Leon Delaney

Cooking the Books

2011-02-18T23:52:00.004+11:00

Even though I am not on air at present, I cannot resist the temptation to comment on this disgrace...

Customers are furious, and staff are in fear of losing their jobs after one of Australia’s oldest and proudest retail firms was placed into the hands of administrators this week. Angus and Robertson was established in 1886 and has been an iconic part of Australian life ever since, but all that now hangs precariously in the balance as the accountants and lawyers attempt to breath life into the firm’s struggling owner, the Red Retail Group, which also controls Borders Australia. Perhaps it will be possible for the administrators to trade through the difficulties and restructure the business so that it might return to prosperity in the future, but that’s little consolation to those angry customers or those fearful employees who will now to some degree be made to pay for the mistakes of others.

That anger has been manifested most prominently by the response from customers who have been told that the gift cards they may have received for Christmas aren’t really a gift at all. Customers have been told that gift vouchers will be honored only if they are matched by an equal or greater amount of cash. In other words, if you have a Borders or Angus and Robertson gift card for $20, you can combine it with $20 cash to buy a $40 book. This grab for cash has been seen by customers as greedy, unfair and unjust. After all, they or someone they know has already paid cash to the face value of the voucher on the expectation that it will be exchanged for merchandise. It’s as if I have paid in advance for a hotel room, only to be told when I check in that I must pay again because the hotel has run out of money. It’s not my fault, and it shouldn’t be my problem. But unfortunately, gift cards are not what they appear to be.

It turns out that they are unsecured financial instruments, as determined by a Federal Government ruling, which means that they are not subject to consumer law. Instead they are governed by securities and investment law, effectively meaning that a gift card is worth less than an I. O. U. Under securities law, people who hold gift vouchers are no longer customers when a company goes broke. Instead, they become unsecured creditors and must line up behind the bankers and the lawyers before they can expect to get even one cent. In that context, the Red Group offer to redeem gift cards when presented along with a matching amount of cash could be viewed as a generous method of ensuring that customers still get value, while the company offloads some of its stock and makes a few more dollars all at the same time. But, of course, that’s not the way customers are seeing it at all. Instead, customers are outraged. And I don’t blame them… if anything, they’ve been dudded by the regulations as well as by the company.

More importantly, the damage to whatever remains of the company’s goodwill could well have a material impact on its chances for survival. By angering customers, the administrators are likely to drive them away, an outcome in which there are no winners.
If the business is to survive, it should go without saying that it will need to keep its customers happy, and hopefully even attract some new ones too. But that really just begins to touch upon the heart of the problem. Why is the company in trouble in the first place? Falling retail sales. Why are sales falling? If more people are turning to on-line sales, why are they doing that? Is it, as the company claims, a result of import restrictions and tax exemptions for on-line purchases? Or is there something else going on? The truth is that Red Group’s goodwill was already taking a beating before this debacle arrived. Comments posted on-line on the Sydney Morning Herald website have reflected customer views that Borders prices are not only more expensive than on-line competitors, but they are more expensive than bricks and mortar competitors such as K-Mart and Big W. One reader even complained that prices are higher than recommended retail.

Of course, if Amazon and E-bay can be successful, surely there’s nothing stopping Borders and Angus and Robertson from running their own on-line operation, and in fact that’s exactly what they do. So, problem solved, or so you would think. But actually, no. Even on the bold new frontier of the cyber world, Red Group retailers have been accused of failing to match the customer service of dedicated on-line operators. Prices are still not competitive, but far more importantly, deliveries are reportedly slow. While there is some substance to the claim that import restrictions disadvantage local operators, and the G. S. T. rules favour the off shore operators, that is only a part of the story. A small part, in fact, but also a clue to some of the components of a much bigger picture.

An alternative view of the downfall of the Red Group has been given by author Di Morrissey, who told John Laws on 2SM that in her view the company ran into trouble because it was badly managed. She acknowledged that there had been a downturn in book sales in traditional stores, but claimed that the decline was broadly in line with the overall retail sector. And it’s true… retail sales figures across the board have been in the doldrums ever since the Global Financial Crisis. Consumers are exhibiting a new pattern of behaviour, less likely to spend recklessly, and when they do spend they are looking for bargains more aggressively than ever. Why should it be any different with books? Consumers have become more frugal across the board, so if any business is going to persuade them to part with their hard earned dollars it will be the one offering the best value and the best service.

The contention is that, with prudent management, a good business can withstand the challenges of an economic downturn. The fact is that while all bookstores have experienced challenging conditions, not all of them are going broke. No doubt the management at Red Group is keen to find excuses and explanations such as the fall in sales and the rise in competition, but they are hardly going to blame themselves are they? So is there something wrong with the way the group has been run? Well, funny you should ask that, because it brings us to the real roots of the problem. And it’s not just Red Group that suffers from the afflictions which have landed them in the hands of the administrators.

So, just what is the Red Retail Group, and why has it run off the rails? The Red Retail Group is comprised of Angus & Robertson, along with Borders Australia, Whitcoulls New Zealand, Calendar Club, and Supanews Newsagencies. In turn, the group is owned by a so-called investment company by the name of Pacific Equity Partners. PEP is a private equity firm, which means that neither it, nor any of the companies it operates, is a publicly listed company. So far, the only explanations to have been forthcoming from management have identified a decline in profitability, blamed on a combination of increased competition from on-line sales and the increasing popularity of electronic books. On the face of it, that’s an explanation which seems to make sense. On-line retailing has experienced significant growth across the board, but it has been especially successful for books, which don’t need to be tried on for size, and which can be easily warehoused and shipped without spoilage. So-called E-books too have proven to be popular, and will only become more so as devices such as the i-pad proliferate the market. But what the management has been less vocal about is the nature of their investment and the magnitude of their debt.

Red Retail Group has reported a net loss of $43.6 million on turnover of about $580 million. Debt is said to be in excess of $130 million. On the face of it, that seems like a very large number, but does the debt explain the group’s difficulties? Well, even if an outrageous interest rate of 10% was applied it would only account for $13 million of the net loss, so it would be unreasonable to suggest that the level of debt alone is the cause of this particular disease. However, it is a symptom. While it is generally accepted that debt financing is a legitimate method of funding business activities, it is predicated on the purpose of the borrowing. The principle is that debt funding can be used to finance capital works which will be productive, it can finance stock which will be sold at a profit, and it can be used to finance the acquisition of an appreciating asset. But has anybody stopped to consider the purpose of this particular debt?

Pacific Equity Partners is not a bookselling or publishing firm. Its managers are not “book people”. They are “money people”. Pacific Equity Partners is a private equity investment company run by merchant bankers and lawyers. While you might think that a private equity firm might be in the business of simply managing the money of its wealthy clients by finding worthwhile investments for them, PEP does not exist to acquire and operate robust businesses. It exists to acquire under valued or underperforming businesses, restructure or reshape them, and then sell them to someone else, usually through a public offering and floatation on the share market. The vultures strip the carcass bare, and then fling the remains to the Wall Street wolves. Or in this case Bridge Street in Sydney, but that just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

In order to achieve this, a private equity operator will usually seek to cut costs by restructuring a company, reducing staff, and gouging suppliers. They will then seek to maximize returns either by driving up volume with aggressive marketing and sometimes discounting, or alternatively by increasing margins by pushing prices up. Note that none of these strategies are in fact sustainable over the long term, and therefore none of these strategies are conducive to building a robust business which will thrive in the good times and survive in the down times. But that is not important to the private equity operator, because his goal is to artificially inflate the perceived value of the asset so that it can be sold to unsuspecting punters at the highest possible price, lining the pockets of the private equity operators and their wealthy clients. They have absolutely no stake whatsoever in the long term viability of any such business, and they care even less about the customers who keep that business alive.

The point is that one of the factors, and perhaps the most significant one, contributing to the demise of the Red Retail Group is this agenda to plunder the company of its value in order to enrich the bankers, the wankers, and the lawyers, at the expense of job security and income security for employees and without any regard for actually serving the customers. That’s because in their view, the people buying books at Borders are not their customers. Their real customers are themselves and their financial backers. Of course the glaring weakness in this whole business model is that it relies on UNNECESSARY debt to finance it. The whole trouble is that these modern day buccaneers have not simply reached into their own back pockets to purchase what is an otherwise perfectly good company. They have borrowed the money to buy the company, and it is the company which must shoulder the burden of that debt, even though the company did not require the funds for operational purposes. In short, the company is made to suffer for the benefit of the privateers.

In fact, these corporate hyenas should not be permitted to call themselves “private equity” firms in the first place, because the bulk of the money they use is not equity at all. It’s debt. But of course, calling yourself a “private debt company” just doesn’t have the right kind of sound to it, does it? The amazing thing is that this has all happened before. Does anybody remember the eighties? Gordon Gekko… anybody? Back in those days the smart thing to do was to put together what was known as a “Leveraged Buy Out” or LBO. It was, to all intents and purposes the exact same thing. Anybody who did not have enough money to buy a company simply borrowed somebody else’s money to do it. Then, as now, everything was fine while assets kept appreciating and the market kept rising. Then, as now, everything turned to a particularly lumpy kind of custard when the market took a tumble. You would think that people would learn, but apparently it is enough to get rid of the word “leveraged”, which is after all a dead giveaway about what you’re up to, and simply call the same thing a “private equity investment” instead.

The whole process has been demonstrated over and over again to be something akin to pyramid marketing or the aeroplane game, where it is possible for a handful of shysters to make truckloads of cash relatively quickly, but the dupes who are left holding the bag risk finding nothing left in it for them. But don’t just take my word for it, look at the track record. Texas Pacific Group did it to Myer. They cut staff numbers, destroyed customer service, flogged off the shares at almost $4 each, and today you’d be lucky to sell them for $3.30. And as for Pacific Equity Partners, well they also have runs on the board. One of their most infamous misadventures was the aborted LBO, sorry private equity takeover of Qantas in 2007. Of course, they were just small players in a much larger syndicate run by Macquarie Bank and Texas Pacific Group, but they had a seat at the table ready to push their snouts into the trough.

The attempted takeover of Qantas is a fascinating tale of greed on a grand scale, which, if successful, would have destroyed the company Australians have held dear for so many decades. Even today, I believe, some of the current challenges confronting the airline stem from that debacle. It was only saved because the deal collapsed after institutional shareholders became reluctant to sell out. Shortly after, the Global Financial Crisis ravaged the world and put an end to any possibility that the deal could ever be revived. At the time however, the pirates, sorry the private equity consortium, were offering $5.45 a share. Today Qantas shares closed at $2.54. Just imagine what would have happened to a consortium which had borrowed billions of dollars to pay for a company which subsequently lost more than half its value… It makes you feel sick in the stomach when you think about it. The heritage, the tradition, the pride, all gone on a whim. But far worse than any of that, the jobs of thousands could have been lost.

Sadly, even though Qantas was spared a horrible death, its employees still confront a new world of demands for productivity increases in the face of shrinking wages. In 2006, during the lead up to the private equity bid, Geoff Dixon, then the C. E. O. of Qantas, said “All legacy airlines suffer from the burden of inflated 20th-century cost structures, especially labour costs”. There is no other way to interpret this remark than to believe that it says people are paid too much. That view remains prevalent in the corporate world, with employees considered to be nothing more than an inconvenient expense, rather than a productive asset. Companies are no longer considered to be corporate bodies which serve the interests of their constituent members; rather they serve only their owners… a particularly feudal view of the world.

While it is a sad sight to see a once great Australian icon such as Angus and Robertson at risk of disappearing, or at least falling into disrepute, it is symptomatic of a much deeper flaw in modern business philosophy. It is a philosophy which says that the customer does not come first, that a fair day’s work does not deserve a fair day’s pay, and which falsely assumes that people who are good at managing money are automatically good at managing everything else. It is a corporate philosophy which ultimately must fail, for it cannot be sustained while increasing numbers of stakeholders, employees and consumers, are disenfranchised. It is not possible to run a consumer economy unless you have consumers… or perhaps that’s the whole idea. Perhaps we are entering the era of 21st Century feudalism, where we are all beholden to corporations one way or another, unless we are among the lucky few who actually own them.

So, if you’ve been wondering why Angus and Robertson, Borders, and the others are going down the gurgler, it’s not just because of on-line competition. It’s not just because of the G. S. T. And it’s not just because people are spending less. If that were true, they would all be going broke. No, it’s because the people who are running the business don’t really understand the business. It’s because the people who are running the business are not doing so for the right reasons, with the right motivation, or the right approach to delivering customer service. They have borrowed $130 million and assumed that somebody else will pay. Even the name of the company is surely some sort of joke: why on earth would they call it the Red Retail Group when we all know that red ink means bad news? They don’t care about saving the business, they only care about saving their own bacon.

They’re not in the business of selling books, they’re in the business of cooking them.

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T11:04:00.002+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part Eight.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T10:58:00.003+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part Seven.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T10:52:00.003+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part Six.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T10:42:00.003+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part Five.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T10:39:00.003+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part Four.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T10:26:00.003+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part Three.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T10:14:00.004+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part Two.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Leon Delaney Show

2011-01-16T10:04:00.006+11:00

2003 to 2010: A few of the best bits...
Part One.
From politicians to pop stars, preachers to plain everyday people, you never know just who might pop up on the Leon Delaney Show. It might even be you...

The Meaning Of Christmas

2010-12-24T14:18:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 24.12.10.
Here we are at the end of anther year, and it’s time once again to share wishes of peace and goodwill to all men and women. It’s time to celebrate with family and friends, and it’s time to spare a thought and maybe some loose change for those who are less fortunate. It’s time to try hard not to eat and drink too much, and if we don’t fully succeed, then it will no doubt be time for a Christmas afternoon nap. It is time to reflect upon the year that has passed and to look forward to the year ahead. And it’s a good time to remember the true reason for Christmas.

Now before anybody goes and gets all politically correct on me and starts worrying about possibly offending people of different religions, or perhaps none at all, let me point out that you don’t actually have to be Christian to appreciate the true spirit of the season. Whether we choose to follow Jesus or not, his simple instruction to “love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another” is one that any of us can accept. That’s why I have always finished my program with a little bit of advice about all of us taking care of each other.

No matter whether you are Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or none of the above, it is advice which can help us to better our lives, and the lives of those around us. To see so many misguided members of the politically correct brigade trying to stamp out that message for fear of offending someone is itself offensive, and is one of the most disappointing aspects of celebrating Christmas each year. But people of good will who belong to every faith should reject such nonsense and simply share in each other’s joy.

Now that the year is coming to a close, I must also thank you for listening to my radio program each day. For the past seven years I have presented the morning show from 9am until midday on 2SM and on network stations. It has been a fun, fabulous, frantic, and sometimes frightening rollercoaster ride, talking to all sorts of people, ranging Prime Ministers to pop stars, to everyday people like you. Thank you for listening, and being part of the show, and thank you for all the phone calls and the emails.

Merry Christmas, and until next time, take care of yourself. But more importantly, let’s all remember to take care of each other because in the end “each other” is all we ever really have.

Last Minute Shopping

2010-12-23T13:33:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 23.12.10.
All right, own up. Have you done your Christmas shopping yet? Apparently, according to the Australian National Retailers Association, one in five Australians do their shopping in the final week. And it’s men who are more likely to be making the mad dash with a survey done last year showing 40% of men leave their Christmas shopping until the last minute. Behavioural experts claim that men consider shopping, including Christmas shopping, to be just another task, like mowing the lawn, and either avoid it for as long as possible until it simply has to be done, or approach it with a “grab it and go” mentality. Women, it would seem, are more likely to get started on their shopping ahead of time, and might well spread the process out over several days or even weeks.

Either way, if you are brave enough to venture into the shops in the last couple of days before Christmas you are likely to encounter big crowds, and have difficulty finding a parking space. There is a sense of urgency as time runs out to find the perfect gift for that someone special, and the mood of the crowd is best described as frantic. It’s enough to make you question your own sanity for being a part of it all. In fact, that same survey that showed men to be more likely to be last minute shoppers also showed that they were likely to regret not having done it earlier. I guess that it just goes to show that men can be irrational after all.

So, this Christmas, I made the decision to learn from the past, and to take action. No more procrastinating, no more excuses, I would definitely do my Christmas shopping early this year, and get it all done so that I can relax and enjoy the season. And that’s exactly what I’m doing. In fact, I’m off to the shops right now to get it all done today, instead of leaving it until tomorrow. I feel so much better now.

Just Another Dodgy Decision

2010-12-22T13:13:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 22.12.10.
Nobody much likes the New South Wales government. Nobody much trusts it either. So it’s no great surprise to find that the Premier has decided to prorogue the parliament, that is, to shut down all parliamentary business, in an apparent effort to close down an enquiry into the controversial electricity assets sale. The enquiry, initiated by the Opposition, had been set to commence in January and was to deliver its findings on the 5th of March just three weeks before the election. However, today’s decision means that no parliamentary business can be conducted until after the election, even though it is still three months and four days away.

It’s a blatant and cynical move to shut up the critics and prevent any damaging findings emerging during the election campaign, but simply pulling the rug out from under the enquiry isn’t going to fool the people of New South Wales, or stop them from questioning the wisdom of the electricity sell off. It is not going to stop public criticism and condemnation of a deal which has satisfied no-one other than the government itself, and presumably the purchasers of the assets. On the contrary, voters are likely to see this move as just one more dodgy decision from a government that they no longer trust.

The $50 Billion Entertainment System

2010-12-21T13:54:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 21.12.10.
Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has responded to the release of the National Broadband Network Business Case by asking “do we really want to invest $50 billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money in what is essentially a video entertainment system?” Of course, the reality is that the Network will actually do a whole lot more than just become a video entertainment system, and the cost to the federal budget will not be $50 billion. In any case, the investment is projected to start showing a profit in just over ten years, so there will actually be a return on investment for the taxpayer over time. Nonetheless, it is still a legitimate question to ask if we are spending too much on a network we don’t need.

To take the second part first, there is no question that Australia desperately needs to have a network upgrade to deliver 21st century technology to as much of the population as possible, so the debate has really been about how much capacity is required. The network is promised to deliver connection speeds of 100 megabits per second, although the business plan acknowledges that ten years from now only about one third of customers will actually choose to use that much. Instead, most are expected to opt for the slower and cheaper 12 megabits per second service. Even then, there are some who are concerned that as the network replaces the old Telstra wires they will be forced to pay more for something which exceeds their requirements.

The fact is that over the last twenty years, internet speeds have gone from about a thousand bits per second for anyone actually able to access the net back then, up to eight million bits per second or even more for many home users today. At the same time, consumer expectations have increased just as dramatically as connection speeds. That being the case, it is only reasonable to assume that both speed and customer expectations will continue to increase over the next twenty years. Just because 100 megabits per second exceeds most people’s needs, doesn’t mean that will be the case in twenty years time, or even ten when the network is completed. Far from being in excess of our future needs, I believe that the planned network reflects the likely continued growth in demand.

As for whether we are paying too much, surely the real question is whether we can afford not to make the investment in this essential 21st Century infrastructure. While some might describe the network as an expensive video entertainment system, it is the impact on commerce, education and health that will really justify the investment. While the price tag appears to be very large indeed, the money will generate jobs for the next ten years, and at the end of it all there will be another huge public asset just waiting to be privatised. When that happens, it will make the sale of Telstra look like a lamington drive, and return a cavalcade of cash to government coffers.

Just What Are These Clowns Getting Paid For?

2010-12-20T13:43:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 20.12.10.
The Federal Government has today unveiled draft legislation aimed at giving shareholders more power to influence executive salaries, which have been the subject of much criticism in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis. Of course, Australian salaries have not seen the same excesses as those that occurred in the United States, and Australian banks and financial institutions have not suffered from the same management failures, but all the same, executive remuneration, especially within the banks, has grown far in excess of ordinary wages. So much so, that many people consider them to be greedy, and out of step with community expectations, and up until now, shareholders have been virtually powerless to do anything about it.

Currently, shareholders have a non-binding vote on the remuneration report at the annual general meeting. It provides an opportunity for shareholders to express their disapproval of salary packages which they believe to be excessive, but little else. Under the proposed reform however, a “no” vote exceeding 25% of shareholders in two successive years will trigger the opportunity for a further vote to vacate the positions on the board of directors. What this means is that if directors cannot justify their remuneration decisions to their shareholders, there will at least be a mechanism allowing the shareholders to replace those directors. It’s a level of accountability which should have existed all along, because in the end it is the shareholders who have put their capital at risk.

While many have called for executive salaries to be regulated or in some way restricted, it is better to allow companies to make their own decisions, so long as they remain accountable to their owners. It’s easy to suggest that multi million dollar salaries are excessive, but the real question has to be by what standard? If an executive is doing a great job, increasing company profits, expanding market share, creating employment, and delivering dividends to shareholders, there is no reason that he or she should not be paid well. How well should remain a matter for the company to determine, no some government agency.

On the other hand, when a company performs badly, losing value in the market place, cutting jobs, and delivering disappointing returns to the shareholders, surely there is a need to ask just what are these clowns getting paid for? Too many times we have seen high flying executives appointed to Australian companies, and paid enormous salaries, only to see the company decimated and the executive paid even more millions just to go away and stop causing trouble. It is this sort of bad decision making for which boards should be held accountable.

And now perhaps they will, at least a little more than they have been.

21st Century Feudalism

2010-12-17T13:38:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 17.12.10.
The 2010 household survey by the Independent Pricing And Regulatory Tribunal shows that 16% of low income families are having difficulty paying their electricity bills. That’s not exactly surprising, but it is rather surprising to learn that this is the case even though average consumption of electricity has fallen by 6% over the last four years. It’s even more alarming to consider that the figure for low income families with a mortgage is 53%. That means that any further increase in interest rates is going to have a dramatic impact on the ability of those people to pay their bills. But even without any change to interest rates, the one thing we can count on is that electricity prices will continue to rise, putting more and more pressure on people who are already stretched.

The problem has become so bad that people who have already done everything they can to reduce their consumption, turning off lights, abandoning airconditioners and dishwashers, upgrading to low consumption appliances, and eating less hot food, are still seeing their power bills go up, not down. And despite all of the advice from government agencies about the need for investment in the renewal of the infrastructure, nobody can really understand why? Power company executives are getting big juicy salaries, driving around in big fancy cars, and the energy providers are delivering big juicy dividends to the government, so why are the people who can least afford it being asked to pay so much, even though they are actually using less power?

