Rank and File

Climate Doom Continues

2008-02-22T12:27:00.003+11:00

Australians have the benefit of the latest scientific and economic information about climate change, and our leadership has a mandate to act decisively on the issue. We already have a very high standard of living, and will continue to do so under any sort of carbon-related belt-tightening. Despite this, the prospects of drastic action are still pretty slight. What hope is there then for the rest of the world?

The Government have always said their climate change strategy would be guided by Ross Garnaut's report due in September, but he has released an interim report this week. In summary, Garnaut has said that things are the grim end of the rate of change; that Australia will suffer particularly badly from the effects; but that Australia is in a good position to do something about it. Basically, the situation is dire, and we will have to act quickly and firmly in order to have any hope of forestalling a major crisis. "Without action we are running towards dangerous points more quickly that a lot of the earlier analysis has suggested," he has said.

Response, sadly has been predictable. It's the usual slew of empty rhetoric and non-sequiturs. From the government, first the rhetoric:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has told Parliament it is vital the Government gets its climate change policies right.

"It's critical for the economy, critical for families, critical for the environment, critical for national security," he said.

"After 12 years of inaction on the whole question of climate change it's time that Australia led the international community on this question, it's time we had a government that led the national debate on this question.

"That's what needs to be done now, that's what this Government is now engaged in."

All well and good, but without actual policy and targets, it's not meaningful. So compare to this:

But she [Penny Wong] says Labor will not go past its election commitment of a 60 per cent cut in emissions by 2050.

"Obviously unlike the previous government we have said we would be cognisant of the science," she said.

"But the Government's commitment is the one we made prior to the election and that we took to the Australian people, which is a reduction of 60 per cent by 2050.

"That is the approach the Government will take."

I really struggle to understand the mindset that says, "we are sticking to our arbitrary target, no matter what the science says." Leadership requires adapting to new information and circumstances. Surely the only sensible policy is one in line with the science - otherwise, why bother to become "cognisant" of it in the first place, except as an exercise in public relations?

Of course, the Rudd Government is still better than the alternative. An AAP article has some terrifyingly short-sighted remarks from the coalition:

Liberal MP Barry Haase says consumers will bear the brunt of costs if the federal government adopts the recommendations of report author, economist Professor Ross Garnaut... "(Prime Minister Kevin) Rudd's already gone too far on climate change," Mr Haase told reporters on Thursday.

...

Liberal MP Don Randall said the interim report would put the Rudd government under a fair bit of pressure... "The previous government was always concerned about these arbitrary figures that are going to cause a lot of pain to the rest of Australians."

...

Nationals MP Paul Neville said industry would suffer if the government set unrealistic targets that did not require the rest of the world to jump on board... "If we close down aluminum and coal in towns like that then we're exporting Australian jobs.

I'll keep saying it: If we need to experience pain, if we need to sacrifice jobs, if we need to set hard targets, then that's what we must do. The alternatives are decades of famines, wars and disasters. Anything is better than that. And if there is some uncertainty in the science, that doesn't change our responsible course of action - to prudently ensure that we minimise the risks in whichever way we can.

As I have written before, this short-sightedness is made all the more mystifying to me by my sense that the public would be onside with dramatic action. Imagine a worst-case scenario: "People of Australia, the scientists have spoken, and we cannot ignore their warning. The world is headed for disaster on an unprecedented scale. We're all going to have to pay six cents more per kilowatt-hour of electricity and 5 cents a litre for petrol, and work hard on conservation. Though this will be tough for many in the community, it's the only way we can reduce our emissions while funding development of renewable energy sources. We must act now or reap an uncertain and deadly harvest in decades to come." Would this lead to a revolt among the electorate? I honestly feel that people would suck it up if presented honestly and was backed by good science. Heaven knows my father's generation put up with a lot worse than expensive electricity during the depression and the war - fuel was actually rationed then! (I already pay a 5.5c premium on my electricity under the Green Power initiative.) Would such policies lead to an economic slowdown? Perhaps, but so what? What's to decide when the alternatives are minor economic slowdown and global catastrophe?

If Australia under Labor can't do it, very few countries will. I almost wish I suffered from the lack of imagination that plagues so much of the body politic and its remora fish the commentariat. Unfortunately, I can all to easily imagine what the world that awaits us might be like.

History in the Making: Sorry

2008-02-13T09:46:00.000+11:00

In a brilliant, moving speech, Rudd has apologized to the Stolen Generations and to Australia's indegenous peoples. It was eloquent and sincere, and cannot help but raise hopes that real progress will be made in Aboriginal affairs under this Government. With that, Howard's relaxed and comfortable, "pragmatic" approach is justly consigned to history's scrap-heap, and not a moment too soon.

It's an all-too-rare moment when a person can feel morally uplifted by a speech in parliament, so enjoy it. It's even rarer to feel unqualified pride in our political leadership, but this is one of those times.

The less said about Nelson's droning followup, with its tired resort to "good intentions", strange appeal to the memory of 100,000 dead diggers, and creepy litany of rapes, the better. The crowd responded appropriately, turning their backs and chanting "get him off!".

Leaving the Kokoda Track

2008-02-07T08:36:00.000+11:00

Although this isn't the US where fear of not "supporting the troops" is enough to close down political debate, under John Howard the lionisation of the Aussie digger reached new heights, and we have seen few indications that this will change soon. So before I have a look at the hallowed place of the mighty digger in our history, I'd like to lay out my qualifications.

I've never experienced the fear and doubt of a war, but I'd like to think I have an idea of what military service means to the country and to a family. My paternal grandfather was a digger - he served in the Somme in World War I, and amongst other injuries got a dose of German mustard gas there. My maternal grandfather was a digger - he saw combat in the Pacific in World War 2. My father served in the RAAF in wartime, too. (I won't get into the uncles, and can only guess what service my great-great grandfathers must have performed in the Prussian army.) To my regret, this tradition of service ended when the Australian Army rejected me thanks to poor sight in my left eye (I was 18).

There's no question Australia's soldiers have fought with distinction in many wars and theatres across the globe. They have done us proud. But have we become too proud of this tradition? Grateful thanks is one thing, hero-worship quite another, and if we haven't crossed the line between them we are certainly pretty close. Although this self-indulgence is relatively harmless as national vices go, it worries me a little. It's backwards-looking, and mythologizes a stereotype of a man that is less and less relevant in the 21st century. We all admire the bravery and spirit of the men at Gallipoli, but would any of us want our sons to experience that? After all, we focus on the larrikinism and acts of derring-do, but not so much on the boredom, terror and hideous violence that these men endured - and inflicted on their enemies. Is it such a loss that men of my generation never had the opportunity or obligation to go overseas and shoot a stranger? Perhaps my character would be stronger for the experience if I had. Perhaps I wouldn't be able to sleep for the night terrors. (I'm sure there was a lot of that amongst the survivors of Gallipoli, something else that the folk-histories would never mention). In any case, it's time for a new national ideal of manhood that is less soldierly, even less of a larrikin*, but encompasses some different values besides courage under fire. Worldliness, thoughtfulness, compassion, entrepeneurship - these are some values that would serve a modern Aussie better than the ability to survive an artillery barrage with his sense of humour intact.

