister for Climate Change, Penny Wong, has been given the Finance portfolio. Again, the former government had been unable to negotiate an Emissions Trading Scheme, which The Greens thought was too watered-down, and which was not the carbon-tax recommended by Prof. Ross Garnaut in he report for the government.
• Mark Arbib and Bill Shorten are both in the outer Ministry. They were major players in the moves that dumped Kevin Rudd and appointed Julia Gillard as Prime Minister. Mark Arbib was formerly ion the outer Ministry, but this is a promotion for Bill Shorten.
• Independent Rob Oakeshott turned down the offer of a Ministerial position - Regional Australia & Regional Development. I think that was smart; among other reasons, it does put the onus, and responsibility squarely with Julia Gillard and the Labor Party, and it allows him to retain his independence.

Nevertheless, there seems to be reasonable correlation between Ministers' strengths, abilities and their portfolios. The proof, of course, will be in their performances.

Tony Abbott has yet to announce his Shadow Cabinet.

John

Govt Decided, Politics Continues

Two days after the 3 Independent MP's made their decisions, the politicians, political parties and their supporters are back to basics. Independent Bob Katter, from north Queensland made his decision to support the Liberal-National Coalition shortly before lunch on Tuesday. Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott from NSW announced their decision to support a Labor government later in the afternoon.

Today, we had "news" stories of both Prime-Minister-in-waiting, Julia Gillard, and Liberal Opposition Leader, Tony Abbott, addressing their respective party 'meetings'. These were stage-managed media 'events' for PR-via-the-news; they were for public consumption to 'appeal' to voters.

But all is not as it seems: Liberal Andrew Robb wanted to challenge 3-different-leader-Deputy Liberal leader, Julie Bishop, but was convinced not to challenge for the sake of public perception. Likewise, it is probable that former (deposed) Prime Minister,Kevin Rudd, will get his choice of Ministerial position - probably Foreign affairs & Trade - as part of pre-election deal with Julia Gillard. While Labor has significant internal party issues to deal with, there will be strenuous efforts to keep them behind closed doors. That will probably suit Bill Shorten, Mark Arbib, and those from the NSW Labor Party backroom who controlled the Federal election campaign. But Labor must deal with the issues created by Shorten, Arbib and their Federal Party factions, and those from NSW's right faction who controlled the election campaign.

Meanwhile Liberal and National Party members appear to have been behind campaigns of insult and innuendo run against Tony Windsor and rob Oakeshott. The Liberal and National Parties will undoubtedly continue to undermine and character-assassinate the Independent MP's, while Tony Abbott (Liberal) and Warren Truss (National Party) will try to exude a facade of niceness.

John

Treasury Comparison

The Independent MP's have had briefings from Treasury officials about the costings of the election policies of both the ALP and Liberal-National Party Coalition. These costings, and some policies important to them, will form the basis of which side of politics forms a minority government in Australia: a largely centrist-conservative Labor government; or a more right-wing conservative Liberal-National Coalition government.

A summary of the costings can be viewed at

Coalition-costings

Labor Party Costings

So, which is the better economic manager? I doubt you could form an opinion based on these documents. the only possible conclusions are that: there is little difference between the final figures from Treasury; that the Liberals did not use standard Treasury methods for their costings (based on the number of adjustments Treasury made). In terms of economic management, the sharemarket is indifferent, perhaps indicating that investors largely recognise that there is little or no significant economic difference between Labor and the Coalition. The market is more concerned about its ties to what happens in the US economy/sharemarket, and, to a lesser extent, in Europe.

My conclusion from the Treasury costings and the parties' public policy documents is hat the Liberals & Nationals lean more towards personal wealth, rather than community (public) wealth. That is, they want to distribute more public money (tax) to private entities, both individuals, and private companies, than does Labor.

I think it is important to retain, and enhance, our community/public wealth through investment in public education at all levels, public health and social programs that benefit individuals, communities and society. Becaue of those beliefs, I was once called a "latte-sipping, chardonay-drinking, left-wing (John) Howard-hater" by a Liberal Party supporter. I took it as a compliment.

John

Wilkie Signs With Labor

Independent Andrew Wilkie, from Tasmania, has today signed an agreement to support a Labor minority government, IF Julia Gillard is able to form one. That might be more likely, but by no means certain, as Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor consider their positions over the weekend.

The terms agreed to include $340 Million for Hobart Hospital, and $1.8 Billion for hospitals across the nation; and a commitment to force states to use smart cards on poker machines, if they don't agree voluntarily. This will take some negotiation, and the states, addicted to gambling revenue, will resist staunchly.