Despite the promise that privatisation will create competition and deliver better deals, nobody actually believes it. Most people expect that privatisation will only lead to price increases as the new purchasers of the assets seek, quite rightly, to achieve a return on their investment. Then of course, there is the expectation that climate change policy will lead to either an emissions trading scheme or a carbon tax, pushing power prices up even further. And to cap it all off, most of us lack the expertise to decipher our power bills anyway, so it’s difficult to determine whether we are being billed correctly anyway, leading to the suspicion that power companies, like banks and the oil companies, are all just taking us for a ride.

Something about all this just doesn’t add up. Every other form of technology gets cheaper as it evolves and becomes more efficient. A pocket calculator in the seventies would have cost you hundreds of dollars, now you can buy a whole computer for the same money, despite the fact that inflation has made the money worth less. So why is the technology of power production getting more and more expensive? Surely, over the decades, we should have been getting better and more efficient at it, so that energy in the 21st century would be cheap as chips. Sure, there are costs involved in developing new technology, and we tend to use more energy than previous generations, but it’s easy to develop a suspicion that consumers are becoming 21st century feudal serfs, lured into a state of perpetual indebtedness to big corporations.

It’s Time To Honour Our Promise

2010-12-16T13:38:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 16.12.10.
There seems to be a number of people lining up to blame Julia Gillard and the federal Labor government for at least contributing to conditions which led to the tragedy at Christmas Island yesterday. On the one hand, newspaper columnist Andrew Bolt is demanding the resignation of the Prime Minister, accusing her government of having blood on its hands because of what he calls the relaxation of asylum seeker policy. It is his view that “Even before yesterday, up to 170 people had been lured to their deaths by the Government’s dismantling of John Howard’s ‘Pacific Solution’, scrapping temporary protection visas and softening mandatory detention rules.”

On the other hand, refugee activist Ian Rintoul of the Refugee Action Coalition has also blamed the Gillard government for causing the tragedy through what he describes as its “anti-refugee policy”. He says, “… the blame lies with the Australian government. If the Australian government was willing to properly process asylum seekers in Indonesia and resettle successful refugees in Australia, then far fewer people would get on boats to travel to Australia.” In contrast to Andrew Bolt, Mr. Rintoul is saying that the government’s policies are too harsh, and ironically both are claiming that the current policy is to blame, even if for opposite reasons.

The truth is that they are both right up to a point. The current policy represents a diabolical compromise between being compassionate to people in need and being tough on border security, and this kind of disaster is perhaps more likely in such a policy environment. Mr. Bolt may be correct in that if we simply shut our border completely and refuse to allow anyone to enter in this manner then it is less likely that anyone would try. But that would involve abrogating our responsibility, and our promise to help those in need. However, Mr. Rintoul is also right to say that if there was an effective and orderly process for dealing with asylum seekers both here and in Indonesia then there would be no need for anyone to undertake the dangerous sea voyage in order to seek asylum.

The difference is that choosing to follow Mr. Bolt’s advice would simply push the refugee problem beyond our borders. It would perhaps placate anyone of the view that it is all someone else’s problem, and so long as people are not dying on our doorstep, it’s okay if they are dying somewhere else. It is a case of out of sight, out of mind. It ignores not only the obligation that Australia has accepted by being a signatory to the United Nations Convention on Refugees, but also the reasons why our nation chose to make that obligation in the first place.

But this tragedy did happen on our doorstep, and it serves as a reminder of our own hypocrisy as a nation which claims to believe in a fair go, but then labels asylum seekers as “queue jumpers”. We have the policy we do because our government has cobbled together a patchwork policy which tries to appease a broad array of disparate opinions, while failing to actually stand for any identifiable principle. Australia could easily double its intake of recognised refugees with no adverse effects on our own wellbeing, and yet we have a policy which panders to a myopic fortress mentality because there might be a few votes in it.

It’s time for someone to be brave enough to do the right thing and radically change our approach to the asylum seeker challenge. It’s time to assess the claims of potential refugees before they leave Indonesia. It’s time to get people who have been proven not to be a security risk out of detention centres. It’s time to honour our promise to offer dignity and safety to those who are fleeing the oppression and persecution that we claim to denounce and despise. Unfortunately, none of our current politicians seem to have that sort of courage.

So Much For Democracy.

2010-12-15T13:19:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 15.12.10.
After a saga stretching over many years, beginning with the failed proposals of Premier Bob Carr, through the political demise of Premier Morris Iemma and the subsequent revolving door on the Premier’s office, the New South Wales Government has finally sold off its interests in the electricity sector. Sort of. The energy retailers along with some of the generating trading rights have been sold off to Origin Energy and TRUenergy, while negotiations to sell the remaining gen-traders are expected to be completed in the reasonably near future. That means the state still owns the actually generators even though the private sector will be buying and selling the power that they generate, and the state also continues to own the poles and wires. In the end, it is a deal which seems to have satisfied no-one but the government and presumably the purchasers.

Opponents, including the state opposition parties, the unions, some industry analysts, consumer groups, and a fair chunk of the general population fear that the assets have been sold too cheaply at a poor time when the market confronts significant uncertainty, and that the result will be higher prices for consumers. While it’s tempting to suggest that since the government has been such a colossal failure at managing the sector that things can only get better now that private enterprise is about to step in, that simply isn’t the case. One of the reasons the government has been so keen to unload the business has been the need for massive new investment to renew the infrastructure. However, the structure of this deal still leaves the bulk of the physical infrastructure in government hands, while somebody else makes money out of it.

It also means that private operators driven by the profit imperative have the motivation to (a) increase prices, (b) reduce service standards to cut costs, and (c) cut jobs for the same reason. It means that consumers will have to put up with more desperate sales people knocking on the door in the early evening trying to sign them up to change providers, whether they want to or not. And it means that the New South Wales government will pocket about $5.3 billion, which sounds good until you compare it with the $20 billion which was bandied about a few years ago, or even the $10 billion suggested while Nathan Rees was Premier. Of course, it’s possible that the government might actually do something useful with that $5.3 billion, but judging by past performance I wouldn’t count on it.

In fact , when you consider the extraordinary amounts of money wasted on things like the Sydney Metro debacle, profligate waste of the federal funds for the B. E. R. schools program, and just about everything else the New South Wales government has done, I’d be surprised if we ever see a penny of that money put into anything that actually amounts to anything. But the sad reality is that for the significant number of people who believe that public utilities should rightly remain publicly owned assets, there is no longer any political party which will support that view.

So much for democracy.

Oprah Oprah Oprah! Oi! Oi! Oi!

2010-12-14T13:15:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 14.12.10.
She came, she saw, and she captured the imagination of millions. If anybody is still criticising the fuss and expense of welcoming the Oprah Winfrey whirlwind to Australia, their sniping has been completely drowned out by the adulating roar of the masses. 6000 fans assembled in front of the Oprah House today for the taping of two television shows to be screened next month. Samples of the event have already been broadcast showing the overwhelming enthusiasm of the crowd, and the unbridled exuberance of Oprah herself as she arrived on the stage. After leading a spirited chant of Aussie Aussie Aussie, Oi Oi Oi, Oprah declared that she now knows why we call our land “Oz”, as it truly is at the end of the yellow brick road.

Of course, it is show biz, and it is all very carefully stage managed, but there is no doubt that the enthusiasm is genuine. Equally, there can be no doubt that the positive publicity for Australia that will reach millions of people, not only in the United States, but around the world is likely to exceed even the wildest expectations of Tourism Australia, the agency which helped to make it all happen. Far from being a waste of taxpayer dollars, as some have suggested, the contribution from Tourism Australia is the best money they have spent since Paul Hogan was throwing another shrimp on the barbie.

It’s not just the impact of the Oprah seal of approval, which in it self can make or break businesses, but the opportunity for an audience of hundreds of millions worldwide to see the best of Australia on show. From Uluru to the Great Barrier Reef, to a back yard barbie in Earlwood, this will probably turn out to be the best travelogue ever made. In fact, the two hours of television which result from this escapade will deliver vastly more bang for the buck than the $120 million that it cost for Baz Lurhmann to make his “Australia” motion picture, and will probably be a damn sight more entertaining too.

A Better Deal? Don’t Bank On It!

2010-12-13T13:36:00.003+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 13.12.10.
Well, after many weeks of anticipation, the federal government’s banking reform plan has been announced over the weekend by Treasurer Wayne Swan. While the wrappings have finally come off the package, there are no real surprises in what the government has put forward, including the most widely anticipated step: the abolition of mortgage exit fees. In fact, this move was so widely expected that some banks had already removed their fees in anticipation over the past couple of months. This, along with a proposal to make mortgage insurance portable, is intended to give consumers greater freedom to “go down the road”, as Treasurer Swan put it, and take their business elsewhere.

In theory, if it is easier for customers to abandon one bank and move to another in search of a better deal, it should result in greater competition between the banks. This should result in all banks giving their customers better service and keener rates. It’s an argument that would seem to make sense, but is it really likely to achieve such a result? Well, that depends. Many people are cynical enough to suspect that if banks are forced to abandon exit fees, they will simply find another way to replace the money they would have otherwise collected. That might come in the form of increased application fees, or higher establishment fees, or bigger account service fees. Or even a higher interest rate.

Of course, the move against exit fees is only one of the range of measures announced yesterday, and things are never quite as simple as they might first appear. Removing exit fees will help make it easier for people to change mortgages, and the other measures will mean that customers are better informed, and that banks and other institutions will be able to access more sources of funding. Consumer protection has been strengthened, and transparency has been improved. But none of that guarantees that customers will actually get a better deal. It doesn’t mean that loans will necessarily be any cheaper or easier to obtain in the first place.

And it certainly doesn’t do anything to guarantee that interest rates will be any lower.

If Kevin Was Scared, He Was Right.

2010-12-10T13:26:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 10.12.10.
Is it really any surprise that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd admitted to American officials that the outlook in Afghanistan “scares the hell out of me”? Today’s Sydney Morning Herald has chosen to misquote that observation to create the sensational headline “Rudd: Scared
As Hell”. It’s a spin which is not an accurate representation of what was actually said in the leaked diplomatic cable. It is a headline which appears to be designed to give the impression of a fearful man pathetically cowering in the corner, whereas the original statement that the situation in Afghanistan “scares the hell out of me” means something else altogether. It is a commonly used colloquially turn of phrase which does not necessarily mean that the individual concerned is literally scared.

Even so, wouldn’t it make sense to have just a little trepidation about the potential for disaster in Afghanistan? In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that anyone who was in full possession of the facts about Afghanistan who was not at least a little apprehensive would have their sanity in doubt. If anything, the observations revealed in today’s instalment of the Wikileaks saga would seem to indicate that out then Prime Minister had a fairly good grasp of the seriousness of the situation, as well as pretty clear idea about the effectiveness of the strategies of the various nations involved in the conflict. If Kevin Rudd was at all afraid of everything turning to custard in Afghanistan, it’s hard to see how he was wrong.

The nature of the mission in Afghanistan is such that Australia has been dragged into a “Catch 22” situation. There was never any doubt that Australia should be a part of the effort to overthrow the Taliban and confront the threat of Al Qaeda, partly because of our alliance with the United States, but also because Australia has just as much interest in defeating terrorism as our allies do. The problem has been in the strategies employed to accomplish that mission, and in the evolving nature of the conflict. The mission now is not the same as it was when it began, but that doesn’t make it any easier to simply abandon it.

Regardless of anything exposed by the Wikileaks drama, there is still a serious challenge confronting both Australia and the United States in attempting find a lasting resolution in Afghanistan. Denying the extent of that challenge and branding Wikileaks as a terrorist organisation isn’t going to help in any way to achieve that. In fact, it’s a convenient distraction for those who have been responsible for making a mess of it to hide behind. Real terrorists are those who randomly kill and maim innocent people in the pursuit of often irrational ideological goals which do not recognise or respect the rights of others. By any definition, what Wikileaks has done is not terrorism or even aiding terrorism.

In contrast, those calling for Julian Assange to be executed are in truth revealing themselves to be dangerously close to the dictionary definition of the word terrorism: “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.”

Just Who Is Running Our Country?

2010-12-09T13:40:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 09.12.10.
When the Wikileaks scandal began to unfold, Prime Minister Julia Gillard referred to Julian Assange as a criminal and described the Wikileaks website as illegal. Later, she said that the “foundation stone” of the affair was the illegal leaking of the original documents. Now she says that the publication of the documents is “grossly irresponsible”. At first, Attorney General Robert McClelland said that Australia was assisting the American Government with their investigation of the leaks. Now, the Foreign Affairs Kevin Rudd, himself something fo a victim of unflattering revelations, has finally laid the blame where it belongs: the United States government itself.

Mr Rudd said in an interview with Reuters, "Mr. Assange is not himself responsible for the unauthorised release of 250,000 documents from the US diplomatic communications network. The Americans are responsible for that." In a few short days, our government has gone from labeling Mr. Assange as a criminal to the vastly different position of pinning the blame on the Americans for not keeping the documents sufficiently secure in the first place. In the face of questions over just what it means to be an Australian citizen, Mr. Rudd has found it necessary to reassure Australians that Mr. Assange is receiving the appropriate level of consular assistance from his own government.

And while we have a strong and close friendship with the United States, today’s revelations of just how close the relationship is between some of our politicians and the American consular staff raise the question of just who do our elected representatives represent? Senator Mark Arbib, one-time faceless man and current Federal Minister, is described today by the Sydney Morning Herald as a “Yank in our ranks” thanks to the revelation that he has been a long term secret conduit of inside information described by the Americans as a “protected source”, meaning that his identity was to be kept confidential.

What does this mean? Is he representing the people who have elected him? Or is he effectively an agent of the Americans, who may be very close friends, but let us not forget are in fact a foreign power? If Mr. Arbib has been having discussions with American representatives and reporting back all the details to our own authorities, that’s one thing; but if the traffic of information has been a one way street, that is getting dangerously close to espionage. It really is enough to make you ask just who is running our country: our government or the Americans?

And speaking of the Americans, there can be little doubt that some of them would love to get their hands onto Julian Assange to make some sort of scapegoat out of him for having embarrassed them so greatly. The smirk on Defence Secretary Robert Gates’ face when given the news of the arrest of Mr. Assange was enough to send chills down the spine. I’ve said it before, and it’s worth saying again: for a nation which is founded upon the principles of individual freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and freedom of belief, the United States seems to so easily forget just what it is supposed to stand for.

Hopefully, Australia won’t make the same mistake just because some of our politicians have been embarrassed.

The Patron Saint of Free Speech?

2010-12-08T13:13:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 08.12.10.
The exponentially disproportionate condemnation of Wikileaks and its founder Julian Assange emanating from the United States government and its allies has become so strident as to prompt the simple question “why?” While his arrest has been based upon the allegations of sexual misconduct in Sweden, there is little doubt that the intensity of the effort to pursue and capture him has been driven by the Wikileaks episode. It’s easy to believe that his supporters may be correct when they claim that the charges are politically motivated, and are nothing more than an attempt to ensnare Mr. Assange in a process which will ultimately see him delivered to the jurisdiction of the United States, where some consider him to be such a threat to national security that he should be killed. If there is a genuine allegation of any sexual offence, it should of course be investigated and dealt with. However, that is a completely separate matter from the release of classified United States diplomatic documents.

So why are the United States and her allies so angry at an individual who is after all only the middle man. It was not Julian Assange who actually leaked the documents in the first place. He has merely published the contents, just as countless newspapers and media outlets around the world have done countless times before. If, instead of giving the material to Wikileaks, the original leaker put all the documents in a big cardboard box and sent it to the Washington Post, wouldn’t the Post have done exactly the same thing? Of course, the Post, or any other media outlet, would have fallen upon the material with great glee and enthusiastically examined it, harvesting every salaciaous story it could from the contents. And if Wikileaks is in some way out of order in publishing the material, isn’t every other media outlet in the world also out of order for endlessly republishing it?

The great irony of course is that Western democracy in general, and especially the United States, is supposed to be founded upon principles of freedom which include freedom of speech. In fact, the Americans make such a big deal about free speech that it is specifically protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution, along with the freedom of the press. By both standards, Julian Assange has done nothing more than exercise his right to speak freely and to publish. And yet the nation which not only claims to defend freedom and individual rights, but was actually founded upon those principles, is the very same nation which is so aggrieved by the idea than anyone might actually have the audacity to exercise those rights.

The reality, however, is a little different. Mr. Assange and his organisation have angered a significant number of very powerful people, and that is always a dangerous thing to do. Further, it is clear that he can expect very little support from the established media, partly because substantial sections of it are very cosy with the authorities, and partly because old media interests tend to view the so called new media as a major threat to their own existence. Traditional media is struggling to remain relevant and viable in the face of citizen journalism and social media, while also wrestling with their own attempts to make the transition into the digital world. While he has a large number of supporters, and some of them are also powerful and influential, even they may be powerless to help him.

Even if we choose to view Mr. Assange as the patron saint of free speech, there is a real risk that he will become a martyr in the process.

Service Should Be The Selling Point

2010-12-07T14:07:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 07.12.10.
With Christmas fast approaching it has been suggested that more Australians than ever before might be tempted to do their shopping on line. There’s a number of reasons why people would do so, including the buoyant Australian dollar trading close enough to one for one with the once mighty US buck, the relative ease of shopping from your own lounge room, and the increasing confidence people have with on-line transactions as they become a common feature of modern life. E-bay has become a household name, and for some people a way of life, and off shore retailers are making the most of the opportunities presented by cyberspace. And while there are bargains to be had, customer numbers will no doubt continue to grow.

It’s no wonder then that local retailers are starting to become disgruntled. The big stores, represented by the Australian National Retailers Association, are campaigning for shoppers to keep their dollars here in Australia, ringing Australian cash registers, and supporting Australian jobs. Many retailers are also calling upon the government to find a way to impose the GST on internet purchases so that the traditional retailers are not disadvantaged. Some of them, such as Bernie Brookes at Myer and Gerry Harvey at Harvey Norman, have proposed to set up their own off-shore operations at the expense of their own stores in order to compete.

But, is online shopping really a threat to our big retailers, or is there something else going on? While the tax issue might give the off shore operators some slight advantage, surely you would have to think that postage or freight costs would offset that benefit. While there is something attractive about shopping from the comfort of your own home, it can also be an inconvenience when you cannot actually hold an item in your hands or try on a piece of clothing before making a decision to purchase. And then there is the time spent waiting for delivery as opposed to the instant satisfaction of taking the item at the point of sale the moment you hand over your cash. And of course, if there is a problem with the item, it can be difficult to return, and even more difficult to demand a refund, when you have bought it on-line from the other side of the world.

Keeping all this in mind, is it possible that our local retailers have missed the point? Could it be that they should really be asking themselves about their standards of customer service and their price competitiveness? I have been to one of the big electrical stores with a warrantee problem and they were no help at all, sending me away to deal direct with the manufacturer. I was literally no better off than I would have been if I had bought the item on-line. I have purchased a watch on-line from Florida and paid $220 Australian dollars for a well known brand name item which would have cost me $695 or more at the big department stores here in Australia. That’s not a price difference that can be blamed on the GST, and it means that Australian Retailers need to lift their game.

Regardless of anything else, on-line shopping isn’t going to go away. Traditional retailers are going to have to find a way to co-exist successfully. That means playing to their strengths and using the advantages that they clearly have over their competitors. It’s time that the big retailers remembered that their physical presence in the marketplace is actually a competitive advantage, not a liability, because it gives them the ability to deliver vastly superior service. Once they realise that, and start to make customers feel welcome again, I’m certain that they will find a way to survive, and perhaps even to thrive.

So Where’s The Christmas Spirit?

2010-12-06T13:32:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 06.12.10.
It’s just under three weeks until Christmas, and the festive season is about to get into full swing. Christmas parties are looming, the mad rush top the shops to buy presents for family and friends, and of course the rising tide of Christmas cheer when total strangers are actually nice to each other and wish each other a “Merry Christmas”. Only, I’m a bit worried about the whole “peace on Earth and goodwill toward all men” thing. What with apparently random shootings on the Gold Coast, newspaper headlines screaming about international tensions, renewed concerns about the impact of violent computer games making young people more aggressive, and a friend of mine reporting an incident where she was threatened by an angry motorist, it seems that “good will” is a little thin on the ground.

Have we really evolved into a more violent, aggressive, and obnoxious society, fuelled by an elevated sense of entitlement and disregard, and reflected in the increasingly ghoulish violence of our predominant cultural art forms in movies, television and electronic games? It is certainly easy to believe that courtesy and manners have long since been rendered extinct by a wave of abusive language and behaviour which now seems to be accepted as normal, at least in some sectors of the community. In fact, it can even be a stretch to call it a community anymore when so many people seem to be so rabidly anti-social.

While it can be all too easy to become fearful for the future in the face of senseless acts of aggression, it is important to keep them in perspective. Most of us want nothing more than to be treated with the same consideration that we are happy to show others. Most of us are equally mortified when this doesn’t happen. Most of us are able to watch a movie or a television show about a murder mystery without becoming murderers ourselves. But as always, it is the minority who attract the attention. It is because hideous behaviour is the exception rather than the rule that it stands out so much, and gets reported on the front pages.

The truth is the majority of motorists just want to get to where they are going without any drama, children are still influenced more by their parents’ behaviour than by any other factor, and decent people still don’t go around shooting random strangers. So if the Christmas Spirit seems to be a little difficult to find just now, it’s probably because we are paying too much attention to the things which are going wrong, and not enough to the things which are going right. It’s not enough to complain about the world becoming a more unfriendly place without being prepared to become a little less unfriendly ourselves.

As always, if we really want to find the Christmas spirit, we have to look within ourselves.

They Don’t Know What They’re Missing

2010-12-03T13:21:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 03.12.10.
Like many people I never really expected that Australia would win the bid to host the World Cup of Football in 2022, but I did expect that our bid would at least receive strong support. After all, the competing nations were the United States, Japan, South Korea, Qatar and Australia. Of those, I believed the bid would most likely go the United States or Japan, possibly South Korea, and perhaps Australia would come second or third in the vote. And there was, I believed, a genuine chance that we might actually pull it off and win. But to discover now that the Australian bid only received one vote in the first round is something of a shock.

What were they thinking? Here we are, the best country in the world, with the best climate in the world, home to some of the best players in the world, and with the proven experience of staging the best Olympics ever, and yet the executives of FIFA have simply brushed us aside. Qatar, on the other hand, has very few players and fans, and even fewer facilities, and is so hot that entire stadia will have to be air conditioned to stop people from dropping dead in the heat. It is such a bizarre outcome that it can only heighten concerns about the nature of the whole bidding process, which have ranged from collusion through to outright corruption.