Of course, it's much easier said than done to create a new national model to aspire to, but we have to start somewhere. Why not the Kododa Trail?

Australia is doing its damnedest to preserve the Kokoda Trail as a hiking track for the adventurous and a monument to the diggers who fought and died there. There's nothing ostensibly wrong with this, and I have a lot of respect for those that have done this arduous walk with a desire to pay their respects and relive a little bit of our history. I have pondered myself whether I would be up to the test. We are in danger, though, of forgetting that this part of the world isn't ours, no matter how hard we fought for it 60 years ago. When we feel that the actions of the diggers there give us the right to decide what the area's current residents do with the land, we have passed from paying our respects into outright sanctimony. The owners of the land are blocking the track in protest, since they stand to miss out on $100 million of mining proceeds if Australia succeeds in torpedoing the project that would destroy part of the area.

A mine is an ugly thing, and when billions of dollars are involved, it gets even uglier. I was a little discomforted by this line in the Age article:

Frontier Resources' managing director, Peter McNeil, spoke with village chiefs before yesterday's blockade and helped villagers prepare placards.

No doubt, the villagers are getting some help from mining company lobbyists in organising their protest. That doesn't change the fact that it is indeed a high horse we are riding here. When we can't comprehend that the exploits of Australian soldiers do not invoke feelings of reverent awe in poverty stricken Papua New Guineans, it's time to have a closer look at our relationship with the legend. We are asking them to sacrifice a brigher future for their children at the Alter of the Digger. Either we must make it up to them, or we need to look for inspiration somewhere else.

* I also scratch my head at those who in the same breath praise the irreverent digger larrikins and complain about the drunken hoons doing burnouts in their suburban street or ruining their day at the footy. These are two sides of the same coin.

Confiscating Your Life Story

2008-02-04T13:36:00.000+11:00

I think most of us agree that if a drug dealer buys himself a Ferrari with heroin money, the car is forfeit if it can be proved the money he bought it with was derived from illegal activity. A bank robber shouldn't be allowed to keep the money he stole, even if he serves the time. This is a long-standing pillar of criminal law, and despite the headaches modern international tax law must give prosecutors, it's pretty uncontroversial.

What if the profit is accrued less directly? Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, literary proceeds are also illegal (that is, subject to confiscation). Leaving aside the tabloid hilarity of Corey Delaney, few of us would be comfortable with a killer getting a handsome payday for a Today Tonight interview while his victim's parents are still coping with a devastating loss. If it would sell ads, the media would pay for a story - it's their business and they can't realistically be faulted for that - so it falls to the law to see that justice is done, and remove the incentive to engage in high-profile crimes.

The scheme, though, is not without its troubling aspects. What if someone is convicted but maintains their innocence? What if they publish their autobiography years afterward, in which the crime (admitted or not) plays a part? Under the law, if the notoriety you gained from committing the crime contributes to any benefit, then you're in trouble. It's not hard to imagine a situation where a person becomes famous (i.e. notorious) from committing a crime, but uses the experience to become, say, an activist for legal reform. This would be illegal under the Act, which specifically includes "any live entertainment, representation or interview" as a literary benefit. Being paid on the lecture circuit is a definite no-no. I don't know how a judge might weigh up the contribution of criminal-related notoriety to an income stream, but one supposes that sort of question is what keeps our judges on the gravy train.

This brings us to the cause célèbre of the day, David Hicks. The controversial gag order imposed by the Guantánamo prosecutors, although probably unenforceable here, will expire soon, and Hicks is already fielding many offers from media outlets. Although the Hicks camp has denied that they mean to profit from the affair, the issue is obviously going to come up, especially when seven figure sums are being mentioned. The A-G has been pretty unequivocal in his previous statements on the issue: "He would expect authorities to prosecute Mr Hicks from illegally profiting from his story." On the other hand, Dick Smith has said he should be able to profit. Presumably the law officers will give McLelland's statements a little more weight, but you never know. The PM himself was more ambiguous:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told Fairfax radio that it is up to the Director of Public Prosecutions and Federal Police to determine if any media agreement is within the law.

"Here we've got something quite specific, which is whether a person who has fallen foul of the law should be able to sell their story for profit, and I'll leave that determination to the independent judicial and legal authorities," he said.

The question we're left with, and this goes right to the heart of the whole Hicks case, is which law - and whose law - might he have "fallen foul" of? Since Hicks has never been charged under Australian law, for his profits to be seized, he must, under the Act, have committed a "foreign indictable offence", specifically an offence against a law of a foreign country. There's a second part to the test, too:

...If the conduct had occurred in Australia at the testing time referred to in subsection (2), the conduct would have constituted an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory punishable by at least 12 months imprisonment.
_{(PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT 2002 - SECT 337A)}

I'm certainly no lawyer, but I'll go out on a limb and say that Hicks' Gitmo offences would arguably fail both provisions of the foreign indictable offences stipulation. Testing them in court would surely open one interesting can of worms, and could embarrass either the Australian or US governments should they fail to pass the test. Given that fact alone, if I was David Hicks, I'd be talking to ghostwriters right now.

Keelty out of Control

2008-01-31T22:24:00.000+11:00

What an unlikely celebrity is Mohamed Haneef. The humble Indian doctor, unwittingly embroiled in a global terrorism investigation. Something about the case must have appealed to Australians' sense of fairness and love of the underdog. The fact that there wasn't a skerrick of convincing evidence against him probably helped elicit a little empathy, too.

One Australian who doesn't like Haneef is Mick Keelty. As the nation's top cop the buck stops at his desk as far as the investigation of terrorism is concerned, and the publicity and sympathy that Haneef got was, to Keelty, nothing short of an affront and a travesty. Even as the case against Haneef crumbled to dust, the Federal Police Commissioner (with much help from the Attorney General and Immigration Minister) would not back down and continued to insinuate that there was some piece of evidence just under the surface that proved Haneef was an Al Qaeda sympathizer and that the Feds should be left to do their job in peace by a rabid media.

So it seemed to me at the time, and Keelty's speech to the Sydney institute this week more than confirms it. He went so far as to call for a media blackout on all terrorism-related investigations until they had run their complete course through the judicial system. This clearly would have spared him the Haneef-ulcer that is probably throbbing right now under the weight of tonight's spaghetti bolognese, but does anyone else in the country think that justice would have been better served if the AFP had been allowed to quietly lock up Haneef without a fuss? With all the attention history is getting as a school subject, sometimes one really has to wonder if the people in the top jobs have read enough of it.

"He also called for a halt to criticism of public institutions." One almost has to laugh at such a statement, coming from a high-ranking public official. What sort of democracy would this be if such a statement was taken seriously? Although Keelty is probably quite an able cop, it's going to be very hard for the public to put their trust in him after remarks like this. His ability to perform as Commissioner has therefore been weakened by this outburst, and that's just bad for justice in this country.

In a move that I am still getting used to, the Government did exactly the right thing and put the Commissioner in his place. "Access to government information and decision-making are keys to a healthy and vibrant democracy," said A-G Robert McClelland.

Not only that, but Christopher Pyne spoke up for the opposition and agreed with the Government. It's truly amazing what a political difference a few short months can make.