Wilkie reportedly rejected an offer of almost $1 Billion for Hobart Hospital from Tony Abbott - perhaps he was prepared to forget about the rest, or cut another $Billion from their funding.

Simply throwing money at one electorate would have readily been seen by the electorate as "pork barrelling" - corruption by any other name. Julia Gillard seems to have at least provided it as part of a greater level of funding for other hospitals.

Given his treatment by the former Liberal PM, John Howard, after Wilkie's whistle-blowing about questionable intelligence being used to justify the invasion of Iraq, it was always hard to see him agreeing to terms with members of that same former, Liberal-National Coalition government.

John

Abbott-Hockey Swallowed By Own Black Hole

It really didn't a take long for some details, at least the "bottom line", on Tony Abbott's costings to appear. Secretary of treasury, Ken Henry, was involved in briefing the 3 Independents about Treasury costings of Coalition election promises. Treasury estimates a shortfall - "black hole" - ob between 4& Billion and $11 Billion.


In typical politician style, Tony Abbott tried to brush aside concerns, saying that they were merely "differences of opinion". One  of the differences is that Treasury refused to allow the Coalition to adjust the conservative bias allowance, a $2.5 billion blow to its costings. This allowance, used by Treasury in all its costings, ensures that the extremes of "estimates" by politicians are moderated. It seems to imply that the Coalition used the most optimistic figures it could, perhaps a more economically reckless approach.

Joe Hockey put in his 2-bit's worth, saying "It is not a black hole because fundamentally we are taking this out of surplus." But it's a surplus they don't have, and which they seem to have estimated at the most optimistic figure they could think of.

 This whole concept of not using Treasury ( a principle created by John Howard & Peter Costello, because it gave them an advantage in government; it's just come back to bite the Coalition parties!); of planning it back before June ( at least 2 months before the election was called); of using a company with links to the Liberal Party; and using the most optimistic figures have all contributed to The Liberal Party's problems, real or perceived, as NOT being better economic managers than Labor.

mmm .. what's that old saying??? Oh, yes! "When first you practise to deceive ... "

John

Libs' Bovver Boys Go Calling

Since the end of last week, the NSW Liberal Party's federal "bovver boys" - political bullies - have swung into action. At the end of last week it was Alby Schultz, Member for Hume. He reportedly ran Independents Tony Windsor & Rob Oakeshott.

One of his local newspapers, the Goulburn Post (25-Aug-2010) reported that he is ‘close friends with key independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott’, and that he would not be ‘weighing into negotiations unless he’s asked.’ He was quoted, saying “I thought it was absolute stupidity for the leader of the National Party to make comments seeking to influence or denigrate people about where they put their allegiances when we have a likely situation of a hung parliament and we are wanting to get into dialogue with them ... It shows a lack of political nous.”

Yet last week, he rang Independents (Tony Windsor & Rob Oakeshott), accusing them of being “arrogant, naive and holding the country to ransom”; telling them they had to support the Coalition; and was reportedly so threatening to Tony Windsor that Mr Abbott had to later apologise to the Tamworth-based Independent MP.

It would seem that Mr Schultz possibly:

• has been asked to become involved (unlikely, since Tony Abbott moved quickly to distance himself); or
• simply tried his hand at political bullying, perhaps at the behest of his 'friend' Senator Bill Heffernan (If so, it was a failure);
• misleads members of his electorate; and 
• by his own words has "a lack of political nous"!

Today, Senator Bill Heffernan has been identified as the Liberal Party caller to Rob Oakeshott's home phone. It was answered by his wife, and Heffernan is reported to have said words like 'It's the devil calling'. He tried to explain it away by saying he thought it was one of Mr Oakeshott's children. If that's the case, it is disgraceful, and Tony Abbott should move to have him censured by Parliament, and by the Liberal Party. The current defense is that he does it to everyone he knows - I'm not sure he knows Rob Oakeshott's children that well!

Again, the motive was political bullying, and it appears to be not uncommon among Liberal Party members. Senator Heffernan was former PM, John Howard's, henchman in Parliament.

Both of these men are bullies. Both have behaved in a way that is inappropriate in any workplace. Politics should be no exception. Politiking is one thing, bullying must never be acceptable.

Parliamentary bullying ought to one item on the agenda for reform of Parliamentary processes.

John

Who Will The Independents Choose?

One correspondent has asked me the following question, via the contact form.

"... who do you think the Independents will side with? Being fairly (can never say one is 100%) unbiased, you are perhaps in a better position than most to see which of the parties and their leaders is making the better pitch and has the better points."