While many people might debate the benefits of hosting such a massive event, with some insisting that it would have been too big, too expensive, and of little benefit to Australia, the fact is that Australia would have mounted a magnificent World Cup. It’s disappointing to have lost out, and insulting to have been given just one vote, but in the end, Australia is not the loser from this decision. We have offered the world the opportunity to come play in one of the best counties in the world, and we would have given them the time of their lives. But they have made another choice, and that is their loss more than it is ours. The rest of the world just doesn’t know what they’re missing.

A Trainload Of Money

2010-12-02T13:38:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 02.12.10.
Today, the New South Wales Auditor General Peter Achterstraat released his report on transport projects, with an assessment which has been described as “scathing”. Here is the bottom line, in the words of the Auditor General: “Of the $412 million spent on the Sydney Metro, $356 million represents expenditure with no apparent benefit to the people of New South Wales.” This one sentence neatly sums up everything which has been wrong about the Labor government in New South Wales, and reflects the failure of successive Premiers to deliver on their transport promises.

Each newly installed occupant of the Premier has boldly announced visionary plans to address the transport challenges confronting Sydney, only to be pushed out through the revolving door of the Premier’s office and to have their plans consigned to the dustbin. But not before millions of dollars had been spent on scoping studies, feasibility studies, environmental impact studies, compulsory land acquisition, planning and design. There was the North West rail link, the Parramatta to Chatswood line, the South West rail link, the North West Metro, the West Metro, The CBD metro, and back to the future with the North West and South West lines back on the agenda. But can we really be certain that any plan currently on the table will actually be completed?

When Kristina Keneally took over the position of chief seat warmer, out went the latest grand plan, the Sydney Metro. With it went not only the hundreds of millions of dollars identified by the Auditor General, but also any good will which might have remained with those who had their businesses and livelihoods disrupted by a plan which had come to absolutely nothing. With it also went any level of credibility or trust that might still have existed among the voters of New South Wales. Never mind that the Metro was a flawed plan from the start, and that Premier Keneally probably made the right call to dump it, so much political capital had already been invested into it that it was now, like the cash, all gone.

And it is an awful lot of cash. The $356 million identified by Mr. Archterstraat could have been much better spent on any number of things. It could have built a major new hospital, or upgraded dozens of existing hospitals around the state. It could have employed thousands of nurses to work in those hospitals. It could have paid for the entire backlog of overdue maintenance at state schools, and still had money left over to build some new schools as well. Or it could have paid for about half of the maintenance backlog for public housing. In anybody’s language, it’s a trainload of money, and we can all think of dozens of ways it could have been more productively spent.

Instead, it has been sucked into a black hole “for no apparent benefit”, never to be seen again.

Economic Irrationalism

2010-12-01T13:11:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 01.12.10.
A study by the Australia Institute has shown that a majority of Australians are costing themselves money by not keeping track of a range of financial details like what interest rate they are paying on their home loan, whether or not they have the best mobile phone plan, and keeping money in low interest savings accounts instead of paying off credit card debts. When you look at it objectively, it would seem to indicate that people are either dumb, don’t care, or just plain irrational. But that’s not really a fair assessment of what is going on. Modern life has become so complicated and so overburdened with endless details to keep track of that you would really have to be some kind of human calculator to stay on top of it all.

In fact, that’s exactly what the study calls people who seem to master the challenges of modern life: human calculators. Apparently they make up 22% of the population, while the rest of us can’t seem to get on top of things like this, even though most of us believe ourselves to be “better than average money managers”. So why is that? A clue can be found in the fact that so called human calculators are more likely to be found among the older population. Other factors are not as significant as you might think. For example, those with tertiary educations were no more likely to be good money managers than those who left school early, and high income earners are actually just as likely to struggle to make ends meet as low income earners. But people over 55 are more likely to be “human calculators”.

Now this might be as a result of the benefit of experience and wisdom, but I suspect that there is another reason. In general, older people have more time to invest in making sure that they get the best deal. The rest of us are so flat out just making money in the first place that we just don’t have the time to manage it as well as we might. Despite all of the promises of the benefits of competition in the market place, all it really means is that we now have to wade through mountains of information comparing banking details, insurance policies, mobile phone plans, internet plans, electricity costs, petrol prices, health insurance, motor mechanics, grocery prices, all while holding down a job and looking after the family.

Nobody has the time to deal with it all. The idea that people are always rational beings is at the centre of most economic theory. It underpins the concept of free markets, and is supposed to guarantee that overall the economy will work itself out. But the fact is that the assumption is just plain wrong. People can be rational, but people also have a range of differing priorities. For many people it is more important to spend their time with their families, going to the beach, having barbecues and watching the football, than it is to devote their lives to counting beans. When you look at it that way, you really have to ask just what is so irrational about that.

The Poisoned Chalice

2010-11-30T13:39:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 30.11.10.
In what was always the only possible outcome, Bernie Riordan has resigned as New South Wales President of the Labor Party. In doing so, he has accused the Premier of an over-reaction, and indicated that if it were not for the approaching election his decision would have been different. But, in the end, there was no other choice. To be presiding over a union which has published a statement that it will not support the Labor government makes it impossible to also remain Party President. The two positions are simply impossible to reconcile. It doesn’t matter that he was not personally responsible for the remarks, or that he did not authorise them. It only matters that it created an unacceptable appearance of disunity within the party.

At the same time, that is really only part of the story. In fact, it is the tip of the proverbial iceberg, with the disaffection between Mr. Riordan and a succession of Premiers itself symptomatic of significant tensions between the unions and the parliamentary Labor Party. In particular, the internal war over the plans to privatise the electricity sector has taken its toll with Bob Carr, Morris Iemma and Nathan Rees all becoming casualties in one way or another. It’s no surprise that all three of those former Premiers have been so vocal in their support and praise for current Premier Kristina Keneally, and in Mr. Rees’ case that is in itself a remarkable result.

It was Mr. Rees who famously predicted, on the day before he was deposed, that whoever was his successor would be a puppet of the party powerbrokers. By contrast, Kristina Keneally has not only grasped the poisoned chalice with steady hands, but she has effectively flung its contents back into the faces of her critics. Time and again, she has dealt with the fallout of a party apparently bent on self destruction in a firm and decisive manner. Dealing with the matter of Bernie Riordan has been no different, and she has attracted more admirers in the process. Finally, the New South Wales Labor Party seems to have a leader who knows how to take charge.

What a pity the party she has been asked to lead is in such a sorry state of disarray.

Time’s Up!

2010-11-29T13:09:00.003+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 29.11.10.
At the risk of sounding like a cracked record, absolutely nothing can save the New South Wales Labor government from copping a massive hiding at the state election next March. I have been saying the same thing for years and the evidence only continues to grow to support this view. In the wake of the Victorian state election over the weekend there have been even more logs thrown onto the fire. Now, Victoria is not the same as New South Wales, and the issues are not all the same, but even so the outcome in Victoria remains a very clear message for the New South Wales government. That message is, “Time’s up!”

To some, the result in Victoria has been seen as a surprise because the Labor government in that state was not in anywhere near as much trouble as the one in New South Wales. It was largely seen as a competent and stable government which might have become a bit stale, but nobody expected it to be tossed out of office. And yet, when the votes are all counted over the next day or so that will be the end result. By contrast, here in New South Wales, the Labor government is seen as anything but competent, riddled with scandal, and unable to command the support of even their own Party President, Bernie Riordan.

Over the weekend, it emerged that the union which Mr. Riordan leads published a statement in its newsletter that it would support candidates from any political party, including the Liberals and Nationals, based on where they stood on workers’ rights. Now, Mr. Riordan claims not to have seen the comments before they were published, but to say that it leaves him in an embarrassing situation is an understatement. While the Premier is rightly calling for his resignation as Party President, it should also be seen as an indication of just how much support the government has lost among some of the unions.

But it goes even deeper than that. Across the nation, the Labor Brand has become severely tarnished. The federal election result in August was a reflection of that, and it has been a combination of state and federal factors which has seen the reputation of Labor, not only trashed, but shredded in a matter of months. A little over two years ago, Kevin Rudd was the most popular Prime Minister ever, presiding over a nation with Labor governments in every state and territory. Even after Labor lost government in Western Australia in 2008, the federal government was still in good shape.

While it has been obvious for some time that the New South Wales government was in trouble, they at least had the benefit of time on their side with the state locked in to the four year electoral cycle. There was at least time for things to be turned around, and for the party to get itself back into a position where it might have a chance to survive in 2011. Instead, the phenomenon described by some as the “New South Wales” disease spread to Canberra and Kevin Rudd has become history. Now, in every state, at every level, Labor is seen as both incompetent, and as incapable of seeing past its own internal workings to the real issues affecting real people.

Kristina Keneally hasn’t got a snowflake’s chance… well, you know the rest.

Pass The Champagne…

2010-11-26T13:10:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 26.11.10.
Although it seems that bank bashing has only become fashionable in the last few months, with both the government and the opposition climbing on board the bandwagon, some of us have been pointing out the excessive and unacceptable practices of banks for many years. Over that time, it has always seemed as if the targets of such criticism have the hide of the proverbial rhinoceros, as every attack appeared to leave no impression whatsoever. In fact, there have been times when it seemed as if the big banks actually enjoyed the criticism, smiling smugly from within their ivory towers, sipping Veuve Clicquot and puffing long panatellas. But now, suddenly and almost shockingly, one of the enemy appears to have broken ranks and spoken the unspeakable.

According to the Sydney Morning Herald, Cameron Clyne, the CEO at the National Australia Bank has said that it is time for banks to stop being arrogant. How extraordinary! But of course, this outburst of humble pie hasn’t suddenly come out of the blue. It is a carefully constructed reaction to the realisation that after years of customer dissatisfaction, the government might finally be about to actually do something to intervene. With both the government and the opposition taking up the cause, and preparing to impose greater regulation, the banks have suddenly found themselves backed into a corner of their own making. So naturally, the only course of action open to them is to try to head off any such moves by launching a pre-emptory strike.

While it might well seem cynical that after years of people like you and me loudly pointing out their failings, the banks are only now getting the message under threat of government intervention, it is nevertheless a good thing. Now at last, instead of spending millions on glossy television advertisements proclaiming their wonderful service, they might devote more efforts to actually delivering that wonderful service. You know, practical things, like abolishing those excessive fees and charges, keeping branches open in country towns, and giving customers a fair go on interest rates. If they did, it would do more to revive their public image than any glossy advertising campaign ever could, or any number of bank executives standing in front of the cameras wondering if perhaps they should become less arrogant.

Now pass me that bottle of Veuve Clicquot would you?

Altiyan Childs Interview

2010-11-25T12:40:00.007+11:00

After a huge response from listeners today, here is the full recording of the interview with X-Factor winner, Altiyan Childs...

It’s Knock Off Time

2010-11-24T13:20:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 24.11.10.
So today is “National Go Home On Time Day”. This event has been declared in response to findings that Australians are working longer hours than any other Western country. And if that’s not enough, it appears that many of the extra hours are unpaid overtime. Research from the Australia Institute has found that Australian workers are “donating’ over $70 billion worth of overtime to their employers each year. Of course, the word “donation” implies choice, and while I’m sure that many people volunteer to go the extra mile in order to improve their chances of advancement, I am equally sure that this is not always the case. At least some of those who are working unpaid overtime do so for fear of losing their jobs, or because there is a workplace culture which will judge them harshly if they do not “love their job” so much that they are prepared to do it for free.

The plain fact of the matter is that involuntary unpaid overtime of this nature is nothing short of theft. It is a form of exploitation where the powerful take advantage of the vulnerable, stealing their labour for no financial reward. The truth is that any workplace with this kind of culture is going to find that the best and most capable employees will be the ones who get fed up with being treated like dirt and decide to leave. It is a culture which belittles the individual and demeans the worth of that individual’s contribution. It reflects a management attitude which is cavalier and autocratic, and which amounts to a kind of corporate serfdom where employees are expected to offer undying gratitude for the job that they hold, even if they are not being paid for what they do. And yet, if a plumber is called out to a job after 5pm he will expect to be paid for the hours that he works, so why should any of us be treated any differently?

And since today is “National Go Home On Time Day”, it’s now time for me to do my part and knock off. Good bye.

Stop, But Go!

2010-11-23T13:17:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 23.11.10.
While it seems on the face of it that the New South Wales government has done motorists a favour with the announcement of the overhaul of the demerits points system, there is also a strangely mixed message attached. On the one hand, the government has over the years increased the penalties for a variety of offences, increased enforcement measures such as introducing more speed cameras, and increased the impact of penalties at certain times with the imposition of double demerits for public holiday weekends. On the other hand, they now appear to be admitting that they have been too harsh on motorists and to make up for it have decided to become more lenient with yesterday’s changes to demerit points. When you stop and think about it, doesn’t that seem to be something of a contradiction? It’s as if the government is saying “stop, but go” at the same time.

Of course, drivers who feel that the penalties have become too draconian will no doubt feel some relief at these changes, but surely there is a risk that we will all miss the point. While we might feel a bit more relaxed about all those new speed cameras now that we are going to see them clearly marked, aren’t we forgetting that ultimately the responsibility for road safety is in our hands? The most important factor is driver attitude, and the onus upon us all to drive in a manner suitable for the road conditions, whatever they might be, at all times. And while we are all feeling more grateful to the government for letting us off the hook a bit more often, aren’t we forgetting that it is that same government who is responsible for under-funding road infrastructure? Not to mention, for creating an increasingly complex road environment with apparently arbitrary and constantly changing speed limits which leave drivers frustrated and confused?

If the New South Wales government was serious about road safety they would invest more into road infrastructure, driver training, and real police in highway patrol cars, instead of doing deals with merchant bankers to raise revenue from speed cameras. The problem is that relying on measures like speed cameras makes it too easy for the government to appear as if they are doing something, when really they doing nothing about the factors that actually matter. The change to demerit points, while easing the burden on mistake prone motorists to some degree, is really a bit of nonsense, because those who habitually break the road rules will always find themselves just one more infringement away from disaster no matter how many points they might be allowed to accrue, while those who genuinely and diligently try to avoid breaking any rules very rarely will.

Still Blaming Anyone But Themselves

2010-11-22T13:28:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 22.11.10.
The latest Neilsen Poll published by the Sydney Morning Herald shows that the Gillard led Labor government is struggling to gain public support. With the two party preferred figures favouring the opposition 51% to 49%, it appears that if there was an election held today the government would lose office. Of course, the fact is that there isn’t going to be an election held today and, in theory at least, there won’t be until 2013. And in the unlikely even that a snap election is brought on any time soon, the fact is that calling an election actually has an impact on opinion polls because people are pushed into making up their minds. When an election is actually called, it suddenly becomes real rather than hypothetical. So, despite the continued poor performance in the polls for the Labor Party, it’s all really just academic.

Or is it? Already, barely three months since the election, and about five months since the sacking of Kevin Rudd by his own colleagues, there are hints of whispers of rumours of suggestions that Prime Minister Gillard may be targeted for similar treatment if the polls don’t turn around. At this point, it is not an imminent threat, but the prospect that such a thought could be contemplated by anyone in the Federal Labor Party is extraordinary. It is also an indication that there are at least some who have simply not understood the meaning of the message delivered to them at the election they so nearly lost. It is a lesson that the Labor Party has failed to learn in New South Wales, and can’t afford to ignore at the Federal level.

The idea that any government can avoid electoral defeat in the wake of poor opinion polls simply by bringing down a leader and replacing him with a shiny new one is not only misguided, but it is morally bankrupt. Perhaps it gained some acceptance because Morris Iemma won an election in New South Wales after replacing Bob Carr despite widespread discontent with the government at the time. But the difference was that Bob Carr actually retired, rather than being forced to leave. Paul Keating won a Federal election after bumping aside Prime Minister Bob Hawke, but that was only because Liberal Leader John Hewson couldn’t cut up a birthday cake without getting confused about the tax implications.

The bottom line for both the New South Wales and the Federal Labor governments is that dumping a leader in response to poor polling will always bee seen by the voters for what it is. That is, a pathetic attempt to hoodwink the voters not to notice that bringing in a new clown hasn’t changed the fact that it is still the same old circus. It’s a clear indication of a government which has become more concerned with polls than with policy, consumed by their own spin, and completely out of touch with the real world. If any such move is ever launched against Julia Gillard in the coming year or so, it will be a sure sign that the same old desperados are still looking to blame anyone but themselves for their failures.

Acts Of Crime Should Not Be Misconstrued As Acts Of War

2010-11-19T13:24:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 19.11.10.
They say that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It’s an expression that I have never been comfortable with, because it can so easily be misused to legitimise what are otherwise quite simply criminal acts. Sure, we can all accept that Nelson Mandela was at one time considered by his own country to be a terrorist, only to later be hailed as a hero. Of course, the truth is that Nelson Mandela really was a freedom fighter who represented the oppressed majority of his countrymen, and so it is easy to arrive at the judgement that he was not really a terrorist at all. It’s not quite so easy to dismiss the Palestinian suicide bombers who can also legitimately claim to be oppressed in their own land, but who are much harder for us to identify with. The tactics that they choose to employ are sufficiently horrific to erode any sympathy we might otherwise be tempted to feel.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001, the United States has introduced a range of new security measures and enacted laws which place greater controls over its own population. Australia, along with many other countries, has followed a similar path with laws which specify not only the physical acts of terrorism, but also the motivations behind it. To some degree, these are laws which are only a few steps away from making it illegal to hold certain beliefs, to say certain things, and to associate with certain people. The real risk, which needs to be weighed in the balance when considering such laws, is the prospect that they will effectively undermine the very freedoms and ideals that they purport to protect. It is this risk to free speech, and ultimately free thought, that prominent human rights lawyer Julian Burnside will address in a presentation at the State Library tonight.

Mr. Burnside will say in his speech, “The terrorist acts we all fear are also orthodox criminal offences. The important question is whether it is a good idea to create a range of offences which depend on a definition based on an ideological purpose, and which casts such a wide net using that definition as a starting point.” It is at this point in the speech where Mr. Burnside points out that our legal definition of terrorism would include not only Nelson Mandela, but also the rebels at the Eureka Stockade. His point is that the law itself is flawed, and could so easily be perverted to ensnare anyone who expresses dissent. He is right to consider this to be a threat to our civil liberties, and our right to freedom of speech, of assembly, and of thought itself.

But there is another flaw in our approach to terrorism. It has been a mistake to declare a “War on Terror” in the military sense, because it only serves to legitimise the purported political causes behind it, when really today’s terrorists do not serve any genuine cause. A war implies a contest between sovereign nations, or at the very least between legitimate competing interests. Declaring a “War on Terror” awards the terrorists a status they do not deserve when they are nothing more than psychopathic criminals who do not represent any recognised country or religion. Osama bin Laden could never be confused with a freedom fighter, and neither could Abu Bakar Bashir.

Just because people purport to be warriors of some kind does not mean that they really are, and acts of crime should not be misconstrued as acts of war.

We Should Whinge About the Performance, Not The Pay Packet

2010-11-18T13:37:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 18.11.10.
There’s nothing better than to have a good whinge. We love it, we can’t get enough of it, and we can be pretty good at it. We whinge about bank profits, about the cost of living, and of course there is the old favourite, we whinge about politicians pay packets and perks. Even though these and many other topics might really be easy targets, we feel some justification for our indignation because there is a sense of righteousness about these perceived injustices. But, are we really whinging about the right things, or are we guilty of being so lazy that we just go for the cheap shots, rather than actually doing anything about these bugbears?

In the case of bank profits, is it really the size of the profit that upsets us? When you think about it, isn’t it really the feeling that those profits have come at our expense that bothers us? Surely, with such healthy profits those banks can afford to give us a better deal! Similarly, with the cost of living, isn’t our complaint really about our feeling that we have somehow been inadequately rewarded for our labours? What we really want is not so much cheaper goods, but a bigger pay packet. And that brings us to the politicians, who already have pay packets much bigger than most of the rest of us, but still seem to keep whinging themselves that they deserve more.

The Federal Government is currently in the process of reviewing politicians’ pay and perks. The idea is that many of the existing benefits such as the electoral allowance will be eliminated, and others such as travel more heavily restricted, in order to make the arrangements more transparent and the politicians more accountable. In return, it is proposed that the base pay for politicians will be increased from about $135 000 to around $170 000. Now that’s a big increase, more than the annual income of a substantial number of Australians, but is it actually something that we should be whinging about?

Every time we hear the politicians are getting a pay rise, or are looking for one, the immediate reaction is to howl them down with snarls of derision for already being paid more than they are worth. But what are we really complaining about? Surely, what really bothers us is not how much they are paid, but whether or not we believe they are giving us good value for money in the service they deliver. Surely, we should whinge about the performance, not the pay packet. Isn’t the idea that our politicians are not up to scratch the thing that really bothers us? And on that score it is fairly easy to judge that at least some of them are only there to make up the numbers. But that doesn’t mean all politicians should be considered to be in that category.

It can be a tough demanding job, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and if we want good people to do the job, they must be paid at least enough that they will not be spending all their time wondering how they will pay the bills at the end of the week. They need to spend their time worrying about running the country, not worrying about whether or not they can pay for the groceries. If we want good capable people to take on the great responsibility of running the country, we must be prepared to pay proper salaries which reflect both the demands and the responsibilities of the position.

After that, it’s up to us to make sure that we actually vote for the right people to live up to our expectations.

More Than Just A Celebrity Story

2010-11-17T14:16:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 17.11.10.
It seems that every time there is any kind of bad publicity or scandal any where near the Royal Family, Australia’s Republicans seize the opportunity to question the relevance of the Monarchy. Why, they ask, should Australia have as its head of state a foreign Monarch whose own family are so frequently the cause for embarrassment, rather than one of our own citizens? Why should we persist with old fashioned arrangements which are relics of the colonial era, and an Empire which no longer exists? Isn’t it time that Australia finally cut the apron strings and stood on its own feet, dispensed with the Monarchy, and became a republic?

So often, these are the questions wheeled out when there is any sort of adverse media coverage of the Royal Family. In contrast, the official announcement of the engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton seems to have left the Republicans without much to say. Perhaps they don’t see any mileage in trying to rain on the parade, and are reluctant to risk any kind of backlash, but it is interesting to stop for a moment and ask ourselves whether this Royal Engagement is of any special significance for Australians, or if it is simply another celebrity story to fill the pages of the tabloid magazines.

While Australia remains a Constitutional Monarchy, the Royal Family will remain relevant, perhaps not so much in themselves and their daily activities, but in the simple fact that they are there at all. For Australians, the relevance is in the constitutional arrangements which have served us well since the beginning of our nation. Our Constitutional Monarchy has provided us with a level of political stability and security which is matched by very few other countries. It means that our politicians are subject to constraints which prevent them from becoming despots, and that even the Prime Minister is simply the first among equals rather than a power unto him or herself.