Complements to the Minister

2008-01-23T10:35:00.000+11:00

Walk into any pharmacy in Australia and you are confronted with a bewildering array of boxes and bottles - medicines by the thousands. A pharmacy exists to dispense these medicines, often on behalf of doctors, and provide expert advice on their use and effects. We trust that our pharmacists are well trained and have an interest in our medical well-being.

Pharmacists are also retail stores, however, and the more they sell, the more money they make for their owners. A moment's reflection on this fact raises an unavoidable conflict of interest. We put our trust in the pharmacist to give us good advice, and in the Government to make sure that what they are selling us is legitimate. Unfortunately, where there's money to be made, that trust isn't always well placed.

As it happens, those pharmacy shelves are filled with two types of products: Medicines regulated by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and "complementary" medicines which are regulated poorly at best. (This problem isn't confined to pharmacies - health food stores and even supermarkets are filled with unproven herbal "remedies" and homeopathic "cures".) Although selling toxic pills is a definite no-no, products registered on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods are not tested for efficacy at all. This includes pretty much every type of alternative medicine you can think of: Homeopathy, vitamins, Chinese medicine, aromatherapy, and an entire zoo of weight loss aids.

Until now, the most potent legal weapon available to those concerned with the peddling of snake oil to consumers has been false advertising laws, but there have been few successes here. The published claims of the producers are usually ill-defined, making any sort of prosecution very difficult. Witness the fact that homeopathic medicines, which consist entirely of distilled water, are ubiquitous in this country. Australian doctors, and concerned pharmacists, among others, have lobbied for many years to have this loophole fixed. And now, it looks like the new Government may be fixing its eye on this very subject.

Senator Jan McLucas, parliamentary secretary to Health Minister Nicola Roxon, has been receiving submissions in this area. The Australian is reporting on the flurry of lobbying that this has caused. On the one side, the AMA, CHOICE, and the Pharmaceutical Society of Australia agree with the need for reform, but the Complementary Healthcare Council, an industry group, maintains that the current regime is working well and doesn't need any changes. A group called Ethical Complementary Medicines has also entered the fray for reform, but who they are seems to be a bit of a mystery.

Weight loss seems to be the issue that has brought about this renewed attention. It's no secret that Australia is facing an obesity epidemic, something that has real and immediate consequences for the health of Australians. Pharmacies will sell you pills - herbal appetite suppressants or fat metabolizers, for instance. Vitamins, liver cleansers, antioxidants are all pushed, usually with no dietary advice to go along with them. Then come the meal replacement sachets and low-calorie diets. All of these products are totally exempt from any scientific scrutiny, are unlikely to be chided for false advertising, yet could have profound effects on an individual's health. Besides, they are a rip off. Australian consumers deserve better protection.

Senator McLucas and the Minister are therefore to be applauded for taking time so early in their legislative agenda to examine this issue. It remains to be seen what reforms will be enacted, and how successful the industry lobbying against it will be. A lot of money is spent on Alternative Medicines (as much as twice that spent on actual, real medicine), so with so much at stake there will be a fight. I hope the Minister is willing to fight it!

Global Warming/Cold Feet

2007-12-08T09:20:00.000+11:00

The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics latest report indicates that we are to be one of the countries worst affected by global warming with a decrease in agricultural production on the order of 17%. This figure pales in to comparison to India's 25%, truly a scary number when you consider how many mouths that 25% is feeding. We hardly needed any more reminding, but the visions of our planet's broiling future keep on coming.

This is why I am starting to despair about Bali even before the negotiations have really begun. "Australia's delegation in Bali was quoted as saying Australia 'fully supports' a plan for developed nations to examine cutting emissions by between 25% and 40% by 2020", we read in yesterday's paper, but:

Mr Rudd and his Climate Change Minister, Penny Wong, later issued statements stressing that Australia was not yet committing to any 2020 targets... By playing down the need for Australia to commit to the deep cuts in emissions...Labor under Kevin Rudd has agreed to set a target of a 60% cut by 2050, but has resisted setting a 2020 goal...

This is not encouraging reading. It does not suggest that Australia is about to become a leader in the global response to climate change. What is suggests to me is that Australia, like most other nations, will haggle and bargain and make rhetoric about sharing the responsibility and try and get away with a minimum of commitment. Rudd himself described the process as "horse trading." Horse trading! Need I even point out that coming together to prevent irreversible changes to the Earth's climate needs a different mindset than negotiating a bauxite exporting contract? If we approach global warming as a game to be optimized in our country's favor, we are truly doomed. The horse trading will turn to recriminations as the disaster hits.

The world is crying out for leadership here, and I had high hopes we might provide it. "We owe it future generations to prevent this disaster occurring," a parallel-universe Rudd might have said. "Whatever the cost, Australia will shoulder its obligations, and help those in the developing world to bear theirs. All humanity is in this together, and time is too short for any further prevarication and horse trading." Fictional Rudd then evoked the spirit of the Apollo Project as he called on the world to make a massive investment in alternative energy research. "We not only plan on meeting these agressive targets but surpassing them by harnessing the limitless ingenuity of our scientists, engineers, and entrepeneurs." I wonder, which alarms you more, the imaginary speech or the remarks printed in the real-world newspaper?

Of course, we're much better off with Rudd than the previous government. In the same article opposition leader Brendan Nelson was quoted as saying "a 2020 target in the range mentioned in Bali would damage industries and hurt low-income Australians." I have a hard time understanding the logic underpinning a statement like this. How can one weigh up shaving 0.2%, say, of Australia's economic growth with preventing an unprecedented global catastrophe and decide to err in favour of the former?

It's clear to me that the consequences of global warming are truly terrible. To cut our emissions according to the most agressive schedule, what cut in my standard of living would be required today? Couldn't we as a nation tighten our belts and make do with a 1% increase in the tax rate, higher electricity prices, or a surcharge on the price of new cars? How will my standard of living decrease when war, famine and drought are the order of the day?

This video sums things up nicely. The costs of action can be well understood and are not unbearable. The costs of inaction are to a large extent unknown but could be catastrophic. It doesn't matter if the true extent of global warming isn't a certainty - it merely has to be likely or even possible for immediate action to be warranted. What's more, I think the electorate largely agrees with me. It's time Kevin Rudd and the the world's leaders to step up and do what needs to be done.

Lack of Interest

2007-12-06T11:22:00.000+11:00

If interest rates are to be considered a political football, the 2007 Federal election was the Grand Final. They have becomes such a fixture of economic discussion that's it's hard to imagine we'll ever move past it, but I'm hoping this was the last time they will feature so prominently in an election debate. So let's put the issue to bed.

The Coalition were guilty of misleading the public on nearly all aspects of the way role interest rates play in our economy. In 2004 they made as much hay as they could out of this, and paid a price for it. Why couldn't they resist the temptation? Well, we all know that Australia is awash in a sea of debt. The numbers certainly attest to the fact that Aussies were sensitive to interest rates in their political leanings.

The following graph (stolen shamelessly from Possum Comitatus) shows how closely the opinion polls tracked interest rates, and shows what would have had to happen for the ALP to lose the election. If there were be any doubts about the potency of interest rates as a political issue, this certainly shakes them. Cause and effect are of course by no means certain in this sort of analysis, but it's clear the interest rate hikes didn't help the coalition one iota.