It's a difficult question. Julia Gillard appears to be presenting as a calmer, more rational, more open, amenable & cooperative negotiator. Tony Abbott began with a rather belligerent, tough, stance, but has had to quickly backflip on Treasury costings, and then provide plenty of spin for the news. Too many voters are sucked-in by 'spin'.

Tony Windsor, Bob Katter, Rob Oakeshott, and (likely) now Andrew Wilkie will not be taken in by the political & media posturing by either leader. Those performances are for public consumption & poll manipulation. The Independents want to look at treasury costings of both parties' policies, with treasury briefings. The first 3 mentioned have presented their 7-point wish-list, and been negotiating wit the leaders. They will be acutely aware that all members of the National Party, including leader Warren Truss, have been kept out of negotiations because of ongoing resentment by the Nationals about their leaving the National Party to become Independent MP's.

They are conservative MP's, some of whom view Julia Gillard's Labor Pary as left-wing. (it's members really mostly range from centre-left through centre to centre-right conservative)

Tony Abbott is a smart politician, but a political bully - he will reach a point in negotiations when he will not be able to help himself. I think that the only way the Independents will support Tony Abbott as PM is if he undertakes more, significant backflips on climate change, the National Broadband (optic fibre) Network, possibly the tax on super mining profits, reform of Question Time, and parliamentary accountability of Ministers. I suspect they will have some doubts about the economic nous of Tony Abbott et al. after treasury briefings.
 
My prediction: as much as they dislike Labor, I think they will support Julia Gillard as PM, because she will be less belligerent, and more agreeable, during negotiations. Labor's economic policies are largely conservative, but there will almost certainly requests to amend them. If Tony Abbott suspects he will lose, he will more strenuously strive for a fresh election &/or try to destabilize Parliament.
 
John

Abbott's Great Big Treasury Backflip

After several days of steadfast resistance to submitting Liberal & National Party policy costings, Tony Abbott has agreed to Treasury costing of Coalition election policies & promises. The underlying assumptions will not be provided to the ALP, but the Independents will have access to treasury briefings on both Labor and Coalition policy costings & analysis by Treasury.

This did require consent from both Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott to amend the conventions covering caretaker governments & oppositions.

As late as last night, Coalition Shadow Finance spokesman, Andrew Robb, said "We don't want to have a fight with these guys (the Independents), but we're not going to be dictated to and not tug our forelock.." Today, he'll wish he hadn't said it like that, with its implied sexual innuendo - some people will call him  "tugger" today.

The backflip occurred quickly to stifle any public comment, and voter belief, that he, and the Coalition, have something to hide. Last night Independents Bob Katter & Tony Windsor publicly questioned whether Mr Abbott had something to hide by not submitting policies to Treasury for costing.

Meanwhile, Mr Abbott moved quickly to distance himself from loopy Family First Senator Steve Fielding's threat that he might vote against (all) Labor legislation & possibly block (money) supply. Julia Gillard, despite having fundamental differences of philosophy with Senator Feilding, quickly tried to smmoth the waters, saying she had been, and would continue to, try to work with Senator Fielding, citing the Fair Work Australia legislation that undid much of the insidious parts of WorkChoices. There might be other Coalition backflips still to come - climate change springs to mind.

The quest for power occurs almost without principles, regardless of who it is.

John

Abbott Reverts To Type

Two days after publicly calling for a "kinder, gentler polity" approach to politics, Tony Abbott has shown his true colours. He has gone hard against some of the requests of the Independents, whose support he wants to become Prime Minister. It's the hard-ball political bully many people believe him to be.

In particular, he is refusing to submit any Coalition policies to treasury for funding. Instead, he has offered access to the report from the accounting firm WHK Horwath. The firm has significant links to the Liberal Party through the family of former Liberal WA Premier Sir Charles Court, & his family. The firm has a significant conflict of interest, not declared by Abbott. At the same time, he has also claimed that treasury costings of Opposition policies will damage our Westminster system of democracy. Well, I hope you recognise that as poppycock; a distractor from the real issue of Treasury costings which he clearly does not want.

If the Independents are to adequately compare the costings of both Labor & the Coalition, the costings should be done by Treasury. It means that the same methodology & measurements will be used, giving a comparison that is more reliable.

Abbott is a formidable politician,  and he's trying to publicly stare down the Independents. But they, too, are hardened politicians, especially Bob Katter and Tony Windsor, and they will not resile form a political dog-fight, if that is what Abbott wants. If they hold out and say 'no deal', Abbott will have to find a way to save face.

Abbott is risking much with this anti-Treasury stance: antagonising the Independents, and antagonising the very Treasury that he needs, IF he becomes Prime Minister.