There may well come a day when Australians decide to become a Republic, but it would be foolish in the extreme to do so simply for the sake of it, or because it is seen as some sort of declaration of independence. We already have our independence, and we have a constitutional system which works very well. If we are to contemplate changing that system it is imperative that we make very sure that the new system we create is actually better than the old one that we tear down. Until such a system is devised, there is no sound reason why the Constitutional Monarchy cannot continue to serve the Australian people.

Irrefudiatable!

2010-11-16T13:03:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 16.11.10.
It’s always fun to make up new words, and it must be even more fun to see those words enter the mainstream vernacular to such an extent that they receive official recognition in the Oxford Dictionary. Of course, language is a living and evolving construct and it’s only natural that new words will spring out of new technologies, new discoveries, and new social phenomena. Many of these words are born out of practical necessity, some by sheer accident, and some out of a healthy sense of humour. To celebrate this continuing genesis of new terminology, the people at the Oxford American Dictionary add new words to the official list each year, and celebrate the occasion by selecting one in particular to be honoured as the “word of the year”.

Some of the new words that were in the running for this year’s award included “retweeet”, referring to the act of forwarding a twitter message to other users of that social network; “vuvuzela”, after the World Cup in South Africa introduced the world to this native musical instrument, although “musical” might be a bit of a stretch; and “bankster”, a combination of “banker” and “gangster” which requires no explanation, and might actually be redundant anyway. Then there is “Gleek” to describe a fan of the television show “Glee”; “webisode”, referring to television show episodes or spin-offs which are made specifically for the internet; and “Tea Party”, which is of course the political movement calling for tea with scones and jam to be reintroduced into American society.
But the winner of the Word Of The Year for 2010 is…. “refudiate”. Defined by the Oxford Dictionary as “refudiate: verb used loosely to mean "reject": she called on them to refudiate the proposal to build a mosque. [origin — blend of refute and repudiate], it is Sarah Palin who is responsible for bringing this word to popular attention. The Oxford editors pointed out that although Ms. Palin will be forever remembered for using this word, she is “by no means the first person to speak or write it”. Which only proves one thing: Apparentley, although Sarah Palin did actually say something memorable after all, it still wasn’t an original thought.

Smoke, But Not Yet Fire

2010-11-12T13:06:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 12.11.10.
How interesting it is to see reports emerging today questioning whether there are knives being sharpened in the Federal Labor Party for Julia Gillard. Melbourne Age reporter Katherine Murphy has written today that there appears to be some internal friction between the forces of the New South Wales Right Faction and the Prime Minister’s office. It comes in the wake of Party Secretary Karl Bitar’s address to the National Press Club this week which blamed the election result on campaign mistakes made by the Prime Minister, along with a perception of disunity. As I remarked at the time, the twist is that he is himself one of the reasons for that perception, and this week’s speech didn’t do anything to subdue that appraisal. Following that speech, another prominent figure from the Right, Graham Richardson, although now retired, has gone into print with comments further undermining confidence in the Prime Minister and the members of her office.

Katherine Murphy asks in her report “are we watching the beginning of yet another destructive power struggle?” Now, Ms Murphy may be seeing smoke where there is not yet a fire, but it is never a good idea to simply ignore the smoke. Is it really possible that the very same power players who tore down Kevin Rudd are now preparing to do the same to Julia Gillard? Surely they could not be that indifferent to the lessons of the recent past? It was the so called “faceless men” led by Karl Bitar and Mark Arbib who have dragged the party into ill repute over the manner in which they dealt with the problem of Kevin Rudd’s falling popularity. It was those same men who actually drove the disunity that they now claim has done them so much damage. But so far, all the evidence seems to suggest that they have not learned from their mistakes, and refuse to accept any responsibility for their own contributions to the party’s troubles. By that reasoning, it is entirely possible that they may indeed be thinking the unthinkable, and preparing to turn against their chosen leader. But if they do, it will only serve to confirm that they really have lost the plot altogether.

After all, if there is a problem with the Prime Minister’s leadership, these clowns only have themselves to blame because they were the ones who put her there in the first place.

Not So Common Sense

2010-11-11T13:28:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 11.11.10.
The federal Attorney General Robert McClelland has released a consultation paper on the draft Family Law Amendment (Family Violence) Bill, which once again tackles the impossible minefield of child custody arrangements. It’s not so long ago that the Howard Government introduced shared parenting measures which were intended to ensure that where possible children of separated couples would have an ongoing relationship with both parents. That law provided for equal joint custody to be used as the starting point for consideration by the court in making its deliberations. It was in principle a good idea, but there have been a number of problems in practice. In some extreme cases, children have died at the hands of violent or unstable fathers after the court insisted on shared custody. But even in less tragic cases, there are difficulties.

One difficulty was the assumption that shared care was supposed to mean that equal joint custody was supposed to be the automatic default, when that was not really the intention of the plan. When there is shared custody, there can often be logistical problems with children shuttled back and forth between houses with no sense of having a stable home. The court has been asked to balance the protection of a child’s safety against the presumption that the child should be entitled to a meaningful relationship with both parents, while under the present legislation both aims appear to have equal weighting even if they are in conflict. Under the proposed new laws it would be clear that the protection of the child’s safety should be given greater weight, although you have to wonder why that was not always the case. Interestingly, the new bill stops short of placing “the child’s best interests” as the highest priority, describing the proposal as “radical”. I find it difficult to understand what is so radical about something that should be plain old common sense.

Of course, you know what they say about common sense…. It isn’t actually so common.

Campaign Mistakes Were The Symptoms, Not The Disease

2010-11-10T12:59:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 10.11.10.
It appears that the Federal Labor Party is still experiencing a certain level of denial over its near death experience at the recent election. Party General Secretary and Campaign Director Karl Bitar yesterday addressed the National Press Club delivering his assessment of what went wrong. In his view, the electoral disaster was brought about by a combination of the following factors. 1. There was a widely held expectation that Labor would win easily, allowing many who would normally be loyal supporters to exercise a protest vote without worrying about the outcome. 2. There was disappointment over the performance of the first term of government which he said had resulted from voters holding excessively high expectations. 3. There was a perception of disunity prompted by the internal leaks about cabinet discussions and the intrusion into the campaign by former leader Mark Latham. And 4. The campaign itself stumbled on three specific occasions, which were the so called “real Julia” debacle, the embarrassing climate change citizens’ assembly proposal, and the promise to complete the Epping to Parramatta rail line which was widely seen as a pathetic and cynical grab for votes.

While all of these factors did indeed play a significant part in the election catastrophe, it is plain that they are in fact the symptoms, not the disease. If voters had high expectations of the Rudd government, who was it that raised those expectations? Who was it that promised to deliver an education revolution, fix hospitals, and rescue the climate? Who was it that not only failed to make good on these promises, but also botched their efforts to rescue the economy by building school halls that were too small, installing insulation which caused houses to burn down, and mailed out cheques to dead people? If there was a perception of disunity, might that not have been because the party had just executed the overthrow of its own leader just weeks before calling the election? That was no perception; that was real disunity, exposed for the world to witness. Blaming Mark Latham is an act of scape-goating that would embarrass even Pontius Pilate.

There appears to be absolutely no acknowledgement whatsoever that many of the voting public felt cheated of their right to vote either for or against the man they believed they had elected to be Prime Minister. There seems to be no recognition that Kevin Rudd’s popularity began to fall only after acting on the policy advice of the very same individuals who later blamed it all on him and got rid of him. Now, I’m not saying that Mr. Rudd had no problems or that he would have necessarily won the election. There’s no real way of ever knowing that. But the fact is that a significant number of Australians were left with a disgusting taste in their mouths over that whole affair and many of them would have changed their vote because of it. And yet, Karl Bitar can only point to what he considers “mistakes” in the campaign, despite the fact that he was the campaign director.

Or was that somebody else’s fault too?

Whatever They Want, Whenever They Want

2010-11-09T13:13:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 09.11.10.
For years I have known that Australian bank mortgage contracts are not really contracts at all. They are more like documents of indentured servitude. If you bother to read the small print, as I did once many moons ago, you will discover that there is usually a clause which says something like “the bank may vary any of the terms and conditions at its discretion at any time without notice.” It effectively means that while you have signed up to a set of conditions which will bind you, committing you to pay on time, to pay certain fees under certain circumstances, and so on, there is no such constraint on the bank. The so called contract does not commit the bank to anything, because that wonderful escape clause basically means that you have agreed to let them get away with doing whatever they want, whenever they want, without consultation or recourse.

When it comes to the standard variable rate home loan, we are usually fully aware that the bank reserves the right to change the interest rate as it sees fit. Even though we might not like it, we know that’s what we have signed up for. However, even that arrangement is now being called into question with the revelation that Australian home loans are almost unique in the world. It turns out that in some countries, most notably the United States of America, the “standard” home loan is usually a fixed rate long term loan. Not only that, but it is also usually a non-recourse loan, meaning that if the worst occurs and the bank is forced to take your house away you are at least protected from owing the bank any shortfall that might occur if the house is worth less than the debt.

Although the American approach sounds more appealing than ours, it is also unusual. In fact, the most prevalent form of home loan around the world is known as the “adjustable rate” loan. In this version of a variable rate loan the contract binds not only the customer but also the bank to an interest rate which is determined by adding a specific margin to a benchmark interest rate. For example, in Britain a typical home loan interest rate might be set at the Bank Of England Base Rate plus 2.25%. If a similar scheme existed here it would have prevented the Commonwealth Bank from making its controversial decision to almost double the Reserve Bank increase, saving their customers a whole lot of anguish, and the bank a savage public relations backlash.

With so much discussion in the past week about reform of banking regulations, and improving competition among banks, there is now a proposal to introduce this form of lending here in Australia. Along with restrictions on excessive fees and charges, this is a measure which would help to give Australian bank customers a better deal. So why has Australia been the odd one out for so long? Why have these “adjustable rate” loans not been offered to Australian customers before? The answer can only be that, until now, the big banks have been able to get away with doing whatever they please, whenever they please.

It even says so, right there in the fine print of their loan contracts.

Thanks For Not Mugging Me Anymore.

2010-11-08T12:44:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 08.11.10.
Welcome to Bank Bashers Anonymous. My name is Leon, and I am a bank basher. In my own defence, I would point out that the banks do seem to go out of their way to encourage us to take aim at them. Slagging the banks might be a cheap shot at an easy target, but at the end of the day, it doesn’t actually have any impact upon them at all. They really don’t care, in fact if anything they seem to derive a perverse kind of enjoyment out of it. Let’s face it, with $22 billion profit between the big four and with their executives getting paid more money than a lotto winner, they’re the ones who are laughing all the way to the, well er bank.

Of course, they do provide so much ammunition for the humble bank basher such as myself that it is impossible to ignore. As I have stated countless times before there is nothing wrong with any business making a profit, but in the case of the banks it is the context in which those profits are made which really gets up people’s noses. It’s the unjustified fees and charges, it’s the decisions to increase mortgage interest rates over and above the Reserve Bank official rates, and it’s the willingness to destroy the livelihoods of Australian families by retrenching staff and replacing them with offshore contractors.

No wonder both the government and the opposition are now promising to do something about it, and the first cab off the rank is apparently a move by the federal Treasurer to outlaw mortgage exit fees. But wait a minute! Here come the banks, apparently preparing to launch a pre-emptive strike by abolishing such fees of their own choice. Presumably, this is a move intended to stave of the threat of having tighter regulation imposed upon them, and if it means that these unfair and unethical fees disappear that’s very good news. But it shouldn’t mean that they get let off the hook by the government.

There is no justification for these exit fees, and there never has been. They are nothing more than a mechanism to prevent customers switching to another bank or financial institution, and as such are clearly anti-competitive. They are also clearly nonsensical. If I borrowed $100 from you and promised to pay you back at the end of the month, only to find myself in a position to pay you back sooner I would not expect you to charge me extra for repaying my debt ahead of the due date. And yet that is exactly what the banks do by charging up to $1000 to any customer who has the audacity to pay back the money he owes the bank ahead of time.

This ludicrous practice cannot even be justified by the spurious claim that the bank needs to cover the cost of discharging the mortgage. Aside from the usual legal costs which would apply no matter when the loan was finalised, it is only going to take a staff member a few minutes to enter the data into the computer system, sign a few papers, and file it all away. Unless it is done by the C. E. O. himself, the cost of the employee’s wages will be something like $30 or so. If the banks really are about to abandon this vile practice, it is no more admirable than the mugger who has finally decided to stop beating you over the head.

That’s why, regardless of whether or not the banks act of their own volition, there still needs to be appropriate regulation to ensure that they never do it again.

Maintaining Safety Must Come First

2010-11-05T13:18:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 05.11.10.
The uncontained engine failure on Qantas flight QF32 yesterday is the latest in a growing list of serious incidents to have affected Qantas flights in the last few years. It is obviously premature to make any assumptions about what may have caused yesterday’s failure, but the obvious question has to be whether concerns about cost cutting and offshore maintenance have any substance. Is it just a coincidence that, at the same time that the Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association has raised the alarm about reduced staff numbers and outsourcing of maintenance work, things seem to have started to go wrong for Qantas? Or is the airline industry, and not just Qantas, now under too much pressure to cut costs, and as a result cutting corners?

It’s a fact that Qantas has reduced its staff numbers so that less maintenance work is done in house and more is done by outside contractors. It’s true that this arrangement means sometimes relying on the quality standards of foreign companies operating in jurisdictions which might not have the same regulatory standards as our own. There are many good reasons for keeping jobs in Australia instead of outsourcing to foreign countries. Preserving Australian jobs not only helps Australian workers and their families, it is good for the community, it preserves our national skills base and it is good for the economy. It’s even good for business, even if they are sometimes too short-sighted to see it.

If by chance it also means better safety standards then the argument becomes overwhelming.

What’s the difference between a banker and a mobster?

2010-11-04T14:06:00.000+11:00

EDITRORIAL THURSDAY 04.11.10.
While many of us have been criticising the banks for years, and while the banks have always appeared to be quite happy to provide plenty of ammunition, the events of this week might just have provided the proverbial last straw. At a time when household budgets are already stretched by increasing utilities prices, the big banks have stunned the nation by first announcing record profits, then following up with the Commonwealth Bank deciding to almost double the official interest rate increase. On top of that Westpac has confirmed plans to reduce staff by as many as 6000 people, roughly one job axed for every million dollars of the profit just announced. It’s not the size of the profits that is the problem. The problem is the callous disregard for customers and employees who are bled dry to create those profits.

Profits are good, necessary and healthy. Profits create prosperity. Profits expand the economy, pay for jobs, and contribute to taxes. A big profit should be welcomed as good news. Instead, bank profits have come to be seen as a sign of corporate greed for the simple reason that in spite of these record profits, the banks still consider it necessary to destroy people’s jobs, impose unjustifiable fees and charges on their customers, and arbitrarily increase mortgage rates over and above the adjustments made by the Reserve Bank. Despite making record profits, banks keep telling us how tough it is for them to source offshore funds. Despite making record profits banks insist that you and I must pay more. It’s the same sort of behaviour that you would expect from Tony Soprano, only their clothes are more expensive.

What’s the difference between a banker and a mobster? Nobody likes a banker.

A Worthwhile Investment.

2010-11-03T14:12:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 03.11.10.
The announcement by Prime Minister Julia Gillard of a commitment to spend $500 million on building 2000 schools should have been greeted with a chorus of approval. Unfortunately, the schools are to be built in Indonesia and so the chorus was singing a different song, with widespread public criticism of the plan. Why spend so much money on fixing another country’s schools when so many of our own schools are in desperate need of better resources, repairs and maintenance? Not to mention our public hospitals and our public housing? Surely, the argument goes, charity should begin at home, and only when we can completely provide for our own needs should we seek to provide for others.

Unfortunately, this argument misses a few very important points. First, foreign aid is an investment, not a gift. The money that we spend assisting other countries in our region helps to foster stability and improves our national security. It helps to facilitate trade agreements providing Australian businesses with greater opportunities. And in many cases money spent on foreign aid is actually spent on Australian contractors delivering the assistance. But in the case of the Indonesian schools there is another even more important bonus. Investing in the education of Indonesian children helps to fill a vacuum which is often otherwise filled by radical fundamentalist schools such as the one run by Abu Bakar Bashir where many of the Bali bombers received their indoctrination.

That’s an investment which is worth making.

Banks Must Recognise Their Debt To Society

2010-11-02T13:04:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 02.11.10.
By the time this is broadcast we will not only know the winner of the Melbourne Cup, but we will also know whether or not the Reserve Bank has decided to increase interest rates. At the time of writing, the widely held expectation is that the Bank will leave the 4.5% cash rate untouched, but the much more important question remains just what will the big retail banks do in response? In recent weeks they have been making more noises about the increasing costs of funding and the supposed need to set interest rates independently of the Reserve. While treasurer Wayne Swan has asked for the 31st time for the banks to behave responsibly and exercise restraint, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey has attracted some flak of his own for daring to suggest that the parliament should do something to act against banks colluding on interest rates.

Much of the criticism of Joe Hockey centred around an assumption that he was proposing some sort of reintroduction of regulated interest rates, which is not actually what he said. But interestingly, the Daily Telegraph has today published the results of a survey by Essential Research which shows that 82% of respondents are in favour of the government forcing banks to keep their interest rate increases in line with the Reserve Bank. 91% supported regulations which would restrict fees to no more than the actual cost of services, and 84% wanted the salaries of bank executives to be capped.

The fact is that none of these measures is likely ever to happen because re-regulation of the financial markets is not on the agenda of either major party. But there is a significant difference between that kind of market regulation, and reasonable, effective regulations pertaining to corporate governance and marketplace behaviour. It is that type of appropriate regulation which is supposed to be designed to prevent the kind of excesses and stupidity which occurred elsewhere in the world and contributed to the Global Financial Crisis. And that same regulation should protect consumers from being gouged.

But there is another reason why there is room for greater supervision of the banks. While it is only right and proper for private enterprises, including banks, to make their own commercial decisions, the fact is that banks are more than just private enterprises. They also provide an essential service which is not only an integral part of the economy, but forms the fundamental platform for our economy. Moreover, during the Global Financial Crisis the taxpayer stepped in to provide a guarantee for our banks. They now have a firm basis from which to conclude that they can always rely upon the taxpayer to underwrite their existence. On that basis alone it is clear that banks now have a duty to consider not only their own interests and the interests of their shareholders, but to also to consider the national interest.

They owe us all at least that much.

The Personal Touch

2010-11-01T13:50:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 01.11.10.
Some years ago I was in hospital for some surgery. I was in a general ward with a range of other men, some of them considerably older, and some of them with quite serious conditions. In this environment it can be quite hard to ignore the prospect of our own mortality. My own condition was not supposed to be life threatening, but that doesn’t do anything to prevent an underlying sense of anxiety about the prospect of things not working out. Others in the ward may have had less to look forward to. On the whole, the nurses I have encountered have always been wonderful, caring, and above all professional people. But in this ward there was one nurse in particular who was special.

I don’t know her name, but I remember the impact that she had on her patients. She was only small, and relatively young. She spoke softly and gently, in a calm and soothing voice, leaving every patient with the sense of being not only cared for, but cared about. When she called the old blokes “sweetheart” it sounded reassuring and heartfelt, not at all in any way suggestive or inappropriate. Hers was a personal touch that is impossible to fake, and I believe that she really made a difference for some of those old men. But under the new professional ethics guidelines for nurses she might just be accused of flirting, and that is an accusation which could destroy her career.

While it’s obviously important to have proper professional standards, it is less clear just what is and is not flirting. Whether it is the warm reassurance given by this young nurse, or the playful repartee that can so often lighten the mood in an otherwise serious situation, there is the risk that a strict ban on flirting could see natural friendliness misinterpreted. Clearly, anything which is exploitative, abusive, or harmful to the dignity of either patients or the nurses who care for them is completely unacceptable. Clearly, cultivating personal relationships can place the professional relationship in jeopardy. But if we allow such rules to completely eradicate any sense of humanity from the unique relationship between patient and nurse, then we will have lost something very precious.

Besides, flirting with nurses is a time honoured tradition in hospitals around the world, and life would be a lot more dull without it.

More Than A Miracle

2010-10-29T12:55:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 29.10.10.
It seems like it’s been about three years now that I have been saying that the Labor government in New South Wales is dead, it just hasn’t fallen over yet. Quite simply, the fixed four year election time table means that it is virtually impossible to get rid of an unpopular government until there term finally expires. No matter how desperately the people of New South Wales might want to vent their fury at the ballot box, there is no choice but to wait until March 26 next year. Nevertheless, it has been evident for a substantial period of time that voters have already made up their minds, and it would take nothing short of a miracle to change them back again. It would seem that the latest Newspoll results only confirm that view.

With an approval rating of just 23%, the Kristina Keneally government is now officially the most unpopular Labor government ever in Australian history. The only other government of any political persuasion ever to be less popular was the scandal ravaged National Party government in Queensland in the wake of the Fitzgerald Inquiry into police and political corruption at the end of the 1980s. At the same time, Opposition Leader Barry O’Farrell now has a convincing lead over Kristina Keneally as preferred Premier, so on first glance it would appear that not even a miracle would be enough to save the Labor government in New South Wales.

But wait a minute. Don’t count your chickens before the eggs are cracked. The same Newspoll which shows Labor to be in so much difficulty also shows that support for the Greens continues to grow and is now at 17%. There is also considerable evidence that support for independent candidates is also growing, and the prospect that a significant number of independents might choose to put themselves forward next March. The implication is that there is a growing possibility of a hung parliament in New South Wales, just as there is in the federal parliament. Given the alliance forged between Labor and the Greens at the federal level, there is no reason why a similar alliance could not be negotiated at the state level. If that’s the case, then there is still a slim chance that the Labor government might just cobble together the miracle that it is looking for.

Nevertheless, I still have difficulty summoning up sufficient faith to believe that such a thing might actually happen.