Unfortunately, since Latham's days, the ALP has implicitly or explicitly bought into the interest-rates-as-an-indicator-of-economic-gravitas line. Now that we are over the line, though, are interest rates neutralized as an issue? Labor has it's "17% mortgage rate", the Coalition have their broken promise and six interest rate hikes in a row. Now even the most disinterested amongst us knows that the Liberal party does not, in fact, posesss an interest-rate supressing magic wand. Let's admit that the Federal Government doesn't control interest rates. Here are the facts.

1. Despite political campaigns, the government has no control over interest rates. The Reserve bank sets them in accordance with its mandate to keep inflation below 3% (higher interest rates cub spending and so help to lower demand and keep inflation under control).

2. The historical data don't suggest that Labor has a worse record on interest rates. Under the last Labor government, cash interest rates peaked at 19% under Hawke but only 7.9% under Keating. Under Fraser, interest rates peaked at 21% in April 1982. Mortgage interest rates hit the following highs: Whitlam, 10.38%; Fraser, 13%; Hawke, 17%; Keating, 12%.

3. Despite Howard's mantra of "17%", the fact is that mortgage rates were capped by regulation when he was Fraser's treasurer. It was Labor that derugulated the banking industry.

4. Talk of deficits and surpluses is also misleading. Surpluses are a sign that taxation is outstripping spending, indicating a lack of sufficient investment in infrastructure. Deficits are clearly correct policy when the economy is in recession. Promising to keep interest rates low by running surpluses is not sensible fiscal policy. In this day and age, Government borrowing in any case comes from global financial markets and will have little effect on interest rates domestically.

5. Even for mortgage holders, it's not the interest rate that matters per se, but the impact interest payments have on their disposable incomes. Australians were paying more interest under Howard than under Keating because debt levels are so high.

Finally, the rhetoric of Howard was often about "wage pressure". This obviously means keeping your wages low as the economy grows. I don't know what this can mean except keeping wealth growth as much as possible in the share market and as little as possible amongst wage earners.

The economy is a legitimate political issue, of course. It's time to put aside this narrow focus on one misleading economic indicator and judge a government's performance by a more realistic set of metrics: overall growth, environmental responsibility (externalities), standard of living, long term thinking. Under these criteria I have no doubt a Labor government can perform as well as any in the world.

(Andrew Charlton's Comment in November's issue of the Monthly is a great and more detailed debunking of the interest rate myths.)

If the Coalition Scare Campaign Was True

2007-11-26T11:49:00.000+11:00

Top 10 headlines from the alternate universe in which the Coalition campaign had been based in fact:

Howard vindicated as interest rates hit 10% - per week

Stock market plunges, halt to trading called as red guards seize ASX

Banks to be nationalized immediately, says Politburo spokesperson Gillard

Dockworkers halt imports, demand 7-figure raises

Business owners urged to stay indoors as unionists take to the streets

November 30 declared 'National Being Ashamed of Australian History Day'

Sydney CBD in flames as firefighters strike

Executives and families to 'wait quietly on curb' for bus to re-education camp, Propaganda Ministry decrees

Bible 'subversive', to be banned

Five executed for forging potato-ration cards

Sadly, we're stuck in the real world where the headlines merely read "Howard humiliated" and "Libs implode". Sigh.

FRODO!!!

2007-11-24T09:30:00.001+11:00

Private Property

2007-11-23T12:39:00.000+11:00

I went to a private school. Although I didn't care for school life, I guess I got a pretty good education. I received a partial scholarship to my school, but even so the school fees were a struggle for my parents, and to this day I appreciate their sacrifice. My sister went to a local public high school instead, and so within our family and neighbourhood we could make a good comparison, and I think they compare well: my sister's education was far from lacking, and we both ended up at the same university.

95% of all murderers and rapists are public-school
educated. No offence, but it's true.

More and more Australian parents are following the same road. Like parents everywhere they want the best for their kids, and education more than ever is seen as the crucial first step in a successful career. I don't blame parents one iota for choosing the best school they can find and afford.

Like many others, I worry about the implications of this trend for the country. I'm naturally suspicious of any shift in control of such an area of crucial national interest into private control, and what could be more important to the national interest than our schools? I think Australia's excellent school system has been the main reason we have, for so long, been able to regard ourselves as such an egalitarian and classless society. This comment from the American experience sums it up best for me:

"Our public demonstration of elementary and secondary schools has many problems, but if we turned all education over to the private marketplace, many Americans could not even afford elementary school. Even if we used public vouchers, we would lose one of the fundamental benefits of public education - the chance for children to rub elbows with others from all walks of life. (Those who could afford to would add their own funds to the voucher and buy a "better" education for their children, leading to extreme segregation by income group). This shared experience may not be efficient, in market terms, but it is effective in making democracy work."
Osborne and Gaebler, (1993). Reinventing Government, Ch1, p. 46.

If private schools continue their expansion, then our children, from an early age, will be segregated into two distinct socio-economic groups. In many cases, the gap will not be vast, but it will be there. And it will grow. I have a picture in my mind of the sort of ethnically diverse group of kids you might see in a government advertisement, but worry whether such a picture could be taken at many private schools.

In the U.S. I saw some really disturbing trends. Public education has had a long and proud history in the United States, but there is an unfortunate bias built into the system. Schools are administered by local school boards, and a great proportion of the funding usually comes from property taxes. More expensive houses, higher tax revenue, better schools. For this reason, there is often an enormous difference in the quality of schools between wealthy suburbs and poorer, urban areas. (Another effect: In California, a ballot initiative to cap property taxes send their schools plummeting to some of the lowest-ranked in the nation.)

The U.S. is also seeing an explosion in religious ("parochial") schools. This is even more worrisome as a prospect; kids in such schools (if they are not, indeed, home-schooled) spend their formative years surrounded by only ideas and materials that have been carefully filtered to reinforce a particular and narrow religious ideology. It cannot be healthy for a mind to be shielded from competing ideas. In later life, fanaticism and intolerance can only be fostered by kids who have received such a limited education. I know - I've met them. They certainly have the courage of their convictions, out of a sheer inability to conceive that a sane person might be able to think differently.

What would I do with my own kids? It's a tough call. I don't have kids yet, and I recognize I might feel differently when I do; but right now I feel that there is real value in growing up with other Australian kids in an equal environment. If the school isn't good enough, then that's a reason to fight for better schools for all Australians, not to take my kids out of the system.

That's why I feel that Labor's response to Howard's school fees rebate should have been, "A rebate on school fees? We'll do better than that - we'll pay for your child's entire education from prep to year 12 - and we'll do it at a school in your neighbourhood!" Just enroll your child in the nearest public school near you.

More from the Department of Desperation

2007-11-22T11:35:00.001+11:00

The following, as quoted in the SMH, is from a letter from MP Bronwyn Bishop to her constituents.

Most of us will survive the economic slide and the lower living standard but my concern is for our youth.

Our youth have never experienced a socialist government with its continuous barrage of laws, rules and regulations, the never-ending interference of government and unions in our lives and the soul-destroying unemployment as our living standard drops...

Have you ever wondered how so many members of the Labor Party have become very rich whilst in government, while workers become poorer? How do they become multi-millionaires...

It would be sad to have the old failed socialist, union-driven government influencing our youth.

It is hard to imagine the sense of panic that leads to material like this. Each one of those sentences is a pure gem of hysteria. My favorite: "Most of us will survive" implies the coming Labor economic apocalypse will claim a few lives. "Members of the Labor Party have become very rich" is simply bizarre coming from the Liberal party.

Clearly, when the Liberals are this sure they are doomed, we can have a little confidence in Saturday's outcome.

Update: The full text of the Bishop letter can be found here.

Beyond Dirty Tricks

2007-11-22T09:23:00.002+11:00

When I lived in the USA, I was in horror at the stories I'd hear around election time. The voting process itself is a mess, and the count subject to interference from a vast array of interests - county, state and federal electoral agencies and state departments, a veritable zoo of voting methodologies and voting machine vendors.

Even worse were stories of Republican supporters delivering fliers in black neighbourhoods reminding people to make sure they didn't have any outstanding warrants when they came to vote. Reminders to vote on Wednesday (elections are held on Tuesdays). Anti-democratic tactics of the lowest order.

At least it couldn't happen in Australia, I thought. Although we have our differences, the integrity of the electoral process is important to all of us. Or so I thought. I'm aghast at today's revelations about Liberals in the seat of Lindsay - you can read about it here and here. The evidence is there in photographs - this is out-and-out electoral fraud by the Liberal machine in Lindsay. Jackie Kelly, the retiring member, has tried to dismiss it as a "chaser-style prank", a bit of "skylarking". Have a look at the flyer and make up your own mind:

(Click for larger view)

Given that Gary Clark, Jackie Kelly's husband, was caught with a handful of the flyers, her attempts to distance herself from the operation won't be very credible. Regardless of who's responsible, I hope the AEC takes this very seriously. I'm sure the Liberal party will distance itself from this "lark", but the individuals themselves have tried to subvert the democratic process and must be brought to account.

Ghosts at The Age

2007-11-15T22:52:00.001+11:00

I've never enjoyed the AP news flashes the Age puts on the web site, but this one takes the cake.

Amusing perhaps for the footage of gullible Ohioans marvelling at the ghost, but that's not what the Age seems to be suggesting. They can't decide whether it's a ghost or an angel. Presumably this story wouldn't make it into the print edition, but that raises some questions about where the newpaper begins and ends these days.

And what the hell is the AP doing filming a gas station in Parma, Ohio and putting that on a global wire?

Blog update (and minor infamy)

2007-11-14T13:58:00.001+11:00

I received a call welcoming me into the "Friends of Landeryou" society! Apparently a little short on material, Andrew Landeryou on his notorious blog The Other Cheek, turned me into an ALP heavyweight and turned an off-the-cuff and rather pedestrian posting on this blog expressing anger at the Richard Pratt's price-fixing scandal into a vicious and slanderous attack on a pillar of Australian society. The article is here.

Although Landeryou's attack (on Simon Crean, not me) is silly in my opinion, it did get me thinking about the responsibilites of blogging even on such as small scale as this. So I removed the blog from the branch website, and changed domains as well so there can be no confusion. That way it's clear what I say is my own opinion only, and I can keep the blog going even if I am no longer involved with the branch. No, I'm not gone - there was just some downtime while I moved the blog back to the blogger domain.

Things have been slow recently - the campaign and a push on my company's VoIP project have taken their toll. I'm working on some fascinating posts though, one on interest rates and one more on Lathams AFR editorial. I bet you can't wait.

(Updated to include original link, duh.)

"The Great Deceiver"

2007-11-13T07:57:00.000+11:00

You might hear a lefty moan about how the newspapers are the tool of the corporations and used for their own evil corporate agenda. I think this is, in fact, often true, in the way that real-life consipiracies are. Not six men sitting around a table in a dark room plotting to pull one over on the public, but idealogically driven editors keen to please their bosses, who believe the public needs to see the information they are pushing. I suspect the aven Roger Ailes believes that Fox News is fair and balanced.

If The Age's editors have a secret agenda, though, it's certainly not to get Howard back into office. The great deceiver is in a class of his own reads a headline today. Although the content is far from Revolutionary Worker stuff, it basically boils down to "Howard's a Liar".

The gloom must be setting in around the PM's office when you're waking up in the morning and reading pieces like that. It seems we're in that twilight area where he's a sitting politician (fair game) but on the way out (so time to sink the boot in).

Latham Rides Again

2007-11-09T08:49:00.000+11:00

An op-ed by Mark Latham is hardly good news for anybody these days, at least within the ALP. Personally, I find a lot to admire in Latham's straight-talking, tell-it-like-it-is, 'Testify, brother!' ways. I'd find even more to admire if it wasn't for the air of farce and perfidy that also surrounds the man.

The wires today are summarizing Latham's piece and this has been widely reported. His claims that both parties are appealing to middle-class greed is hard to deny. All of us on the left wish for a shift back from a focus on the economy to social justice, and away from mortgage-talk. But two facts step in here to rain on the socialist parade. Firstly, the people do want their money, not a tax hike for social services. Secondly, they vote. Even though we know better than they do that the economy isn't everything and that we need to ensure quality of life for all Australians, no bleeding heart is going to be able to lead a party into electoral victory these days.

Certainly, Labor must cop some of the blame for leading the public discourse to this point - speaking of the "tax burden", playing this silly game on interest rates, helping to keep the economy at front and centre of the debate - but such is the reality of political life today.

As for Latham's screed on housing, that's a tricky one. Nobody ever claimed we were suffering a crisis of housing quality - only affordability. The rise of median home prices, debt levels and the percentage of disposable income spent on housing are not all due to everyone living in McMansions. There is something seriously out of whack with the housing market. I do agree that most proposals so far, such as the first home owner's grant, are ridiculous, as giving money to buyers merely furthers the inflation. Reducing the incentives for investors with multiple properties would be a start, but what the full solution will be, I (as one despairing renter) am at a loss.

Unfortunately, I don't think Latham has any better answers, but I suppose it's a good thing that someone is raising the issue.

Wage Pressure

2007-11-07T15:02:00.000+11:00

The Government's line on inflation and the economy in general consistently includes a line about "wage pressures", and how the Coalition's economic wizards can hold them down, and how Labor's slavish devotion to the unions will drive them up.

Think about this for a moment. What does economic growth with low wages growth mean? It means that corporate profits increase disproportionately faster than the wages of average working Australians. If you derive most of your income from investements, and use your salary as pocket money, then this is great news for you. You want a booming stock market, and low wages can only add to corporate profits. If, like most of us, you live on your salary, you want to be paid a fair wage for the amount of value you are adding to the company or comminity in which you work. Modest and proportional wage growth is not only good news for a worker, it's a necessity for social justice in this country.

So how do they get away with using this line? Well, a big part of it is sure to be interest rates - having your income growth kept low is less scary than having your mortgage rate go up. Although most of us do live on our salaries, a lot of Australians have their overall wealth overwhelmingly tied up in the family home. This precarious balancing act of debt and unaffordable housing does not seem to me to be a healthy thing.

So what will Labor do about it? Not a lot, I fear is the answer.

Notes on the campaign.