The Joke Is On Us

2010-10-28T13:24:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 28.10.10.
Well it’s always easy, not to mention fun, to take a shot at the big banks. It’s even more tempting in the wake of record profit announcements, and so far we have seen the NAB report a profit of $4.2 billion and today the ANZ announced a record cash profit of $5.1 billion. Not bad going for institutions which are still carping on about the increased costs of funding and the impact of the global financial crisis. While the global financial crisis was real, and many businesses are still suffering from the fallout, it would seem to be increasingly obvious that the big banks have not suffered one bit. Any ill effects that might have been experienced by the banks have been dealt with by simply passing on the pain to their customers, either in the form of higher interest rates and higher fees, or by restricting access to the credit which might have made life easier for their business customers. Really, it seems that as far as the banks are concerned the GFC has been nothing but an excuse to justify their own predatory practices, and an opportunity to exploit the vulnerability of others.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with banks, like any other business, making profits. Indeed there would be something seriously wrong if they did not. But the thing which bothers most people is the context in which those profits are generated against the backdrop of exorbitant fees and excessive increases in interest rates. On the one hand the banks keep bleating about how difficult conditions are to justify raising interest rates independently of the Reserve Bank, while on the other they manage to produce record profits. They moan about the margins on interest rates, but the truth is that margins are now back up to pre-crisis levels. They moan about offshore costs, but the Reserve Bank says that those costs are now easing as the worst of the GFC recedes into distant memory. They mutter about user pays, but what they really mean is that they refuse to pay for their own overheads.

Yes, it’s all to easy to take a shot at the big banks, but while it might even be fun, in the end the joke is on us, the customers paying more than we should.

Trick Or Treat?

2010-10-27T13:38:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 27.10.10.
It’s not enough that we will have to prepare ourselves for the onslaught of pre-teenagers likely to show up at our front door this weekend demanding “trick or treat”, now there is even an activist group calling for Halloween to be made an official holiday. Members of the so-called “Halloween Institute” yesterday marched from Martin Place to Parliament House hoping that Kristina Keneally might heed their call for another day off to be added to the calendar. While I suspect that they are unlikely to be successful in their quest, it does demonstrate just how much impact this American tradition has been having on our own culture in recent years.

Of course, there are plenty of Australians who continue to object to the whole event, considering it to be an American activity of no relevance to Australia. Some go so far as to abuse the children who dare to knock at their door, telling them to go away in language which should not be heard by minors. Equally, there have sometimes been some overly enthusiastic kids who have harassed and harangued residents who refuse to participate. But on the whole, most people have responded in a good natured, if sometimes bemused, manner. In some respects it is surprising that it hasn’t caught on sooner, given the influence of American films and television shows over the last fifty years.

While there might be legitimate concerns about very young children knocking on the doors of total strangers after dark, I’m sure that with a little common sense we can all come to terms with this annual event. With appropriate supervision, and a reasonable curfew, there’s no reason why kids can’t have a bit of fun, and for the rest of us to relax and go with the flow. But, despite the efforts of the Halloween Institute, it is likely to be quite some time before Australia embraces the event quite as whole-heartedly as the Americans, where it is not only a cultural institution, but a mammoth marketing event with families shelling out about $2.4 Billion for costumes and candy.

Maybe that’s the real reason the Halloween Institute wants us all to embrace the occasion.

Putting The Boot In

2010-10-26T12:41:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 26.10.10.
As much as well all like to put the boot into our politicians from time to time, the fact is that we usually choose to do it verbally rather than literally. However that didn’t stop Peter Gray from standing up in the audience of the ABC television show “Q And A” and hurling his sneakers at former Prime Minister John Howard last night. In a bizarre flash of prescience a twitter message ran across the screen just moments before the incident asking “why doesn’t somebody throw a shoe at this man?” And then, right on cue, somebody did. Obviously, the stunt was deliberately intended to be reminiscent of the shoe attack upon former United States President George W. Bush, and it was intended to highlight similar issues. Mr. Gray shouted from the audience, “That is for Iraqi dead!” as his shoes failed to hit anything or anyone of any importance.

Subsequently, Mr. Gray has stated that he believes that he found the “appropriate” form of protest to get his point across. The throwing of shows is culturally significant in the Middle East, and he says that they are the people to whom he was sending a message. Criticised for his poor throwing technique, Mr. Gray said, "I certainly didn't want to hurt the man but I certainly wanted to make my point known." He has no remorse for his actions, and regrets only that the ABC has refused to return his shoes. The response from the community has been mixed, with even opponents of Mr. Howard labelling the protest as pathetic. While this form of protest is vastly preferable to genuine political violence, it would generally be considered to be something foreign to Australian culture, and most Australians are likely to dismiss the incident as idiotic, even if the agree with the sentiment. But it is worth noting the cool calm and collected response of Mr. Howard who simply laughed off the whole affair.

After, a little controversy never did any harm to anybody’s book sales.

Speed Devices Not So Intelligent

2010-10-25T13:12:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 25.10.10.
After the recent trial of a device which sounds a warning when a driver exceeds the speed limit, the RTA is working towards the introduction of the so called “Intelligent Speed Adaptation” devices in all vehicles. According to the Daily Telegraph, it is another step towards a goal of having mandatory speed control devices which can cut power to the accelerator in every car in New South Wales. Although representatives of the RTA deny any such plan, it would appear that things are heading very much in that direction. The device which is currently being trialled contains an up to date map of every road in the state, complete with accurate records of every speed limit. When the driver exceeds the speed limit a warning is sounded, prompting the driver to slow down.

While most GPS navigation systems have a similar feature, the RTA version has the benefit of being regularly updated to reflect any changes in speed limits. As such, it may well represent a useful addition to the array of road safety aids available to the driver. However, the suggestion that such a device should be connected to the accelerator so as to wrest control of the car from the driver at any time that the computer decides the driver is exceeding the speed limit should be rejected. While not all drivers are as responsible as they should be, it is wrong to treat all drivers as irresponsible. And while most drivers will have no need to exceed the speed limit, there may well be the rare occasion when it is necessary to get out of the way of an impending disaster.

If the RTA was really serious about road safety, it would be building better roads, providing better driver training, and insisting on drivers learning to be responsible for their own actions, rather than trying to build the idiot-proof car. If they were serious about road safety they would set about reducing the complexity of the driving environment by removing the vast array of seemingly arbitrary and utterly inconsistent speed zones which appear to exist only for the purpose of trapping unwary motorists and milking their wallets for revenue. It has been demonstrated in other countries that over-regulating the roads actually creates problems rather than reducing them. It’s time to strike a balance which actually helps motorists to drive safely rather than causing them frustration.

Of course, if we did have computers cutting off the accelerator when we tried to drive too fast, surely that would mean that no-one would ever fall foul of the law. No one would ever break a speed limit because the system simply would not allow it to happen. And if for some reason the system didn’t work properly, and we managed to break a speed limit anyway, we could just blame the equipment. It would be somebody else’s fault, and we could wash our hands of all responsibility. Just imagine it, no more speeding fines ever! Maybe the whole thing isn’t such a bad idea after all.

But wait a minute, just what would the state government do for revenue then?

NBN Is The Future

2010-10-22T13:21:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 22.10.10.
While it has been reported that just 262 homes in Tasmania have chosen to take up connection to the new National Broadband Network, with claims that this represents just one in ten of those who have the opportunity, that does not mean that the roll out is a failure. The opposition has labelled it as “farcical” and described the roll out rate as “appallingly low”, but that is really a very short-sighted view of the facts. It is also unclear just how many people are prepared to sign up for the full 100 mbps connection speed at $100 a month, as opposed to the cheaper options at $30 or $60 a month for lower speeds. But again, early adoption rates are not necessarily a fair indicator of the long term viability of the network.

Any new technology will take time to permeate the community when it is introduced. When colour televisions were introduced in 1975 not every household rushed out and bought one right away. There would have been a brief period when more people still had black and white sets, but over time the balance changed. Right now we are going through the process of introducing digital television, and while the sets are becoming much more commonplace now, it was only a few years ago that networks were broadcasting digital channels with very few people actually watching them. The internet itself was at first a novelty, and now it is for many people a necessity. To say that an early take up rate of one in ten represents a failure is just nonsensical.

The other concern, about the price, is also a complete red herring. Once again, take a look at all the previous examples of the introduction of new technology. Colour TV’s became less expensive as they became more widespread. Ditto digital TV sets. And only just a few years ago some people were bleating that no-one would ever pay for broadband because it was so much more expensive than dial up. Really? ADSL is now cheaper than dial up used to be. All the while bandwith and speeds have been increasing so that customers are now getting much more for much less. The only problem is that the spine of our telecommunications network is a copper wire system which has been with us for a century and simply will not be capable of doing the job for much longer.

That’s why a fibre optic network IS the future, regardless of whether there is any additional complementary wireless network, or even other technologies we have not yet imagined.

Not Very Christian

2010-10-21T13:07:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 21.10.10.
It’s hard to understand why some religious groups are opposed to the introduction of ethics classes into New South Wales schools. The plan is to offer the classes as an alternative to children whose parents choose not to send them to scripture classes. Currently, such children are left with nothing to do and usually spend the time watching DVDs. The recent ten week trial of the classes has been deemed to be a great success, popular with parents and teachers, and useful in giving students a grasp of ethical and moral behaviour. While those who oppose the classes claim that they are concerned that students who attend religious education will miss out on any benefit that might be obtained from the ethics instruction, I’m not convinced that there isn’t something else on their minds.

Do they mean to suggest that the existing scripture classes are NOT teaching ethical and moral behaviour? Do they want to deny children from families who do not belong to any organised religion the opportunity to benefit from instruction in ethical and moral concepts? Could it be possible that some of the religious organisations who are opposed to these classes are actually more concerned about being undermined in some way in their own moral authority? Do they fear that if parents are given the choice that more of them will choose to have their children given secular instruction on ethics and morality? Or would they really prefer that children from non-religious families are left without the opportunity for any kind of moral or ethical guidance at all?

Surely, that wouldn’t be very Christian, would it?

NBN Plan Provides Certainty For Telstra Shareholders

2010-10-20T12:39:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 20.10.10.
As the federal election gradually recedes into a distantly faintly remembered past, the minority government is beginning to (excuse me) move forward with its legislative agenda. Today the Prime Minister has announced the reintroduction of legislation for the National Broadband Network. Specifically, the legislation will enforce the structural separation of Telstra, along with measures relating to access to telecommunications services, and consumer protection rules. It is an important component of the government’s plans to deliver high speed broadband to virtually every home in Australia. In doing so, it spells out the future for Telstra, and provides a level of certainty for shareholders.

In fact, if it’s done right, it will be good for Telstra shareholders who for the most part have been on a rollercoaster ride since the company was privatised more than a decade ago. The mums and dads who bought into the company, especially the later tranches, could be forgiven for feeling short-changed by a process which left them owning a piece of a company suffering from declining market share and increasing competition. Many believed that the privatisation process was flawed from the beginning, and that the company should have been structurally separated prior to the initial float in 1997, selling off the retail business, and retaining the wholesale network as a public asset. It’s ironic that the new NBN plan will achieve almost that exact arrangement.

Of course, whether the new network will itself turn out to be good value for money is an entirely different question.

Time For Honesty

2010-10-19T13:29:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 19.10.10.
Today the parliamentary debate over Australia’s military engagement in Afghanistan gets underway, some say nine years overdue. It is important that the debate not only proceeds, but genuinely addresses the concerns held by so many Australians about the deployment. Perhaps not everyone would agree, but nine years ago the reasons for joining the coalition forces to drive out the Taliban and hunt down Al Qaeda were both valid and compelling. Over time however, United States strategy lost its direction and the decision to also invade Iraq was not only a disaster in itself, but undermined progress in Afghanistan. In time, it became difficult for everyday Australians to understand why the process was taking so long, and despite solid bi-partisan support for the deployment, our political leaders failed to adequately explain the relevance of our continued involvement.

Naturally, every time an Australian soldier died in Afghanistan people would ask why it was necessary. After a while people started asking if it was all in vain. So far it has happened 21 times, and sadly it could happen many more times yet before it is over. That’s why it is vitally important for the Australian people to be told honestly about the justifications for this action. The truth is that it should not have been necessary for the conflict to stretch out for nine years. The truth is that mistakes have been made. But that doesn’t mean that taking action in Afghanistan was itself a mistake. More importantly, having taken that action and pursued this course, it would be a mistake to abruptly abandon the cause and allow Afghanistan and the surrounding region to descend into the kind of instability that led to all these problems in the first place.

That would only mean that the whole effort, and the 21 deaths, really had been in vain.

As Good As It Gets

2010-10-14T12:53:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 14.10.10.
It has to be the story of the decade, if not the century. Today all 33 of the miners trapped almost 700 metres underground in Chile for almost 70 days have been successfully rescued. Lost after an underground cave-in they were believed to be dead for 17 days before a remote probe was able to reach their location. When it emerged that all 33 were safe and relatively well a feeling of elation and astonishment spread quickly around the world. But with that came the realisation that any rescue would take months, possibly the remainder of the year. Today, the hopes and prayers of the men themselves, their families, their friends, and complete strangers from every part of the world have been answered. It is a wonderful story of endurance, hope, faith, and triumph over disaster.

It has also been a fascinating story of human frailty with miner Yonni Barrios becoming internationally famous when his wife met his girlfriend while keeping vigil at the mine. What must be at the very least a slightly awkward situation became the source of much amusement and constant jokes around the world. When Yonni finally reached the surface today, he was met by his girlfriend. Although he had invited his wife to stay, apparently she declined, saying “I'm not going to go see the rescue. He asked me to, but it turned out he had also asked the other lady and I have decency. One thing is clear: it's her or me”. According to some reports, it turns out that Yonni actually separated from his wife some years ago, so it would seem that the story is not quite as salacious as it first appeared. But hey, why let the facts get in the way of a good story, especially if it’s good for a laugh.

Now that all 33 men are free they will all have their own opportunities to tell their own stories in their own way and in their own time. No doubt there will be no shortage of offers for paid media appearances, book deals, and I would be prepared to wager, a Hollywood movie deal. I hope that every single one of them profits in some way from what has been after all a supremely difficult period in their lives. They deserve every cent they might potentially earn, and they deserve all of the good wishes and recognition that will come their way. And they also deserve to be left alone to quietly go about rebuilding their lives without further intrusions if that is what they choose. Either way, they have managed to turn tragedy into triumph, as have all of the rescue workers who have made this wonderful outcome possible.

It’s not often that the biggest story in the news is actually good news, and today’s news is as good as it gets.

They Are Just Not Listening

2010-10-13T13:11:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 13.10.10.
It’s no wonder our hospitals are struggling so badly to keep up with the demands placed upon them. All the evidence would seem to suggest that hospitals in New South Wales are overcrowded. Occupancy rates at many major hospitals have been reported as consistently exceeding 90%, with Saint Vincent’s registering 99%, the Prince of Wales running at 95%, and the average across the state reaching 87.9% for the 2009-10 financial year. Doctors have been repeatedly calling for a target of 85% occupancy to be set, describing it as an internationally accepted standard necessary for optimum safe and efficient care. Repeated inquiries and studies have determined that the primary cause of overcrowding in emergency rooms is access block, caused by a lack of available beds in the hospital when an emergency patient needs to be admitted to a ward. No beds available, means that patients are stacked up in the emergency department taking up space and soaking up resources so that new arrivals are forced to wait.

However, when confronted with these facts, the New South Wales government, and the Department of Health simply deny that any problem exists. Deputy Premier and Health Minister Carmel Tebbutt claims that “there is no definitive rule that states it is unsafe for hospitals to operate above an 85% bed occupancy,” and insists that achieving such a target would mean that more than 3000 acute care beds would be left “fully staffed but deliberately empty.” Today I spoke with the Deputy Director of New South Wales Health, Dr Tim Smythe, and he went even further. Dr. Smythe said that the 85% figure is a myth and is meaningless in terms of quality of care. He insisted that the claimed occupancy rates, such as the 99% at St Vincent’s for example, are based on “patient-bed-days” and are not an accurate representation of actual occupancy rates. He further claimed that there is no one single “magic figure” to define optimum occupancy rates with different rates being appropriate for different treatments, different procedures, different patients, different locations, and different circumstances.

This is such a typical bureaucrat’s response, and only serves to demonstrate that figures really can be twisted around to mean whatever you want them to mean. The idea that maximum efficiency is achieved by running at maximum capacity is fatally flawed, one that seems to take industrial theory and apply it to healthcare. But patients are not products, and hospitals are not factories, and it is wrong to treat them as if they are. The target of 85% is supposed to reflect an average which will accommodate surges in demand which might at times stretch hospitals to beyond normal circumstances. Failure to structurally incorporate such excess capacity not only means that there is no surge capacity, but also that staff and resources are pushed to the limit all the time, which only increases the prospect of adverse events such as medical mistakes and unnecessary deaths, which ultimately actually cost us all much more than it would to have a reasonable margin for safety built in to the system.

This bloody minded denial of the obvious also makes it painfully clear that the government, and their bureaucrats, are simply not listening to the doctors, not listening to the patients, and most certainly not listening to the taxpayers of New South Wales.

Women At The Top

2010-10-12T13:45:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 12.10.10.
Westpac Bank has just announced a target of having women in at least 40% of management positions in the next four years. Although it is not the first big company to make such an undertaking, it is one of only a very few. In many ways it seems difficult to believe that such matters remain an issue after half a century of feminism, and long standing equal rights legislation. Surely this is a battle which was won long ago. We have a woman as Prime Minister, and a woman as Premier. In fact, by the time Kristina Keneally became the first woman to be Premier of New South Wales, nobody particularly cared one way or another. All other things being equal it would be reasonable to expect men and women to be more or less roughly equally represented in the top jobs. And yet, for some reason the numbers of women in leadership roles remain significantly and disproportionately lower than men.

Working out just why that might be is not entirely simple, but it would seem that community attitudes and perceptions still play a prominent role. Despite the progress which has been made over the decades, old prejudices are slow to completely disappear. It might have been in the 1960s when Star Trek first showed women in positions of responsibility, but it was still another thirty years before they put one in command of a Starship, and even then the television networks were worried whether the audience would accept it. And that’s just a work of fiction. Here in the real world there are still people who believe that women are somehow not equipped to take a leadership role and that it is somehow wrong that they should try. And some of the people who have said such things to me are actually women themselves. While those views are becoming much less prevalent, I have been shocked to discover they have not entirely disappeared.

Of course, it’s one thing for a handful of old fashioned people in the general community to cling to some old fashioned ideas, but it is entirely another thing for those ideas to hold any sway in the board rooms of our biggest companies. It is hard to believe that modern business, which is so obsessed with bottom line thinking, might be making decisions on executive appointments based on anything other than qualifications and competence. Is the propensity of boards to favour the appointment of men based on old prejudices, or is it the result of a lack of suitable candidates? If it is the latter, then why is there a lack of suitable candidates? Has there been a failure by companies to provide adequate training and opportunities to advance for women? Is there still an “old boys” culture within some companies where jobs are awarded to mates, and all the mates just happen to be men? The truth is that all of these things are contributing factors.

But it should also be remembered that while women fought for the right to work in the top jobs, they did not fight for the obligation to do so. Women fought for the right to have a choice of whether to pursue a career, to have a family, to do both, or to do neither. One woman told me that she believed that women have far more choices than men, because society does not condemn them for staying home and letting someone else be the bread winner, while very few men would be allowed to consider that as an option. On that basis, women would seem to be better off than men, not worse. And besides, who said that running a big company is the only measure of success anyway?

I’m sure that plenty of women are capable of doing it… it’s just that some of them quite happily choose not to.

Gotcha!

2010-10-11T13:09:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 11.10.10.
Once again the debate about speed limits and penalties has sprung up, this time in response to a proposal from the NRMA that the penalty system should be reviewed to more adequately, and fairly, reflect the modern driving environment. The NRMA has proposed that drivers should be allowed a total of 13 demerit points rather than 12, that the demerit points should have a life of two years rather than three, and that good drivers who have not accumulated any points should be rewarded with discounts on their licence renewal fees or registration. Whether or not those proposals are adopted, the NRMA says that it is time for a review of the system which is almost 40 years old, and was introduced before the days of speed cameras.

Of course, the truth is that if you don’t want to be penalised all you need to do is don’t break the law. Of course, there is a need for sensible speed limits, and other road rules, to manage the ever increasing traffic and promote road safety. And of course, if there are rules there should be penalties for breaking those rules otherwise they would easily become meaningless. But there is no shortage of motorists who have become so frustrated that they believe that the penalties are designed to collect revenue rather than to protect the safety of motorists. But I’m not really sure that it’s the penalties that are the problem. As I said, there need to be penalties so that we are discouraged from doing the wrong thing. Instead, I believe that it’s the rules which are the problem.

It’s easy to understand the frustration when the whole system increasing seems to be designed to trap the driver into making a mistake rather than help the driver get from point A to point B safely and efficiently. Cameras, both fixed and mobile, lurking at every turn, a vast array of possible speed limits from 40 through to 110 which could appear in any combination over a short distance, variable speed limits, speed limits for road works when there are no road works actually taking place, transit lanes, and bus lanes, all seem to be designed only to catch the unwary. And the moment you make a mistake, the government gleefully cries “gotcha”, grabs your money and takes away your points. The trouble is that if you keep on making more and more laws, sooner or later it becomes impossible not break at least some of them inadvertently.

And what’s worse, if the rules become too difficult to follow, people will inevitably lose all respect for them and won’t bother to even try.

Leaving Dracula In Charge Of The Blood Bank

2010-10-08T13:43:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 08.10.10.
(Today's editorial has been written by William Allan)

We’ve all experienced it. You’re sitting down to dinner when the phone rings or the doorbell chimes, and you are confronted with a barrage of sales tactics at such a pace you are barely able to interrupt with a polite but firm “no thanks”. Ceiling insulation, cheaper phone rates, bargain holiday packages, and now even electricity are being sold both door to door and by unsolicited phone calls. In recent times, the ‘Do Not Call’ register has delivered some success to those of us who’ve had enough of the harassing phone calls. Introduced in a wave of sweeping reforms, it was a firm response to what clearly was an inability of businesses to play by the rules. So if businesses can not be trusted to ‘self regulate’ when it comes to telemarketing, how on earth can they be trusted to ‘self regulate’ when it comes to ‘door to door sales’.

Yet that’s just what the Energy Retailers Association of Australia has been touting as part of a new era in improved customer service and standards. They’re making a formal proposal to the ACCC to establish a ‘self-regulatory’ scheme to monitor and control door to door sales tactics used by electricity companies – a marketing strategy the companies themselves admit has been plagued by underhanded tactics and false information. The electricity companies want to register and track the door knockers, weeding out those who use questionable sales tactics. Fair enough. The problem however is not with the door to door sales person - they’re just trying to make ends meet. The problem is with the electricity companies themselves – companies that are making substantial profits, paying exorbitant executive salaries, and charging prices that fewer and fewer can afford. These companies are pressuring their door knockers to resort to extreme tactics.