2007-11-02T14:10:00.000+11:00

Well, the campaign is underway. Howard is on the ropes, and despite not wanting to jinx it, I think people are feeling pretty good - unless you're battling away in a marginal, I suppose. Yes, believe it or not, this is more that can be done to defeat Howard and his minions than sarcastic blogging...

The campaign launch itself was pretty upbeat. Evan Thornley did a good job introducing Simon and his longtime friend and colleague Julia Gillard. Julia was a hit with the (quite sizeable) and did a good job re-convincing us that Simon is a good bloke and that politics matters.

Even in a safe seat like Hotham, it's important for the future to be seen by the electorate - and not to be seen to take them for granted. With the senate vote so important this time, there's no room for slacking...

Yes, believe it or not, there is more you can do besides writing sarcastic comments on the internet. Shopping centres and train stations are good fun, delivering leaflets is good exercise, and helping on pre-polls is not glamorous but very necessary. Even better, carve out a day or so before the election and head to a marginal electorate where they are probably really desperate!

10,000 Years to Leader Rudd!

2007-10-24T14:49:00.001+10:00

Courtesy Crikey:

Hicks Back for a Cameo

2007-10-23T10:10:00.000+10:00

Remember this smiling face? Seems like a long time ago, doesn't it.

He's still languishing in jail under a legally ambiguous gag order. At the time he was freed under the very suspicious plea bargain, we all knew it was a political sew-up, but now it appears to be confirmed from the inside:

US Vice-President Dick Cheney and Prime Minister John Howard cut a deal to release Australian inmate David Hicks from Guantanamo Bay, according to a report published in the US today...

Unfortunately, their scheme worked pretty well and Hicks can't tell his story in time for the election. However, I'm pleased this story is getting an airing today - the electorate could use a reminder of this piece of skullduggery right now.

If Debate Mattered

2007-10-22T11:13:00.000+10:00

If you go and check your favorite news site (unless, perhaps, it's The Oz) you'll no doubt find that Kevin Rudd has the consensus as victor in last night's debate. I thought it was a great performance - he was succinct, eloquent, composed and very forward-looking. Howard was grumpy, impatient and at places seemed to be making things up as he went along (the Howard "Education Revolution?"). When Rudd was asked what it was he stood for he came back swinging. If anyone doubted he's a credible alternative PM before, it's hard to think they would do so after seeing that performance.

Yes, the debate was riddled with cliches, "on-message" statements, and obfuscation. But there was some real content in there, and the leaders were facing pointed questions from each other and the media. Because of this, Howard will not let another debate happen, and it's a real shame. No more debates, and no leader would dare attend a public forum these days, so 30-second commercials and staged policy announcements are the order of the day from here on in.

Class war!

2007-10-19T16:21:00.000+10:00

Get your pitchforks, comrades! Our glorious leader has declared a class war!

Well, what passes for a class war these days, anyway. The reported Labor tax plan will defer the tax cuts for people earning over $180,000 a year, to the tune of $2.9 billion.

The wealthiest Australians would pay $10 a week more tax under Labor than they would under the Coalition.

Mr Rudd denied Labor was engaged in a class war, saying his plan to flatten the tax system to three rates instead of the current four showed the opposition was proposing real tax reform.

This raises the question, did someone in the press gallery stick their hand up and ask "Mr Rudd, is this the first salvo in a class war?" If not, where have we gotten to where the minimum of fiscal prudence and investment in the country's future requires the leader to distance himself from a Bolshevik holocaust? $10 a week?

So, once the flames die down and the bodies of the landlords and bosses are all safely in their mass graves, I'm curious to learn more about this education credit. I'm in favour of any investment in education - so far, the "sound byte" version of sounds like a bonanza for laptop vendors, but I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.

Still, we're almost matching the Libs big cash giveaway. What a shame.

Vic ALP website updated

2007-10-19T15:58:00.000+10:00

Well, we finally have a website for the Vic ALP. In this day and age it's getting harder to justify not having a proper web presence.

Without much lobbying from me, my step-dad has joined the Party (another member thanks to the Dark Lord). He tells me at their first branch meeting they passed a motion to fire off an angry letter to the state head office complaining about the crappy web site. So you know when a bunch of retirees in the country are angry at your web site, it's time to pull the finger out!

Now I'm off to digest the new tax plan.

This Man Stole From You

2007-10-17T08:22:00.001+10:00

This man has billions of dollars, and wanted more, so he consipired to rip you off. Why he did so will always remain a mystery to me, since an extra few million will make no difference to the life of a billionaire. To me, my integrity is worth more than that, but I guess Mr Pratt feels differently.

I would love to see politicians distance themselves from such men. Yet I suspect his family will be offered a state funeral one day. That's not right.

Where are the "Tax and Spend" Liberals?

2007-10-16T22:31:00.000+10:00

American conservatives like to demonize "tax and spend" liberals (with a small-L). I never quite followed this argument, as just the phrase itself was all that was offered. One supposes the that the inference is that the silly liberals will raise taxes and spend the money on silly things like magic beads.

To some degree this must have caught on in Australia because even Labor politicians talk about the "tax burden", as if trying to avoid the tax-n-spend label themselves. The way I see it, that's what a government does - levies taxes, and spends them on services the country needs. The tax rates should be fair - we need prosperity and consumer activity a lot more than we need communism these days. Both society and the economy benefit, however, from a functioning base of social services and solid infrastructure (and I think, benefit much more than the "trickle down" effect of tax cuts to the wealthy).

At the current time, nobody is complaining about too many services or too much investment in infrastructure. But by adopting the government's rhetoric, the ALP are in danger of painting themselves into a corner when it comes to maintaining the correct tax level. I'm looking forward to seeing Labor's tax policy, and hope it doesn't contain tax cuts. I am sure the public would rather see hospitals and schools improved than get $10 week back, and Labor should know that.

Evan Thornley to speak at next meeting

2007-10-16T16:00:00.000+10:00

Evan Thornley will speak at the next branch meeting. Evan, a member of the Victorian upper house (the Legislative Council) is a great speaker and always has a focus on the big issues. I'm keen to hear his insight applied to the coming election.

One matter we plan to raise with him is the performance of the Greens in the upper house. It's possible that they'll have the balance of power in the Senate after November. What does their track record in State politics tell us?

Practical Reconciliation

2007-10-12T13:26:00.001+10:00

John Howard's bizarre backflip on reconciliation with indigenous Australians almost makes me feel sorry for the poor bloke - he's on the ropes, and clearly not getting enough sleep. Neither, apparently, are his advisors.

Are those constituents for whom reconciliation an important issue now going to stick with the PM given this 11th-hour announcement? It's hard to think so. However, his less sympathetic supporters, who've been relaxed and comfortable for 11 years now, will be nothing short of disgusted with this announcement.

No doubt the nation's indigenous leaders will be pleased by this, but I doubt any of them are so naive to believe the Liberal party represents the future of indigenous affairs in this country. His conversion leaves a lot to be desired - he speaks of his previous focus on "the practical side of reconciliation", but in reality has accomplished practically nothing in his tenure.

All in all it's almost surreal. It only makes any sense in the context of a man who knows he's on the way out, and is worried about his legacy. Well, your legacy, Mr Howard, will be of 11 years of inaction, and I am looking forward to moving on to some real action.

Let's see if anything more than "me too" will be forthcoming from Kevin.