Who is really to blame, when an employee’s ability to put food on the table is directly proportional to their ability to convince people to change electricity providers – all for the sake of a few cents in savings. Marketing practices employed by the energy companies continue to account for almost 10% of Ombudsman complaints. Shockingly, energy marketing complaints continue to grow at a rate five times faster than similar complaints made about phone companies. Despite this, the energy companies believe that complaints are at an acceptable level, and that they should be given more control.

The trouble is most people see that as nothing more than leaving Dracula in charge of the blood bank.

At Least New South Wales, The Premier State, Is Number One In Something

2010-10-07T13:02:00.001+11:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 07.10.10.
It’s no secret that the price of electricity is going up. We have all seen our bills increasing over recent years, and we’ve all been told repeatedly by the government, the regulator, the industry, and the media to expect more of the same. We know that prices are expected to increase by as much as 40% over the next few years even without a price on carbon dioxide emissions, and as much as 60% if and when there is a carbon price. We even have a pretty clear idea of why the price has risen so far, and will continue to rise even further. A number of factors are involved, but by far the most significant is the long term lack of investment in the infrastructure as successive governments have repeatedly sucked all the cash they can out of the sector to beef up the budget bottom line.

What’s worse, is that there isn’t really all that much to show for it in terms of government services or community infrastructure with so much of the budget bottom line evaporating into sheer waste. $400 million and counting for a Sydney Metro system which will most likely never be built. $100 million wasted on a T-Card system which was never delivered, and the money might never be recovered. That’s a total of half a billion dollars right there for those two items alone. And who pays? You and I do, with the cost of our electricity being driven upwards to pay for the belated investment in the infrastructure which should already have been covered by the past dividends of the publicly owned power providers.

It’s not a problem which is peculiar to New South Wales, with prices all around Australia being driven higher for much the same reasons. But sadly it is the state of New South Wales which leads the way. A report by the Institute of Public Affairs has shown that around the nation the price of electricity has outstripped inflation by almost four times over the past five years. Yet some cities have fared better than others, with the best performing city Adelaide registering an increase over five years of 16%. Sydney, by contrast, has experienced an increase in the price of electricity of 61.3% over the same period. As Duncan Gay, the Shadow Minister for Energy said to me today, “at least New South Wales, the premier state, is number one in something.” He was of course being sarcastic, as he levied the blame at the feet of the current government which has had more than 15 years to address this problem.

While it is relatively straightforward to identify the problem, it is much harder to devise a solution. With the government having proven to be such a poor manager of what is supposed to be a public asset, perhaps privatisation really will deliver better administration. But sadly that is no guarantee of lower prices or better service. In fact the reason for the problem is that the government has behaved just like a greedy corporation in the first place, rather than as a responsible government. Privatisation, in any form, is only going to see the perpetuation of the principle of profit before people, as any private operator will quite reasonably expect to be allowed to manage their investment in a manner which maximises their profit. That is what private companies do, so we cannot and should not expect any form of privatisation to deliver consumers a better deal. Unless a cheaper source of energy is discovered, the only solution will inevitably involve greater subsidies for low income families, or the reduction of living standards.

Neither of those options should have ever been necessary in the first place.

It Just Doesn’t Add Up

2010-10-06T13:06:00.000+11:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 06.10.10.
While business borrowers and mortgagors breathed a sigh of relief that the reserve Bank Board decided to leave interest rates on hold, there continue to be signs that not all is well in the Australian economy, and consequently in the Australian community. Today, we have seen the call by Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey for industrial relations policy to be reformed yet again. The opposition leader may have declared Work Choices to be “dead, buried and cremated” during the election campaign, but there is every indication that certain elements of that policy remain very much on the coalition agenda. Specifically, exemptions from unfair dismissal laws for small business along with individual contracts, which were both key features of Work Choices, are likely to be objectives of any revision to Coalition policy. Of course, Tony Abbott promised that current industrial relations laws would remain unchanged for this term of parliament, but as he did not win the election it’s fair to say that all bets are off and the Coalition is free to rewrite its policy any way it wants.

This comes at a time when it has been revealed that the much vaunted benefits of the resources boom and the resilient response to the Global Financial Crisis has come at the cost of declining wages and conditions for ordinary Australians. A report by the Sydney University Workplace Research Centre has found that while workers in the mining sector have done very well, people employed in retail, hospitality, and community services such as health, are experiencing reduced hours, a move to casual and part time jobs, and wages growth which is failing to keep pace with inflation. In other words, they are literally going backwards. At the same time, essential goods and services such as electricity and many grocery items are increasing in price at a rate above inflation. It all adds up to a significant number of people finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet at a time when we are all being told how well we are doing. For those people it just doesn’t add up.

Further to this, the Sydney Morning Herald has used figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics to make a comparison between what would have once been described as “working class” suburbs and the suburbs which are home to our highest income earners. The result is that in the five years from 2003 to 2008 the eastern suburbs average income increased from two and a half times the western suburbs average up to almost three times. As they say, the rich get richer… The same effect can be seen more broadly with the rate of average wages growth being rapidly outstripped by the growth in executive salaries, with CEO pay packets exploding in the past twenty years. Now there’s nothing wrong with top people being paid top money, but there is a structural problem for both the economy and the community as a whole when ordinary people can no longer afford to pay for the goods and services that they themselves produce. You simply cannot have a consumer economy without consumers.

Neither bringing back Work Choices, nor pushing up interest rates can fix that.

Two Deaths In Two Days.

2010-10-05T13:24:00.002+11:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 05.10.10.
Two men have died over the past two days when arrested by New South Wales police, one after being subjected to capsicum spray and the use of a baton; the other after being shot with a Taser. In both cases, questions are now being asked about police procedures and whether or not excessive force has been used. In the case of the first man, Steven Bosevski, witnessed have reportedly claimed that it was police who initiated the violence, not the alleged offenders. In the second case, the alleged offender appeared to be mentally disturbed and was armed with a pair of knives. Police claim that under the circumstances they behaved appropriately, and that although the loss of life has been tragic, there was very little else that they could do.

This follows the report from Western Australia over the weekend which has revealed the excessive and inappropriate use of tasers. In one case, a mentally disturbed man was subjected to 14 Taser shots, before being shot again by prison guards a week later. Last year, a man in Queensland died after receiving 28 jolts from a Taser fired by a police officer. Here in New South Wales, the Ombudsman Bruce Barbour has reported that he has found repeated cases of Tasers being used excessively and inappropriately. Mr Barbour said that in “situations where there are multiple officers surrounding an individual, the individual is compliant but is acting in a little way strangely, they may be drunk, they may be affected by drugs but they're not presenting a direct threat… In those cases, we think that the traditional methods of resolving a dispute are far preferable to shooting somebody with 50,000 volts of electric current."

There is clear evidence from other jurisdictions both in Australia and around the world, that the idea of a Taser representing a “less than lethal option” can and does lead to a more casual attitude, and a greater propensity to rely on the weapon as something other than a measure of last resort. In fact, the evidence seems to indicate that it is very easy for a tendency to develop where the use of a Taser becomes the preferred option to resolve a situation quickly, and, in Bruce Barbour’s words, “with some finality.” That might be a viable policy if the Taser really was a “less than lethal” weapon, but the truth is that it is not. Although other factors obviously have contributed to Taser related deaths, it is abundantly clear that a Taser should always be considered to be a “potentially lethal” option. As such it is vital that its use should be governed by guidelines which are similar to those which apply to firearms.

Waiting For Her People To Call My People

2010-09-17T13:15:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 17.09.10.
Since it was announced this week that Oprah Winfrey is coming to Australia to film her television show, there have been all sorts of suggestions for who and what should appear on the show, as well as for things for Oprah to see and do while she is here. The Channel Ten entertainment reporter Angela Bishop even suggested in her interview with Oprah that perhaps she might like to stay with a dinky di Australian family, something which Oprah appeared to find appealing. Of course, there would be no shortage of volunteers prepared to play host to the American TV star, but I wonder if she really would enjoy such a visit.

I mean, this is Oprah we’re talking about. One of the richest women in the world, accustomed to being able to have the best of everything. If she was suddenly to find herself camping out at my place she might find things a little cramped. Good heavens, what would she think of the untidy mess in the kids’ rooms, and could she stand sharing the bathroom with the rest of the family? And just what on earth would we talk about? I mean, I am not about to start jumping up and down on my own couch talking about being in love with Katie Holmes just to keep my house guest amused. But I suspect that she might find our usual discussions about balancing the family finances just a tad mundane.

Or perhaps it would be a novelty for her. Perhaps that’s just the sort of thing that she wants to experience. If so, I suppose I can convince my son to vacate his room for a few nights so that Oprah can make her way through the meccano parts and dirty clothes strewn across the floor and curl up in bed in a real Aussie home. We could make our traditional Saturday morning breakfast of bacon and scrambled eggs, followed by doing a couple of loads of laundry and the weekly clean up around the house. Chores done, we could pack up the 30 plus and some bottled water and drive down to the beach. I would carefully explain to Oprah about swimming between the flags, and how to swim across a rip to get back to shore. But not before pulling her leg about the risk of shark attack. Well, she is American after all, so a bit of good natured ribbing should be a part of her Aussie experience.

Yep, sounds perfect to me. I’m just waiting for her people to call my people.

Speaker’s Position A Question Of Priorities

2010-09-16T13:06:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 16.09.10.
It’s difficult to see just how Rob Oakeshott could continue to function as an independent member of Parliament if he is appointed as Speaker of the House. To some degree it would sideline him from dealing with the very issues which he has claimed are important to him, and to his constituents. The Speaker of the House does not have a deliberative vote, so under normal circumstances which ever party the Speaker belongs to would be deprived of a vote. Among the reforms negotiated by the independent members has been an arrangement for the Speaker to be “paired” with a member of the opposing party so that the balance is maintained. However, if the Speaker is an independent it seems that he would have to indicate in advance his voting intention on every single deliberative vote so that he can be paired with a member from whichever side he is voting against. It sounds awkward and inconvenient, and may well prove to be unworkable.

However, the Speaker does have a casting vote, so that a deadlock can be broken. Traditionally, the Speaker is appointed by the government from among the ranks of their own party, so a casting vote could normally be counted upon to favour the government. However, that’s only tradition, and there is nothing to prevent the appointment of an independent Speaker, at least on that basis. If Mr. Oakeshott does become Speaker, there is no guarantee that his casting vote would go one way or the other. Whether or not that is something that the government would be willing to embrace remains to be seen. There is also some doubt about the level of participation in private members’ business, and whether or not the Speaker would be entitled to put a motion or introduce a primate member’s bill.

While some might be dazzled by the extra $100 000 or so that is added to the Speaker’s pay packet, and wonder whether or not that is the motivation for Mr. Oakeshott’s interest in the position, there are legitimate reasons in favour of the move. All three of the so called country independents have expressed a keen interest in bringing about reform to the parliamentary process, and sitting in the Speaker’s chair is one way of promoting that cause. But, while parliamentary reform might be a good idea, and it might well improve the quality of parliamentary process, the question is one of priorities. If taking the Speaker’s chair means that Mr. Oakeshott’s ability to represent his constituents on the issues about which he is apparently so passionate is in any way diminished, then perhaps it would be better to pass up the opportunity.

After all, he still has considerable influence from where he sits now on the cross benches.

Looking Back And Moving Forward

2010-09-15T14:05:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 15.09.10.
It’s hard to believe that ten year have gone by since the opening of the Sydney Olympics. Ten whole years, just like that. One moment we are all in Sydney celebrating the event of a lifetime, sharing the spirit with visitors from around the nation and around the world, and the next thing you know here we are looking back. And at the risk of being churlish, perhaps that has been a problem. Perhaps there has been a little too much looking back and not enough moving forward. Perhaps there has been too much basking in past glory, resting on our laurels, and not enough effort directed towards taking the lessons from that great achievement and using them to launch Sydney, and all of New South Wales, into the 21st Century.

The commonly made observation has been that for a couple of weeks in 2000 the trains all ran on time, everything worked smoothly, and everybody was friendly, cheerful and happy, so why can’t we do that all the time? Why can’t this state have the best public transport in the world, the best public hospitals, the best public management of our infrastructure? Is it really too much to ask? Of course, there was a tremendous concentration of resources devoted to making the 2000 games such a success. The effort was focused, and relied upon a huge amount of goodwill. It required not only the best standards of management but the coordinated effort of thousands upon thousands of workers and volunteers, all doing their bit and doing it well.

Today we have celebrated what remains an outstanding success, and that is fair enough. But many people have observed that the success of the Sydney Olympics marked a kind of high water mark, and since then the ball has been dropped. Some have said that Sydney, and New South Wales have failed to fully capitalise on the Games in the years since, both in terms of maximising tourism, and of ongoing state development. It has been said that a certain complacency was allowed to settle in, as if the benefits of a successful Games would simply keep on flowing automatically without any further effort. But what if the same standard of management had been applied to the ongoing promotion of the state, to the ongoing development of infrastructure, and the ongoing delivery of all government services.

It’s perfectly fine to be celebrating the success of the games ten years ago, but we should be using that outstanding success as an inspiration to do even better in the years ahead.

A Bank Is Not Just Any Business

2010-09-14T13:08:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 14.09.10.
The Sydney Morning Herald today revealed that at least two of our big banks have been accused of harassing their own customers over outstanding debts. The ANZ and the NAB have been accused of threatening legal action against customers who have already entered into arrangements to make payments, seizing the savings of customers to repay debts without regard to their living expenses, demanding that a customer forfeit half of her Centrelink payments, and in one case initiating action against the wrong customer because she had a similar name to a debtor.

Of course, any business which is owed money is entitled to take steps to pursue repayment, but a bank is not just any business. No other business is in a position where they are both selling us their services and also holding our savings at the same time. No other business is in such a position to impose its will upon our lives, regardless of whether or not their claim is valid. No other business holds us so completely captive as do the banks. We have no choice but to be bank customers in this age of electronic payments for everything. So it should be incumbent upon the banks to not only treat us fairly, but to recognise their social responsibility.

When things go wrong, and customers cannot meet their obligations to repay a mortgage or a loan, or a credit card bill, there are supposed to be provisions for dealing with the problem. If somebody simply refuses to pay then of course steps must be taken to recover the money. But in cases of hardship, it is essential that banks act responsibly to help the customer through the period of hardship, and hopefully back onto a sound footing. That’s just not going to happen if over zealous debt collectors are launching legal action, seizing savings, and ignoring genuine efforts to resolve the difficulty. In the long run, it is not only in the interests of the customer, but it’s also in the best interests of the bank.

The Alcohol Isn’t Helping

2010-09-13T13:01:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 13.09.10.
737 arrests across New South Wales, three shots fired in Kings Cross, one man dead after an alleged assault near Wollongong. Those are the figures after the much publicised Operation Unite over the weekend, intended as a coordinated crackdown on alcohol related violence across the nation. It seems odd that so many people would get themselves into so much trouble after all of the publicity that police would be out in force at the weekend, rather than making an effort to be better behaved. Or is this just a normal Saturday night, and the big numbers of arrests merely a reflection of the increased police numbers? Or is it possible that an increased police presence actually incites some people?

These are questions which are not easily answered, but one thing is certain and that is we do have a problem with alcohol and its link to violence. I have always maintained that the alcohol itself is not the sole factor contributing to the problem. It is possible for many people to have a big night out, possibly drink a little more than is good for the health, but still not become rude, obnoxious, anti-social or violent. But for some people, especially some who may be predisposed to brutish behaviour in the first place, too much to drink obviously brings out their worst. Whether that means that everybody who enjoys a drink should be denied the opportunity just so that the trouble makers are prevented from making asses of themselves is a difficult question, but some would suggest that the sacrifice would be worth it.

Over the same weekend, there was also a report in the press about some establishments enforcing a policy to refuse entry to people with particular styles of haircut. The reasoning had nothing to do with fashion sense, but to do with attitude. It seems that antisocial attitudes have been associated with certain hairstyles which are then used as criteria to determine if you are a desirable patron or not. It might be a flimsy basis upon which to make such a judgement, but it does identify the real problem behind any kind of violence whether alcohol related or not. That is attitude. Violence is always driven by an attitude of entitlement, whther the entitlement to enforce one’s own will, the entitlement to seek retribution for a perceived insult, or just the entitlement to derive some sort of sick satisfaction from inflicting harm upon others.

It’s not the alcohol that’s the problem, it’s the attitude. But the bottom line is that in almost every case, the alcohol is not helping.

A Greater Crime

2010-09-10T13:02:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 10.09.10.
The death of policeman William Crews is a shocking reminder of the terrible risks than can so often confront our police officers. For most of us, a day at the office is no more dangerous than making a cup of tea. For some of us, the workplace has hazards that can lead to serious harm through accident, such as on construction sites or in mining. But very few of us would be prepared to do a job where there are times when there are people who are actively trying to kill us. But for the men and women who serve our community as police officers, it is an inescapable part of the job. It takes a special kind of person to accept that challenge.

It can be all too easy to criticise police for their failings, or complain when we make a mistake and get a ticket for speeding, but when we do we forget that the role of our police force is to uphold our laws and to protect our right to live in a peaceful society, free of the dangers of drugs and violent crimes. All of us are imperfect, but the best of us are always striving to do and be the best that we can, and the same is true for police officers. That’s why they go to work every day, not knowing what unexpected dangers might present themselves. That’s why they take the risk that perhaps they may not go home at the end of the shift.

There have been calls for the punishment for those who kill police to be increased over and above the usual penalties for killing. The New South Wales opposition has called for a mandatory life sentence for anyone who murders a police officer, not because a police officer is somehow more important than any other individual, but because of what the officer stands for. An attack on a police officer is not just an attack on the individual, it is also an attack against the whole community, against all of us. It is an assault on the state as well as on the person, and the seriousness of that attack should be recognised by the law.

Whether or not a mandatory life sentence is appropriate is open for discussion, but the argument that a greater crime has been committed is valid.

The Thin Ice

2010-09-09T13:42:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 09.09.10.
You might have heard of the low cost airline Ryan Air which operates in Europe. It has made news around the world many times for its ferocious cost cutting measures, including charging passengers for checking in, and slapping extra fees on credit card bookings, checked baggage and so on. Last year Ryan Air attracted widespread condemnation for announcing its intention to install coin slots on its toilet doors, and has even suggested flights with standing room only so that more passengers could be squeezed in. It’s an idea which brings a whole new meaning to cattle class, but at least there’d be no chance of falling over with so many passengers all packed in up against each other. Now, the latest suggestion from the boss at Ryan Air is that airlines could abolish co-pilots.

C. E. O. Michael O’Leary reportedly said, “Why does every plane have two pilots? Really, you only need one pilot. Let's take out the second pilot. Let the bloody computer fly it.” He went on to suggest that a flight attendant on each flight could be trained to take over in emergencies and assist with landing, completely ignoring the obvious fact that in an emergency is the very time when you most need properly trained and experienced pilots to handle the crisis. The man is obviously a lunatic and shouldn’t be permitted to be in charge of a lollypop shop, let alone an airline. Thankfully, authorities are unlikely to approve of his more outlandish ideas, but the fact is that this is just a symptom of a much wider problem, not just in airlines, but throughout the corporate world.

The fact is that this approach to maximising profits by aggressive cost cutting measures is widely embraced throughout the business community. This particular brand of management philosophy is the recipe which has led to overblown executive salaries for the chosen few at the expense of the income and job security of the people who must do the actual work, whatever that might be. The corporate elite see themselves as demigods, or in the parlance of Wall Street “Masters of the Universe”, who profit from playing with the pawns on the chessboard of life. Those pawns are you and me. The evidence is plain to see in the statistics on executive pay. While average wages have generally grown more or less in line with inflation, executive salaries have grown by almost ten times that much.

An even more startling statistic is the proportion of total income which goes to the wealthiest one percent of people. In the 1970's, in the United States, the richest one percent of families took in about 9 percent of the nation’s income. In 2007 the top one percent took home almost 25% of the money. Former United States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich recently wrote in the New York Times that the last time the ratio was so heavily weighted towards the wealthy was in 1928, just before the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression. Those are American statistics, but the point is the same in any part of the world. The point is that all this is the natural result of the business philosophy which dictates that profits can be grown by driving down both employee numbers and incomes, rather than maintaining an equitable share in the prosperity for all of those who contribute to its creation.

The inescapable fact is that if an airline keeps on cutting costs, sooner or later it is going to crash, and the same principle applies to the economy as a whole. If the participants in a consumer economy can no longer afford to buy the goods and services that they produce, the whole economy will crash. That has been a significant factor in causing the Global Financial Crisis, and despite all of the stimulus packages and rescue bailouts, that fundamental imbalance has not been corrected. Until it has, the world will continue to skate on thin economic ice, and people like Michael O’Leary at Ryan Air are only making it worse.

It’s A Bright Bright Sunshiny Day

2010-09-08T13:08:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL 08.09.10.
“Let’s draw back the curtains and let the sun shine in.” So said Julia Gillard upon forming Australia’s first minority federal government in 70 years. It is a well chosen metaphor which highlights the positive aspect of the circumstances in which the nation now finds itself. It implies that the sunshine of political goodwill and improved parliamentary processes can now flood into our lives through the open window of greater consultation and collaboration in government. But even if today is a bright bright sunshiny day, it doesn’t mean that all of the dark clouds have disappeared from the sky. (Apologies to Johnny Nash.)

While some have said that Julia Gillard will now become the first woman to have been elected by the people to be Prime Minister, I’m not sure that can really be said. Her claim to that position can only be sustained with the support of members who were elected by people who did not vote for Labor. The truth is that in a majority of electorates, 78 of them, the people voted against Labor. The independent member for Lyne, Rob Oakshott, was the last of the cross-bench members to declare his intentions, but not before spending an inordinate amount of time explaining that no one party had any claim to anything resembling a mandate.

Mr. Oakeshott, despite overstaying his welcome at the microphone, is absolutely right. No party can claim a mandate, or a clear victory from this election. He and his independent colleagues are also right that this period of minority government offers a tremendous opportunity for reform to the parliamentary process, but more importantly to the political process. It is an opportunity for the process to become more collaborative and less combative. It is an opportunity for those who have previously felt disenfranchised, especially in regional areas, to have their voices heard.

At the same time, there is no guarantee that it will turn out that way. It is still possible that collaboration and good will could evaporate in profound differences of policy. It is still possible that parliament could become bogged down in unresolved debate and legislation could be deadlocked. It is still possible that some might actively work against the smooth functioning of the delicately balanced parliament in order to destabilise the government and bring on an early election. While Julia Gillard’s optimistic reference to the sunshine is a very strong and appealing image, I suspect that not all our politicians will subscribe to that view.