What goes on at a Labor Party Branch Meeting

2007-10-11T17:51:00.000+10:00

What happens at a typical branch meeting? Perhaps you imagine a handful of political nerds trading gossip, or some minor union functionaries concluding their factional horse-trading. Perhaps a group of students in Che Guevara T-Shirts discussing Marx?

The reality is perhaps less interesting but more fun. Our branch is a very active one, and we have about 130 people as members. We generally have north of thirty locals attending the monthly meetings, many more if we have a high-profile speaker.

Our active membership is very diverse, and pretty representative of the area we live in. Many of our members were born overseas. Many of our stalwarts are from Greece, Italy or Malta, for example, or from a newer wave of immigration from countries such as Cambodia and Vietnam. Many others have parents who born overseas. We have a high percentage of retirees, but students, teachers, IT professionals and other workers are to be found at each of our meetings.

A typical meeting starts with a cup of tea and a hello. Once the meeting is officially started, we follow the prescribed format - the President opens the meeting up with a few remarks, we hear from the Secretary and Treasurer, new members are welcomed, and then we move on to "General Business". When we have a speaker, usually they address the branch at this point. Often an MP will speak about current events in State or Federal Parliament, or perhaps someone from an NGO will talk to us about refugees or public housing. Usually there's a flurry of questions.

In General Business, members make motions from the floor that we then discuss and vote on. Most of the motions take the form of "that the branch write a letter..." or "that the branch condemn..." in response to some current event. Although we often write to a Government minister, we also definitely keep the heat on the higher-ups in the party. Here are some example motions from the last meeting:

That the branch write to Tony Robinson expressing our concern with the government’s plan to allow an expansion of gambling by permitting the sale of scratchies in supermarkets, and expressing our desire to maintain a cap on pokie machines.

That the branch write to John Brumby accusing him of being overly autocratic with the desalination plant and water pipeline, and encouraging more openness, transparency and consultation. (narrowly defeated!)

That the branch invite Nick Staikos from Glen Eira Council to address the branch next month on the subject of the Maccabi Victoria Tennis Centre.

That the branch resolve to keep the pressure on the Federal Parliamentary Labor Party, when in government, to adhere to Labor’s principles on issues such as: refugees; social justice; community housing; the environment and education.

There are usually a good mix of national, state and local issues discussed, and plenty of people have their say on each one.

After the meeting we all tuck into the many treats that Voula and others have cooked up for us. I must admit, I think this has a lot to do with the popularity of our branch.

It's a good thing about Australian politics that branches still matter. To move up in the party - or to retain preselection for your seat - you still need the support of rank-and-file party members. Factional blocs and (regrettably) stacks of course play their part these days, but a branch member, even at the individual level, can still get their voice heard.

Lobbying against the death penalty isn't invading New Zealand

2007-10-11T09:54:00.001+10:00

Oh dear - I'm afraid I have to back the PM over our dear leader on this one. As the heat over a controversy that never should have been continues, the Howard chimed in with this statement bout Rudd's treatment of McLelland:

"He's absolutely humiliated a decent bloke. For what? Articulating his policy. I mean, I could understand him humiliating him if he'd come out in favour of invading New Zealand or something stupid, but all the bloke was doing was articulating what Mr Rudd himself has already said."

Although Howard is just scoring points, it's hard to argue with. Yesterday was "World Day Against the Death Penalty", and exactly the time to speak out against capital punishment. Although it's regrettable the families of Bali bombing victims were upset, their (understandable) desire for vengeance shouldn't cause us to waver in our opposition to the death penalty. A policy of opposing the death penalty except for really bad people is not much of a policy at all.

Unmasked: Robert McLelland was Osama bin Laden's Gardener

2007-10-09T23:06:00.000+10:00

I think I can speak for the branch on this one, when I express a little bewilderment at the furore over McLelland's comments on the death penalty today. The attack by Howard and his henchman (rapidly becoming shorthand for Alexander Downer) was swift and the media were only too willing to play along.

Soft on terror or strong on human rights?

The suggestion that the timing was insensitive is understandable if arguable. That it was impolitic I suppose is obvious. However, it was undeniably principled and totally consistent with the stated policy of both the Labor and Liberal parties. If anything, it's the Liberals who should be ashamed by McLelland's speech. Howard's hypocrisy is more tangible than usual on this issue, condemning the death penalty when it's convenient (Nguyen) and playing along when it's popular (terrorists).

I'll take any excuse to quote H.L. Mencken:

The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.

Certainly the Bali bombers are scoundrels and will not be missed by many over here. But that's the true test of a principled policy. If our policy is to oppose the death penalty except for people we really hate, then I don't think that's much of a policy at all.

John Howard, the Economic Genius

2007-10-08T17:25:00.000+10:00

According to conventional wisdom, the Coalition are the ones to be trusted on economic management. A current poll offers these distressing statistics:

The Coalition is strongly ahead as better economic manager — 40 per cent, compared with 12 per cent who put Labor as the better manager of the economy.

I'm sure many Labor insiders bridle at these sorts of statistics, because like most conventional wisdom, if you really try and investigate the logic behind it, you don't come up with much. For instance, according to Wikipedia - a source that Howard's own staff are free to edit:

During Howard's tenure as Treasurer, the 90-day cash rate peaked at 21% on 8 April 1982, while home loan mortage rates were capped at 13.5%, and inflation peaked at 12.5% in September 1982. Peter Costello commented, in 2007, that "The Howard treasurership was not a success in terms of interest rates and inflation... he had not been a great reformer."

Traditionally, conservatives have been less inclined to deficit spending than progressives. When managing a household budget or company books, this is perhaps the essence of fiscal responsibility. But there's a big difference between using a credit card to buy a plasma TV and issuing government bonds to invest in vital long-term infrastructure programs. Under Howard, it's fair to say we've gotten a lot more TVs than highways. For the resources boom that even Liberals must acknowledge has little to do with their handiwork, we've gotten some big surpluses but have very little to show for it: sub-standard broadband, crowded roads, chronically underfunded universities and hospitals. Only the Defence Force has consistently reaped a bumper harvest, with defence spending increasing 46% in real terms under Howard. I also wonder how many Australians feel they got $1 billion in value by keeping 1700 asylum seekers from filing their paperwork on the mainland.

Time Colebatch points out today that there are only two countries in the world in recession: Zimbabwe and East Timor. Many countries are enjoying record low unemployment. The Australian situation is nothing if not typical. Arguably, as the largest exporters of iron ore and coal we should be doing even better than we are. What good times we are enjoying aren't due to some Government economic genius - it's just their good fortune to be the Government during a boom.

Have they nevertheless been competent administrators or just bumbling along while the good times roll? I think the jury is still out on this one. Although we do have large surpluses, there has been a deterioration in services and lack of investment in infrastructure and education that is sure to retard economic growth in the future. (And who will get the blame then?)

A more sinister take on the PM's economic track record was offered a week or so ago by Andrew Charlton in a Fairfax opinion piece. Howard's economic policies make sense, he says, if you look at them instead as policies to cement the Liberal party's hold on power and weaken the opposition. Underfunding universities and introducing Voluntary Student Unionism steers students away from the humanities and helps stunt the growth of the next generation of intellectuals and lefties. The massive subsidy of private health and private schools disinvests people in from these social (and socialist) institutions. And WorkChoices, of course, is a direct frontal assault against the trade unions - the largest financial backers of his political opponents. In summary,

In each of these policy areas, Howard's record seems almost incoherent from an economic point of view, but clinical and logical from a power perspective.