Even if the government manages to run a full three year term, which is by no means certain, those dark clouds will never be far away.

Where Do You Draw The Line?

2010-09-07T13:19:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 07.09.10.
Swimming star Stephanie Rice caused considerable consternation over the weekend when she posted a message on social networking site Twitter in response to the dramatic Wallabies victory in the rugby union match against South Africa. In her exuberance she posted “Suck on that, faggots!” Stephanie immediately came under fire for using what was described as a homophobic insult, and was widely condemned. She responded with an apology, and deleted the twitter message, but it hasn’t been enough to stop the fall out. Today, the motor car company Jaguar has ended its sponsorship deal with the swimmer and asked for their car to be returned. Some might say that it is something of an over reaction, but of course Jaguar is entitled to make decisions about what they believe will reflect on the image and reputation of their brand.

At the same time, it has been reported that well known, some would say notorious, AFL and Channel Nine identity Sam Newman has been found by the Australian Communication and Media Authority to have breached the commercial television code of practice with a joke comparing a man with a monkey. In discussing a story about a young Malaysian man who had married a 107 year old woman, Sam suggested that the man was “not long out of the forest”. A complaint was upheld by the Authority which found that the remark compared the man to a sub-human primate and was likely to provoke severe ridicule on the basis of race. Channel Nine stuck by their man and argued that the observation was a satirical reference to the man’s behaviour, not his race. ACMA disagreed and upheld the complaint.

Is this political correctness gone mad? Is there now a law against having a sense of humour? After all, Sam’s monkey man joke could well be directed at the man’s behaviour as he claimed, just as it is common to refer to naughty children as cheeky monkeys. For that matter, I am reasonably confident that Stephanie Rice probably didn’t mean to suggest that the South African Rugby Union players are necessarily homosexual, nor to imply, as Jerry Seinfeld would have said, “that there is anything wrong with that”. And where do you draw the line? What about those old Toyota ads that used the word bugger? Shouldn’t that be offensive to gays? And isn’t there a double standard when Sam Newman is to all intents and purposes paid to act like a crude and vulgar boofhead, but when somebody else does it they get penalised?

It can be incredibly difficult to keep track of where the line is currently drawn.

New Election Not On The Agenda

2010-09-06T12:52:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 06.09.10.
It’s now day 16 and counting since the federal election and still no result. Although anyone with a reasonable understanding of the system would have expected some delay after such a close vote, there is an increasing level of impatience in the community. Increasingly there are calls for the independent members to make up their minds so that everyone can get on with life, while there is also an increasing level of support for the idea of having a fresh election. Opinion polls are now showing that around 60% of Australians feel that a fresh election would be a better solution to the current impasse than a minority government. It’s not hard to understand why many people have that opinion.

Regardless of which side the three country independents finally choose to support, any minority government that is formed will hold power by only the slimmest margin. What’s more, while the independents might guarantee supply and confidence, there is no guarantee that they will support all or even any of a minority government’s proposed legislation. Whatever government is formed will be by its very nature inherently unstable, and possibly hamstrung. If every piece of legislation is going to have to be negotiated through the parliament and depend on a decision by the independents, it could be very slow going. Some might even suspect that the past two weeks of uncertainty are an indication of just how difficult the whole process will become.

Now that may or not may not be fair, but if it has taken this long to decide whether to back Liberal or Labor in the parliament, the question might well be asked how long would it take to negotiate complex legislation on important national issues. Climate change policy for one thing comes to mind. It was difficult to get any kind of consensus before, now it might well be impossible. Despite all this, the election result is what it is. These are the cards that have been dealt, and this is the hand that must be played. There will be a minority government formed. It looks increasingly as if it will be the Labor Party that forms it. The independents are doomed to disappoint about 50% of their constituents no matter which way they decide to go, and after about 12 months or so it will all become so difficult that the government will be tempted to call a fresh election to seek a clear mandate.

But a fresh election right now is a measure of last resort, and is not on anyone’s agenda just yet.

It’s Still Anybody’s Guess

2010-09-03T13:06:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 03.09.10.
Don’t worry, we should all finally know who will form government early next week, possibly on Monday. But until then it is still anybody’s guess. It would be easy to think that the Labor Party has pulled slightly ahead of the Coalition as being more likely to emerge as the victor because of the deals dome this week. On Wednesday, Julia Gillard signed an agreement with Greens leader Bob Brown guaranteeing the support of the newly elected Green Adam Bandt, and yesterday Andrew Wilke, the Tasmanian independent, also declared his support for Labor. This brings the tally to 74 seats controlled by Labor, 73 controlled by the Coalition, with the three country independents yet to make their decision. Labor still needs two more seats, and the Coalition requires three more, and with the three amigos virtually certain to act collectively, it could still go either way.

Of course, if the three from the country choose to support Labor it would mean a larger majority in the House than would be the case if they choose to support the Coalition, but only by one extra seat. It has been suggested that if stability of government is the highest priority then a majority of two is twice as good as a majority of one, so on that basis Labor should get the nod. On the other hand, Andrew Wilke chose to support Labor at least in part because it is clear that a majority of his constituents in Dennison would prefer a Labor government. If the three country independents were to apply the same principle it is clear that they should throw their support behind Tony Abbott and the Coalition. But of course, there are other factors that will also come into play, including the policy agenda of each party as well as the contentious Treasury costings of the Coalition’s promises.

Then there is the personal factor, with individual relationships having the potential to sway the final decision one way or another. Kevin Rudd has a long standing friendship with Bob Katter, while none of the three independents have a warm relationship with the National Party. Even though the policies of the Labor Party may not align with everything on Mr. Katter’s wish list, there is every chance that the courtesy extended to him in the past might now be returned by support in the Parliament. But there are no guarantees either way, and it remains anybody’s guess just which way it will go next week. Either way however, it is the Independent members who have the most to lose if there is another election before the Parliament runs a full term. Whichever side they eventually choose to support, you can bet your bottom dollar they will do everything they can to hold onto the influence they have had unexpectedly thrust into their hands.

The Endless Parade Of Embarrassments

2010-09-02T13:42:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 02.09.10.
Just when we were all beginning to tire of the never ending saga of the federal election, along comes a New South Wales government scandal to liven things up. While we wait the next few days for the independents to make up their minds whom they will support, we can all be entertained and amazed by the antics of the state government. The Minister for Ports and Waterways Paul McLeay has been forced to resign after it was revealed that he had been accessing pornography and gaming websites with a tax-payer provided computer. He is the fourth minister to resign since Kristina Keneally became Premier, and the ninth since the last election. Whether or not checking out dodgy websites at work should be considered a sackable offence is something that people might disagree over, but either way the parade of embarrassments would seem to be apparently endless.

It’s really neither here nor there if Paul McLeay, or any other politician, has been checking out porn and gaming websites in his spare time, although it must be said that any such activity in the workplace is never a good idea for two reasons. One, if it’s the workplace, you’re supposed to be working, and two, if colleagues are in any way affected or offended there is a significant problem. For those reasons, no matter whether you might be a free spirit or a prude, it is never a good idea at work. For a politician however, it is just stupid to get caught out in that way because public opinion is the lifeblood of politics, and a significant proportion of the public will have a very low opinion of such behaviour.

While Christian Democrat Fred Nile has also been caught up in the same audit of computer use, he has denied any wrong doing. The audit reportedly showed up more than 200 000 hits on porn sites using the Reverend Nile’s logon identification. He claims that it wasn’t him, and that the results arise from a staff member using his ID to conduct research on the Australian Sex Party and the Eros Foundation. Reverend Nile claims that the Clerk of the Parliament has reported to him that the audit result refers not to websites accessed, but to pop-ups. Anyone who has ever used the internet will immediately realise just how annoying and persistent pop up advertising, especially for porn sites, can be. The moment you try to close one pop up, several more will, well, pop up. Perhaps Paul McLeay should have used the same alibi and claimed that he too was doing “research”.

The funny thing is that it probably isn’t going to make much difference to the government’s chances of re-election for the simple reason that those chances were already close to non-existent anyway. It’s not just the revolving door on the Premier’s office which has seen constant changes of leadership without any improvement in performance, and it’s not just the human failings of individual politicians who have been caught up in a variety of scandals ranging from the merely embarrassing right through to the downright outrageous and even the potentially criminal. It is the sum of all these parts and more. It is the perception that this state government is not only inept and incompetent, but it is self obsessed, riddled with cronyism and patronage, and completely overcome with the weight of its own inertia.

The Battle Has Been Won, But The Real War Is Just Beginning.

2010-09-01T13:19:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 01.09.10.
The High Court of Australia has today handed a victory to Peter Spencer. Mr. Spencer , you may remember, is the New South Wales farmer who came to international prominence through staging a hunger strike at the top of a pole at the beginning of this year. For 52 days he camped out on a platform with minimal shelter perched high above the ground in a desperate attempt to promote his cause. That cause is property rights, and in particular the constitutional guarantee of proper compensation “on just terms” for the compulsory acquisition of property. Mr. Spencer had argued for years that the provisions of the New South Wales Native Vegetation Act which prevented the clearing of land in compliance with the Commonwealth Government commitment with the Kyoto Protocol for carbon reduction amounted to the removal of his property rights.

Mr. Spencer had previously taken this matter to the Federal Court of Australia which summarily dismissed his claim by ruling that it should not be heard on the grounds that there was no reasonable prospect of success. Mr. Spencer then appealed to the full bench of the Federal Court to for leave to have his claim heard, but that appeal was also rejected with the full bench upholding the original ruling that there was no reasonable prospect of success. Finally, Mr. Spencer has appealed to the High Court of Australia seeking leave to have his case heard. Today, the High Court has ruled that the Federal Court was wrong to refuse to hear the case, and has awarded costs to Mr. Spencer.

What this means is that Mr. Spencer now has the opportunity to argue his case in the Federal Court seeking recognition of his claim to property rights and compensation for the impact upon those rights by the combined effect of State and Federal legislation. It is a significant victory, but it doesn’t mean that Mr. Spencer has won his case just yet. It means that he has won the right to have his case heard, although that is in itself an important outcome. Most of us would like to think that we have a system of justice that allows us to at least have our grievances heard rather than dismissed out of hand. Now at least that much has been achieved, so that the vital question of just what our property rights really amount to can be properly examined.

The battle has been won, but the real war is just beginning.

Nobody Is Holding The Country To Ransom

2010-08-31T13:21:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 31.08.10.
It’s not surprising that many people are becoming impatient with the process of resolving the recent federal election. Why, people ask, is it taking so long? Why can’t the independent members just make a decision and we can all get on with it? Why are a handful of independents able to hold the country to ransom, demanding special favours for their electorates? It is understandable that many people might be asking these questions, but what is troubling is that these are all questions that have been asked by supposedly professional media presenters who seem to lack any comprehension of the process, and who really should know better. They should be in a position to answer these questions, not to ask them.

Research has shown that more than 50% of Australians are to some degree anxious or worried about the uncertain election result. That isn’t helped when people who might be expected to be well informed are instead promoting an ill-informed view. The truth is that the three country independents, along with Andrew Wilke, Adam Bandt, and Tony Crook are not holding anybody to ransom. All of them have been elected by their constituents and through no design of their own have now found themselves in a position where they must make a choice, whether they want to or not. Surely it is only right and proper that they all exert every effort to examining the issues and making a well reasoned decision. For that to happen, they should not be made to rush into declaring support for one side or another by some arbitrarily determined deadline.

Of course, this state of suspended animation cannot continue forever, and while there is no set deadline, there is a process. First, every last vote must be counted, and that won’t be completed until the end of this week at the earliest for the simple reason that the rules allow 13 days for postal votes to arrive. Second, the Governor General will call upon the incumbent Prime Minister to advise whether or not she can form a government, and if not the same question will be put to the Opposition Leader. Thirdly, whichever leader has claimed the ability to form government will be sworn in and the government commissioned. Fourth, the parliament will sit and the new government will test its numbers on the floor of the House of Representatives.

The next scheduled sitting of Parliament was set down for the 20th of September, although once a government is formed that schedule can be changed. Clearly the independents will have to make up their minds before then, but the delay so far has had virtually no impact on the day to day lives of ordinary Australians. Far from failing, the system is working well. The incumbent government remains in office in a caretaker capacity, and protocols exist for dealing with important matters which might arise. Instead of being fearful of the uncertainty, we should take comfort from the certainty provided by living in a stable secure community which has such a peaceful process for determining government. Far from being impatient for a result, we should be proud of a process which is now going to require all of our elected representatives to step up to the challenge of providing sound government.

Prime Minister In Waiting

2010-08-30T13:18:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 30.08.10.
It seems that everybody wants a piece of the action. Not only have the so called Country Independents put together their seven steps to forming government, the Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilke has put together his own list of 20 points to be addressed by the major parties to help him make his decision on who to support. He says they are not demands, but “priorities”. About half of them are national issues, while the other half relate to his electorate. Not to be left out, National Party members have started making noises about exerting their influence in any potential Coalition minority government.

The Nationals argue that without them the Liberal Party would be hopelessly short of numbers, and therefore deserve at least the same consideration as the Independents might receive in terms of any benefits for their electorates. Clearly there is a concern that the Independent’s might be courted with promises of increased services and infrastructure in their electorates, but the Nationals are concerned that the lack of any such benefits in their own electorates would not be a good look. And they have a valid point. If the Independents are seen to be doing better than the Nationals it would further erode the image of the Party in places where voters are already questioning their relevance and their worth.

It’s a fine line to walk because any disharmony would serve to undermine the Coalition’s chances of persuading anyone that they can form a stable minority government. But, the Nationals cannot afford to be left on the sidelines either, which is what they risk if the Independents get all the gravy. This period of negotiation is a real test of leadership for the Nationals, because while they are not the senior Coalition Party, they now confront a unique opportunity to re-establish their relevance in the country community. It’s also a test of leadership for Tony Abbott, who must somehow keep the coalition unified in the face of such internal frictions.

If he can manage to do that, it will go a long way to establishing his credentials as a Prime Minister in waiting.

Tony’s The Winner

2010-08-27T15:08:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 27.08.10.
Day six of the never ending election, and perhaps the final result is looking a little clearer. At the time of writing it appeared that the Coalition would hold 73 seats, the Labor Party 72, the Greens 1, and the Independents 4. Of course, that counts the Western Australian non-aligned National as part of the Coalition, along with the indication already given that the Green member would support Labor, so depending on how you look at it you could say that it’s 73 seats each plus 4 others, or 72 seats each with 6 others. Either way, the balance could not be any more precarious. Of course, it is that very fact which raises the question of whether or not any minority government which might be formed can possibly maintain any kind of stability.

On balance, I suspect that the real winner of this election has been Tony Abbott. The increased support for the Greens speaks for itself, but it is Tony Abbott and the Coalition who have come back from the wilderness to be within a whisker of taking office. It is Tony Abbott who has been the catalyst to restore the fortunes of the Coalition, while being instrumental in the downfall of the government’s credibility over the past nine months. Even before the election, Tony Abbott was a winner simply because he had pulled off something very few people believed possible just by getting the Coalition back into the race. Now, whichever way the result finally goes, all the cards are likely to favour Tony Abbott in the weeks and months ahead.

If Labor manages to form a minority government it will do so from a position of weakness. It will be hamstrung by the need to negotiate everything, and it will be hampered by an apparent lack of legitimacy, both which will be failings that you can bet Tony Abbott will highlight at every opportunity. Even if such a minority government could manage to last a full term, Mr. Abbott will spend the whole period presenting himself and the Coalition as a safe and stable alternative. If, on the other hand the Coalition forms a minority government in the next few weeks, it could be seen as almost a provisional government which has stepped in to pick up the pieces after the implosion of the once popular Labor government. It would then have the opportunity to establish itself before returning to the polls at a later stage to seek to obtain a majority in its own right.

Either way, Tony Abbot is already in front, and all he really needs to do is not to stuff it up.

Keeping The Bastards Honest

2010-08-26T12:48:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 26.08.10.
Day Five of the seemingly never ending election count, and the first signs of unrest are appearing. Despite the fact that the Electoral Commission won’t finish counting every last vote until the end of next week, some are already calling for a fresh election. Today, the Daily Telegraph has suggested that the $170 million required to send us all back to the polls would be a small price to pay in return for certainty and stability. David Penberthy has written that the three independents present an unacceptable risk of the country being hijacked, most particularly by the North Queensland representative Bob Katter. He accuses Mr. Katter of having an unfounded prejudice against city dwellers and suggests that such views should not be allowed to dictate the national agenda. Of course, the idea of reaching resolution by going back to a fresh election makes the assumption that the outcome would be different, and the fact is there is no guarantee of that.

In any event, a fresh election should be an option of last recourse. Every other avenue should be explored before such a course of action is pursued. It is only day five, and we already know that the process will take a couple of weeks, and possibly a little longer. Being impatient is not going to change that. The first step is to complete the count of every last vote to be clear on just how many seats each party has. The next step is for the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General whether or not she has the confidence of the House of Representatives and can form a government. If not, the Leader of the Opposition must advise whether or not he can command the numbers in the House. If not, then it will be necessary for the Governor General to call a fresh election. But by far the most sensible outcome is for one or other of the major parties to attempt to form a minority government.

Of course, the immediate concern would be whether any such minority government could function effectively, or indeed function at all. A secondary concern is whether the independent members, along with the Green member and the non aligned National from Western Australia would be in a position to wield undue influence and effectively hold that minority government hostage by making unreasonable or even irrational demands. But the reality is that it is in their own best interests, as well as the best interests of all concerned, that they don’t. Without the numbers of at least one of the major parties, the cross bench members have no power to do anything, only to prevent things from being done. Neither of the major parties will entertain any demands which are excessive, unreasonable, irrational, or against the national interest. If the independents cannot contain their expectations to a reasonable level, a fresh election would become inevitable, most likely leading to them losing whatever influence they might currently have.

So long as they hold the balance of power they hold the opportunity to (as the Democrats once promised) “keep the bastards honest”, but it would be utterly self defeating for them to become too precious.

Guessing Game Continues

2010-08-25T12:56:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 25.08.10.
While the guessing game continues as to just who will hold how many seats in the final make up of the new parliament, and the manoeuvring for the favour of the independents unfolds, it is probably a good idea to take a breath, calm down and be a little bit patient. The final count from the Australian Electoral Commission won’t be known for days yet, and possibly not until the end of next week. After all, there is a thirteen day period allowed for postal votes to arrive, so if the seats hanging in the balance come down to a handful of votes that’s how long we will have to wait. But this is a period of uncertainty, that’s not the same thing as a period of instability. While the final votes are counted, and the negotiations take place, the normal business of government goes on.

Pensions are still paid, taxes are still collected, and while the outcome is determined the old government continues on in a caretaker capacity. There is no disruption to normal process, there is no interruption to the chain of command, and there is minimum inconvenience to anyone other than the politicians themselves. Of course, some things are on hold such as future funding decisions, new policy implementation, and business investment decisions which might be influenced by the shape of future government policy. But even those decisions would have already been shaped by the election timetable, and so long as a resolution is reached in a week or two there should be no significant fall out. Anyone basing billion dollar decisions solely around the election outcome probably isn’t very good at long term planning anyway.

Rather than being anxious about the outcome, we should all relax and allow the process to unfold. The vast majority of Australians will feel no immediate impact on their lives one way or the other. Ultimately however, there is in fact a great opportunity for the political process to be reformed and improved as a result of the negotiations presently underway. It would be a pity if that opportunity was not fully explored to deliver a greater voice in public affairs for ordinary everyday Australians who might feel that in recent years they have been ignored more and more by the big parties. Of course it is always possible that after this period has passed and at some future time when one of the big parties once again has a clear majority any such reforms might be cast aside and forgotten. It is always possible that even after all that has happened this week that the big parties have not heard the message which I believe the Australian people have been sending to them. It is always possible, that the parties fail to learn the lesson that they cannot the voters for granted.

I hope that’s not the case, because if the current situation does not teach them that lesson then I suspect that nothing will.

The Real People’s Assembly

2010-08-24T13:17:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 24.08.10.
While some might be tiring of the ongoing federal election saga, the fact remains that this is an almost unique situation. It is so long since there has been a hung parliament in Canberra that to all intents and purposes the situation is unprecedented. While some have suggested that the campaign has been boring and that the outcome a reflection of that, the fact is that there is drama and irony to be seen at every turn. While many might be concerned that this period of political uncertainty may be harmful to business and community confidence, the fact is that the outcome of Saturday’s election also provides a unique opportunity for political parties to re-examine the way thewy conduct themselves, and to consider how to improve the parliamentary process.

One of the reasons that Kevin Rudd fell out of favour with his own party was that he somehow managed to lose touch with his own colleagues. It has been widely reported that Mr. Rudd effectively ran the entire government as part of a gang of four including himself, Julia Gillard, Wayne Swan, and Lindsay Tanner. Apparently, when things started to go wrong, he found himself with a shortage of friends within his own party. This could be seen as indicative of the broader political process where politicians generally have been seen to be out of touch with their constituents, and the executive out of touch with the parliament. In effect, so much power has been concentrated at the top that the lines of communication through the cabinet, through the parliament, and out into the community, have been cut off.

In the wake of the election result, it would seem that it has now become necessary for all the politicians to actually talk to each other again. It has become necessary for the politicians to actually listen to the concerns of the constituents of independents and minor parties. It has become necessary for the process to become collaborative rather than combative. It presents an opportunity to reform the parliamentary process to permanently encompass the role of parliamentarians as representatives of the people by removing some of the power from the executive and restoring it to the floor of the parliament. Before the election Tony Abbott criticised the Government’s proposal for a “People’s Assembly” because we already have such an assembly and it is called the Parliament.

This election seems to be offering us the opportunity for that to actually be the case.

Disappointment And Disgust

2010-08-23T13:14:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 23.08.10.
After months of suggesting that if there was a box for “none of the above” on the ballot paper then it would be likely to win, it seems that is exactly what has happened. At the time of writing, the latest count is showing a likely outcome of 73 seats each for Labor and the Coalition, plus the three existing independents and one Green. Although it appeared that there might be another independent elected in Tasmania, the latest adjudication from the Australian Electoral Commission has awarded the seat of Dennison to Labor. The end result is that it could not possibly be any closer than it is. Although all the polls indicated a tight result, very few people believed that Labor would fail to scrape back in with a slim majority. But that hasn’t happened and instead Labor has seen its grip on government evaporate right before its eyes.