With luck this strategy will prove ultimately futile. But it will be our skills-strapped economy that will pay the price.

Don't Jinx It

2007-10-08T08:25:00.000+10:00

A new round of polls are coming out and the new status quo has been maintained with Labor commanding a solid lead over the Government. The quest for 16 seats, though far from over, is coming along very nicely. Presumably Kevin07, his front bench, and many prospective MPs are making plans for the upcoming succession. It's the prudent thing to do - you don't want to win government and be caught with your pants down, not having an office or a staff ready to go.

On the other hand, none of them would want to public to know that they were making such preparations. Politicians live in fear of the backlash the voters are certain to mete out on those seen to be "arrogant" or "taking the electorate for granted". The conventional wisdom, for what it's worth, would lead one to believe that unless we think the polly is afraid of us and in desperate courting mode, we'll punish them with a vote for the other guy. I don't know if there's any truth to this, but I must admit it knowing Aussies it doesn't feel outside the realm of possibility! Downer, the new Liberal enforcer, has certainly tried to use this as a weapon, telling all who would listen that Rudd is telling people in private that the election is in the bag. This appears to have worked as well as all of the Liberals' other attacks so far.

Another reason I think many people are hesitant to declare the ALP in with a shot is the idea of the "narrowing" - that is, the narrowing of the gap in the polls that is thought to occur during the campaign proper. In "Crikey's Guide to the 2007 Election" they opine that this is merely a result of the polls becoming more accurate as people make up their minds, but Possum's Pollytics does a good job of showing that the whole concept of the Narrowing is more mythological than anything else. How many people are going to fall in love with Howard again just because they know the election has gone from probably being on the 24th of November, to a certainty?

Finally, I think a lot of it comes down to the childhood superstition of the Jinx. Expressing optimism at some upcoming good fortune, people instinctively feel, may prevent it coming to pass. In China, at least in the past, one would never speak openly about how well a child was doing lest mischievous spirits overhear and visit some illness on the unfortunate babe. Perhaps we just think the universe doesn't like a braggart. Certainly I think that many in the ALP have been in opposition too long and just don't want to get their hopes up.

In any case, at the risk of jinxing it, I think we have the best chance in a decade of crowbarring the dessicated coconut off his seat, and I for one am going to maintain a sunny and optimistic attitude to the brave new Labor world that is coming. Touch wood.

Joe Hockey: "Squawk! Squawk!"

2007-10-03T10:18:00.000+10:00

Minister, methinks thou doth protest too much.

The release yesterday of the first stage Australia@Work report from the Workplace Research Centre in Sydney is a pretty damning indictment of WorkChoices. The survey of more than 8000 Australians shows that those on AWAs do more work for less money: on average, $100 per week less. It's just confirming what everybody already knows, but it's only natural that the minister should try and put some political spin on it to try and minimize the damage. His rather dishonest attempts to find statistics - any statistics - to paint a rosier picture of WorkChoices was therefore not surprising.

His direct attack on the researchers themselves, though, was a surprise, even from a political " "brawler" such as Hockey. Comments such as "former trade union officials who are parading as academics" and "I'm not sure that this institution is known for academic rigour" amount to nothing more than ad hominem attacks and do nothing if not highlight the weakness of Hockey's position. Although the study is funded partly with money from Unions NSW, it has nearly $1 million in Australian Resarch Council money; it was signed-off by the University's ethics committee, it was peer reviewed by three anonymous referees and two internal referees, and was reviewed by the full board of the ARC. Those working on the report have eight degrees including two PhDs between them. Given these facts, can anyone seriously suggest this study is a flawed exercise in Union PR hackery? To do so would be an insult to academics everywhere.

The numbers back the report's authors up. Hockey has cherry picked his own data to try and show that WorkChoices is a bonanza for the Australian worker, but now even the ABS is pouring cold water on this (from The Age):

Mr Hockey said that ABS data showed that workers on Australian Workplace Agreements "earn nearly twice as much as people on awards". Prime Minister John Howard also said that the ABS "tell us that people are better off under AWAs".

But the ABS's assistant director of labour employee surveys, Valerie Pearson, said the survey Mr Hockey had referred to "was conducted only six weeks post WorkChoices".

In fact, the only data that shows employees on AWAs earn more also shows that they work longer hours and get paid less per hour than those on collective agreements. The common sense of the Australian working public has always told them this would happen. The idea of a lowly worker entering into tough negotiations with his boss and coming out triumphant is clearly ridiculous. The numbers only confirm that WorkChoices is all about the employer, from A-Z.

The minister has a tough task defending it, but he crossed the line yesterday. He has come off as shrill, desperate and thuggish, and may even have opened himself to defamation proceedings. Thanks to the Howard government's neglect of tertiary education, universities are encouraged to pursue parternships with business and industry to secure funding for their projects. Hockey's meritless trashing of the Centre and the researchers involved has damaged their commercial reputation. The researchers know this and don't appear to be taking it lying down. Nor should they. Hockey has dug himself into a hole, and the only way out is a public apology.

I won't hold my breath.

John Howard, keeping you safe from the internet

2007-09-30T14:54:00.000+10:00

"Dear Fellow Australian...."

The ridiculous flood of taxpayer-funded advertising continues, causing (by all accounts) no shortage of bemusement in the electorate. Given the proximity to the election, Aussies are more than cynical enough to raise en eyebrow when they see the PM's face adorning a leaflet warning them about internet stalkers, and see it for the boondoggle it is. "Be afraid" is, of course, a favorite mantra of the Howard government, and all goverments everywhere. Of course the PM is willing to step in and keep you safe from the latest menace. He cares so much about you, he's willing to print a pamphlet about it, no matter how much it costs.

Don't forget to be afraid about drugs, too. As well as learning a bit about how to construct a reason to get my face into the mailboxes of Australian households, I learned a lot of names for drugs I admit not knowing before. Next time I'm discussing drugs with a teenager and they mention scoring one of these, I'll know what they are talking about. My tax dollars at work!

Miss Emma, Mister Blue, Mandies, Windowpane, Angel's Trumpet, Scotty

And here are a few terms that as far as I know are not euphisims for illegal substances, but I think should be:

Abbott & Costello, Captain Smirk, Rodent, Vanstone.

If anyone knows where I can score a baggie of grade-A Captain Smirk, let me know.

Welcome to the Blog

2007-09-30T13:40:00.000+10:00

We are a branch of the Australian Labor Party in Clayton South, Victoria, a suburb of Melbourne. We're located in the seat of Hotham. Our local member is former party leader Simon Crean. We're a very active branch and we tackle the issues with a lively debate every month. We live in an area that has traditionally been weoking class and migrant-friendly, and so we care very much about the rights of migrants and asylum seekers. spocial justice and the environment.

This blog will give some insight into the goings on in a typical (if atypically active) Labor branch . Those members who can't wait for a branch meeting are welcome to sound off here. Heaven knows the pollies give us a enough to froth about every day.