Presumably, the leading lights of Labor will be dissecting this massive failure for years to come, but at this early stage it appears that at least some of them are still in denial. Part strategist Senator Mark Arbib and Campaign Director Karl Bitar are still blaming anybody but themselves. They are still saying that the campaign suffered as a result of the cabinet leaks, and that if Kevin Rudd had remained as Prime Minister the vote against Labor would have been even worse. Of course, these are matters which will be open for debate as there is no way to ever know for sure what might have been. But I believe that they are missing the point.

It is clear that the people of Australia have sent all politicians a very loud message, but many of them are still not hearing it clearly. That message is simply that we expect all of them to do better, and that they cannot take the support of the Australian people for granted or treat us with disdain and contempt. People are still angry about home insulation and school halls, their still worried about immigration and asylum seekers, and they are still angry about what happened to Kevin Rudd. That’s not because of any deep affection for Mr. Rudd, but because dumping him was a blatant attempt to con us all into believing that a new ringmaster would make a difference while still surrounded by the same old clowns. The people of New South Wales especially have seen it all before with a succession of Premiers installed to patch up ailing opinion polls, but delivering nothing more than a series of ex-Premiers.

While Tony Abbott has done an outstanding job of bringing the Coalition to the brink of victory, against all expectations, he too has been sent a message by the people of Australia. While a significant number of voters have turned away from Labor, either in disappointment or disgust, not quite enough of them are prepared to accept Mr. Abbott as a genuine alternative. If the Coalition had been able to offer more than simple slogans based on derogatory attacks against a government which had by its own admission lost its way, perhaps people might have found something to vote FOR, and not just AGAINST. As it is, both the Labor Party and the Coalition still have a long way to go before either of them truly regains the trust of the people.

Contempt Does Not Pay

2010-08-20T13:39:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 20.08.10.
Today’s opinion polling shows a late surge of support for Tony Abbott and the Coalition for tomorrow’s Federal election. Support for the coalition is also evident in late money placed with the bookies, although that might have something to do with how attractive the odds have been for people looking to cash in on an outside chance. Editorials in the News Limited papers have predominantly supported Tony Abbott, while the editorials in the Fairfax papers have favoured Julia Gillard. It is literally too close to call as we approach polling day tomorrow. But if the Labor Government does lose tomorrow, I suspect that it will largely be due to the lingering sentiment expressed exceptionally well by the Telegraph editorial written by Garry Linnell. The Daily Telegraph says, “If ever there was a blatant admission by a party of its own failings… the South American-style coup that ended Rudd’s prime ministership… was it.”

While I support the plan for a National Broadband Network, I want public hospital reform to be delivered, and I believe that a Mineral Resources Rent Tax is fair and reasonable, I share with many Australians the disappointment that when the opinion polls began to reflect that the government had some problems the Labor Party tried to fix the polls instead of fixing the problems. I share with many Australians the disappointment that instead of changing the policies, the Party chose to simply change its leader, apparently expecting us all to fall for a pea and thimble trick without actually doing anything about the underlying problems which had prompted the Party’s decline in popularity in the first place. While many people feel a great unease about the way Kevin Rudd was betrayed by his own colleagues, the greater resentment stems from the sense that the rest of us have been treated with contempt by a handful of powerbrokers who have been perceived as putting Party before principle.

The decline in popularity experienced by the Rudd government was the direct manifestation of the people of Australia sending the government a message. The response of the Labor Party indicates that they did not get the message, and that’s why the polls today are still at the same level they were when Kevin Rudd was dumped. Our message to the government was quite simply that we were unhappy with the mismanagement of government programs like the Building The Education Revolution and the Home Insulation Program, the hamfisted attempts to introduce the mining tax, and the perceived abandonment of any credible climate change policy.

But the message sent by the Australian people was not a call for a change of leader, it was a call for an improvement in the government’s performance. But this is the core of the problem. We measure the performance of a government by the outcomes that are delivered in hospitals and highways, infrastructure and services. The powerbrokers measure performance by opinion polls. What they have failed to understand is that good opinion polls are not the goal. It’s good government that is the goal, and the best way to achieve the former is to deliver the latter. It is the same lesson that the New South Wales Labor Government has consistently failed to learn, and could well be enough to see this government lose office tomorrow.

Perhaps then they will finally understand that it does not pay to treat the voters with such contempt.

Only Two More Sleeps…

2010-08-19T13:19:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 19.08.10.
Two days out from the federal election and it’s still too close to call. If we are to believe the opinion polls then the Labor Government is just slightly ahead on the two party preferred basis. But even if that accurately reflects the outcome of the popular vote, it doesn’t guarantee that Labor would win sufficient seats to hold government. Kim Beazley and Andrew Peacock both lost elections while winning more than 50% of the votes because they didn’t win enough seats in the Parliament. The bookies have the Labor Party holding onto power with a slender majority, perhaps as slim as just one seat, and even they can be wrong sometimes. The truly amazing thing is that twelve months ago it was a very different story. This time last year, Kevin Rudd enjoyed phenomenal popularity, the government was basking in the warm glow of approval, Malcolm Turnbull was leading the Liberal Party to nowhere in particular, and the Copenhagen Climate Conference was yet to occur.

They say that a week is a long time in politics, and in that case twelve months is a geological age. Two significant shifts have occurred over that period of time. One is that the government lost its reputation as being competent, despite the success of navigating the global financial crisis without falling into recession, while the other is that Tony Abbott has transformed the Liberal National Coalition into a viable alternative. Love him or loathe him, the truth is that Tony Abbott has been remarkably successful at getting the coalition back into the race. There has been a most remarkable role reversal where the government is no longer trusted, but the opposition is now seen to be both stable and pursuing a clear direction. Win, lose or draw, Tony Abbott is already a winner in that sense, and will continue to lead the Liberal Party after the election regardless of the outcome.

This leaves Australians with a difficult choice. There are plenty of reasons to vote AGAINST both major parties. Tony Abbott supported Work Choices, he failed to advance hospital reform when he had the chance, he has big ears. Julia Gillard stabbed Kevin Rudd in the back, she wasted money on expensive school halls, she has red hair and isn’t married. But when it comes to policy, there’s not as many reasons to vote FOR either major party. On asylum seekers both sides are trying to be tough, on the budget deficit both sides promise to return to surplus by 2013, and on industrial relations both sides are promising to keep things as they are. Both sides want hospital reform, but have a different approach, and both sides want a broadband network, but at different speeds.

That’s one of the reasons why much of the political advertising has been so personal, each side attacking the other for their perceived shortcomings. Both sides are calling the other incompetent. Both sides are calling the other untrustworthy. Both sides are calling the other fools. Wouldn’t it be terrifying if both sides were right? That’s why the polls are so close, and why it’s so difficult to pick a clear winner. There’s a significant number of people who are equally disenchanted with both sides, and bemoan the lack of an alternative. But on Saturday when the crunch comes and pencil is put to paper, most people will make a choice. If the opinion polls are right, it means that Julia Gillard will be returned to office, but even if she is, both sides of politics need to recognise that we expect them all to lift their game.

The Herd Of Elephants In The Living Room

2010-08-18T13:15:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 18.08.10.
The phrase “the elephant in the room” has become extremely commonplace in the last couple of years, although it has been around at least since 1959 when the New York Times printed: “Financing schools has become a problem about equal to having an elephant in the living room. It's so big you just can't ignore it." More recently it has been commonly applied to the issue of climate change, and last week Dick Smith claimed that the real elephant was the link between climate change and population. The use of the phrase seems to have exploded since Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth”, and is now frequently used to describe just about any obvious but inconvenient fact which nobody wants to acknowledge, no matter how significant it might be. All of a sudden, it seems that there are an awful lot of elephants all crowded into the room, demanding our attention.

The interesting thing is that many of these elephants are in fact related to each other. Just as climate change, sustainability, and population are linked, all of these are also linked to issues of community infrastructure, energy security, food security, and Australia’s favourite obsession, housing. Figures reported today indicate that residential rents in Sydney are outpacing inflation by as much as a factor of ten, with an average increase of 4.8% in the June quarter. At the same time, the latest housing affordability index shows that home buyers are also being stretched with houses becoming less affordable by 9.1%. This reflects both the increases in mortgage interest rates earlier this year and the growth in prices which was relatively strong up until a month or two ago. Both rental prices and purchase prices are on average becoming more expensive, but it’s not uniform across the nation.

The worst of the rental price increases are in Sydney, with many other parts of the country remaining relatively stable. Purchase prices have been rising fastest in Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Melbourne, while homes in Perth and Canberra have become more affordable. But in every case, both rental and purchase markets are afflicted by a nationwide shortage of new home construction. It is estimated that the Australian housing market is undersupplied by about 200 000 dwellings, and that at the present rate it will reach 300 000 in the next four years. Foreign analysts keep warning us that our houses are overpriced by 40 to 60%, and that something has to give. But as long as the supply problem is not addressed it is hard to see just how prices might be expected to fall, whether quickly or slowly, whether in absolute terms or in real terms. But this is where the elephant barges into the room.

If house prices do not fall in real terms, that is, in terms measured against incomes and inflation, the very real consequences are that the Australian Dream will die. There are many different ways you can measure the prices of homes, as a proportion of average income, or of household income, or against the price of other consumer items, but no matter which way you measure it people are less able to afford to buy a home. There are many contributing factors, and the lack of supply is just one of them, but the end result can only be that our way of life is under threat. But the elephant, standing in the corner waiting to be noticed, is the simple fact that people must live somewhere. It is not sustainable to have a stock of housing that is simply out of reach for ordinary everyday people.

Sooner or later, something has got to give, which means that either house prices must fall relative to peoples’ capacity to pay, or our standard of living will instead.

The Only Poll That Matters

2010-08-17T13:49:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 17.08.10.
With the outcome of this weekend’s Federal election so difficult to predict, and the opinion polls giving a range of different figures which keep changing form day to day, there is a genuine prospect of a hung parliament. There are four independent members currently sitting in the House of Representatives. One of them is Michael Johnson, the disendorsed former Liberal member from Brisbane who is unlikely to survive the election. The other three however appear to be a strong chance to keep their seats. One of them is Bob Katter who was once a National Party member, while the other two, Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, hold what were once National Party seats. There is also a reasonable prospect that another independent, John Clements, might just win the seat of Parkes. With the major parties deadlocked in what seems to be a very close election it could turn out that these three or four men could hold the balance of power.

There is also the possibility that one or more Greens could, for the first time, win seats in the lower house. Ironically, in seats such as Melbourne, Sydney and Grayndler, the Liberals are directing preferences to the Greens ahead of Labor, so it is possible that Liberal preferences will help to elect Green Members who are more likely to support a minority Labor government than a minority Coalition government. While the opinion polls are showing a two party preferred split of 51% or 52% to 49% or 48%, it’s the primary vote that will really show the mood of the people. As far as I can tell, judging by the people who talk to me, the mood of many people is such that if there was a box marked none of the above it would attract a substantial number of votes. In a way, it’s the same mood that has been reflected by former Labor Leader Mark Latham’s advice to cast a blank ballot to register our disapproval for all candidates.

In the end though, casting an informal or invalid vote is counterproductive. We might think we are sending a message, but just what is the message, to whom are we sending it, and would any of them actually get the message? I believe not. As galling as it might be, this election is essentially about making a choice between the two major parties to form the next government. If you want to support the Greens, you can, and if they have enough support they will win seats. But thanks to preferential voting, if your choice of a Green candidate is not successful, you still have a say in choosing between Liberal and Labor. If you want to support an independent candidate, you can, and if they have enough support they will win a seat. But, once again, if your independent candidate is not successful, you still have a say in choosing between Liberal and Labor. Giving up your right to make that choice could just mean ending up with the government that you least want.

Besides, if there are enough Independent and Green politicians elected to parliament that will itself send the mainstream parties the strongest message that we possibly can. If there is a hung parliament, it would not be the ideal outcome, but it would certainly make the major parties sit up and pay attention. It’s easy to feel that any one individual vote doesn’t count for much, but every vote counts, and every vote can make the difference one way or another. Don’t listen to Mark Latham. Don’t throw away your vote. Don’t step aside and let someone else determine who will run our country. Think about what you believe is important, and have your say at the ballot box. In the end, it’s the only opinion poll that really matters.

Moving Forward To The Finish Line

2010-08-16T12:56:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 16.08.10.
After declaring that the Coalition had won the first two weeks of the election campaign, and calling the third week a draw, I believe that the fourth week has been a narrow victory for the Labor Party. It began well with early signs of a comeback showing up in some of the opinion polls, and a strong performance by the Prime Minister in a television appearance on the ABC. The ongoing distraction provided by former Labor Leader Mark Latham achieved two things that may have helped Labor: it removed the spotlight from Kevin Rudd’s activities, and it may well have actually generated some sympathy for Julia Gillard. His intervention might have been viewed as embarrassing, but if anything many people might have felt that no Prime Minister should be subjected to the kind of treatment that Mr. Latham dished out.

At the same time, Tony Abbott slipped up with his failure to display a grasp of the importance of the internet and broadband. Other than that however, the Coalition campaigned solidly. In particular, Mr. Abbott enjoyed a strongly positive response to the Town Hall style meeting at Rooty Hill on Wednesday night. The Prime Minister spoke first, and took questions from the audience, but was upstaged literally when Tony Abbott took to the floor and declared that he wanted to be “on the level” with voters. It was a very smart and very effective tactic and it worked in his favour, and the show of hands declared Tony Abbot to be the winner on the night. Regardless of later concerns about whether or not the supposedly undecided voters in the audience may have been infiltrated by party supporters, it was a very good outcome for Mr. Abbott.

Overall, a narrow victory for Labor in the third week of the campaign is born out by the latest opinion polls. Signs of a bounce in the poll figures began to emerge last week, and the most recent polls have Labor marginally in front in a very close race. The Newspoll published today shows Labor holding 52% and the Coalition 48% of the two party preferred vote. The Neilson poll shows Labor leading 51% to 49%, and there was even one apparently rogue poll showing Labor at 57.5%. Whether it is enough to achieve victory on polling day remains to be seen, because it is quite possible to win a majority of votes without winning a majority of seats, but it still represents a move in the right direction for the Labor Party.

So now we have entered the fifth and final week of the campaign, and the finish line is well within sight, but it’s still too early to tell just who will cross it first.

It’s A Cunning Plan…

2010-08-13T15:20:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 13.08.10.
Forget about the Chaser! Political parties are now on the lookout for the marauding Mark Latham as he prowls about the election campaign trail looking for material to use in his forthcoming 60 Minutes report. Following the hue and cry over last weekend’s confrontation with Julia Gillard, Mr. Latham has been attacked from almost every quarter, including by the network which has hired him in the first place, for becoming a serial pest. Yesterday he appeared at a Tony Abbott function at the Penrith RSL and instantly became the centre of a media frenzy. Cameras and microphones were thrust into his face, and journalists pelted him with a barrage of inane questions which he had no interest in answering. It was almost enough to make us all feel a bit sorry for him. Almost.

It’s hard to know just what he was supposed to do in the circumstances. He has been hired by Channel 9 to prepare a report on the election. While he may not be a professional journalist, he is a published author, a qualified economist, and his credentials as a political commentator are hard to beat. It is reasonable to assume that this part time role as television reporter should put him on the same side of the velvet rope as all the other media representatives, and his presence at any campaign event should be no different from that of any other camera crew. Even if we do not accept him as a reporter, is it really fair to consider his current activities as any less valid than the antics of the crew from “The Chaser’s War On Everything”? Or even, to take another example, the methods and tactics of American documentary maker Michael Moore? But of course, it really isn’t quite that simple.

It’s a free country, and Mr. Latham is free to take up this opportunity of employment, just as Channel 9 is free to engage his services. But the comedy has reached the level of farce when Channel 9 has now begun referring to him in their own news bulletins as a serial pest when they’re the ones paying him to do it! Regardless of what any of us might think of Mr. Latham’s political career, or his personal behaviour, if there is anyone to blame here surely it is the network which gave him the gig. Obviously, it was a decision made with an eye to creating a sensationalist piece of television in pursuit of ratings. Obviously they must have known that they were throwing the cat among the pigeons, and not just any cat but a wounded leopard with a cranky attitude and a score to settle. Why should anyone be surprised that the fur has been flying?

It’s not hard to see a cunning plan behind all of the contrived outrage about Mark Latham’s activities. While the Labor Party has been struggling to overcome the residual effects of the shock change of leadership on the 24th of June, they have been concerned about the presence of Kevin Rudd. Whether he campaigned or he didn’t campaign, the mere fact that Kevin Rudd exists at all had the potential to be a distraction from the campaign. But have you noticed, in the last few days, nobody’s worried about Mr. Rudd undermining the campaign at all? Instead all the focus has been on Mr. Latham, who by accident or design is now serving as the perfect diversion to deflect attention away from what might have otherwise been an unwelcome distraction. It seems that, rather than just being a nuisance, Mr. Latham is actually the Labor Party’s secret weapon, popping up to take all the flak, and taking the heat off Kevin Rudd.

Don’t laugh! It’s really no more incredible than the fact that Mr. Latham was ever actually leader of the Labor Party at all.

Defence Families Won’t Be Evicted For Asylum Seekers

2010-08-12T13:25:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 12.08.10.
A number of callers to radio shows, including mine, have been expressing their outrage about a story that Australian Defence Force personnel are going to be moved out of their accommodation to make way for asylum seekers. The allegation is that our military families will be forced to move to inferior accommodation while the asylum seekers take over their homes. In those terms it sounds absolutely outrageous, and people are right to be angry about it. The only problem is that it is just not true.

It seems that the story originated with a briefing paper which was prepared to examine a range of possible scenarios. The purpose of such a paper is to identify all possible options and then assess whether or not they are suitable. In that context, this particular briefing paper assessed possible accommodation arrangements for asylum seekers, and according to the Defence Personnel Minister Alan Griffin, recommended against any such use of Defence Department Housing. Complicating the matter however, was an ongoing program where old substandard military housing at Berrimah in Darwin is currently in the process of being replaced.

There was a suggestion that as Defence Force members and their families move out of the Berrimah facility into their new improved modern accommodation, asylum seekers could be placed into the old buildings. According to the Minister, that idea was also rejected, in part because the new accommodation isn’t ready yet and won’t be complete for a couple of years. The Minister has confirmed that the only Defence Department property which is currently accommodating asylum seekers is the old Curtin Air Force Base, which is not an operational base, and has not been for many years. In fact, it was also used by the Howard Government to house asylum seekers, so that is nothing new.

On the 17th of July, Dennis Shanahan wrote an article in the Australian which said this: “Overcrowding of boatpeople at Christmas Island has forced the federal government to consider shifting defence personnel families. Under the plan, the families of serving defence personnel could be moved into inferior housing to make way for asylum seekers at Darwin’s Berrimah defence base.” This story was the basis for the rumours and emails that have been circulating ever since. However, if you read the whole story, it is clear that the Defence Minister John Faulkner indicated that no defence families would be moved until their new housing was ready in 2013, and that the use of the Berrimah base for housing asylum seekers was “not supported”.

A subsequent article written by Mark Dodd in the Australian on the 23rd of July further reported that “A plan to house asylum-seekers alongside defence force families in a Top End military base has been scrapped by the federal government.” This is a classic case of beating up a news story out of nothing, because there never was any such plan in the first place, only a briefing paper outlining why such a plan would not be acceptable. Once again, if you take the time to read the whole article, you will find that Mr. Dodd also writes: “…the Minister for Defence Personnel, Alan Griffin, said yesterday that there never had been a plan to evict defence families to make way for refugees.” The trouble is that, even now, almost a month later, the story is still going around.

The fact is that the Christmas Island Immigration Detention facility is not big enough to cope with the numbers of asylum seekers currently arriving. Regardless of anyone’s view of how asylum seekers should be treated, the fact is that as long as we have a policy of detention there must be somewhere to actually detain them. At present, some asylum seekers who have already passed health and security checks are brought to the mainland and placed in a number of locations including hostels and other private accommodation, on a temporary basis. But none of them are being put up in Defence Housing, and no Australian Defence Force families have been thrown out of their homes.

Profits Are Not Obscene, But Bank Behaviour Can Be

2010-08-11T13:57:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 11.08.10.
It’s no great surprise that the Commonwealth Bank has announced a profit of just over $6 billion, and it’s equally no great surprise that there has been a rousing chorus of disapproval. Political parties such as Family First and the Greens have chastised the banks for their greed, and consumer groups have denounced the banks for exploiting their customers. Some have called for banks to be subjected to a super profits tax similar to the new Mineral Resources Rent Tax, some have called for bank fees to be banned, and some have called for a cap to be imposed on bank executive salaries. All this and it seems like just the other day we were all congratulating our banks on being robust enough to ensure that we all survived the Global Financial Crisis. So is it really obscene for a bank, or any other business, to clock up such a massive profit?

The short answer is no, but the longer answer is that the means by which that profit is achieved can be. Every business exists to make a profit, which benefits the owners of the business, keeps people employed, and provides goods or services to the community, thus keeping the economy going. Big profits alone are neither obscene, nor virtuous. What matters is the ethical treatment of all involved, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the community generally. What matters is whether the customers are served in their best interests, or they are gouged and exploited. What matters is not that a profit is earned, but whether it is fairly earned. On that basis, the profits themselves are not obscene, but the manner in which we are all taken for a ride could well be.

The success of the banks overall is good for the community, and good for economic stability, but at the same time the sheer size of the profits would seem to indicate that the banks can also afford to behave in a manner which is socially and morally responsible. It is the manner in which the profit is earned which bothers me. It is the endless array of excessive fees and charges for items which should rightly be an overhead of the business, such as ATM fees which charge people for the privilege of accessing their own money. It is the predatory practices encouraging customers to take on more debt than they can reasonably afford. And it is the reward offered to executives for pursuing such amoral practices.

There’s no need to put a super profits tax on banks, just a reasonable regime of regulation to outlaw unconscionable practices. If an institution can make a big profit and behave honourably at the same time, then they should be welcome to the rewards. But if they abuse their market power to disadvantage their own customers, their own employees, and the community at large, then they deserve to be punished. Only proper regulation, designed to foster a system which empowers and enriches all the stakeholders, can achieve that. Sensible regulation which defends the rights of consumers does not have to stop the banks from making big profits.

It just has to stop them from making big profits by unfairly taking advantage of the rest of us.

Latham Off The Rails

2010-08-10T13:20:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 10.08.10.
There seems to be an almost universal reaction against the antics of former Labor Party Leader Mark Latham over the past few days, and it is easy to dismiss him as nothing more than a failed leader with an axe to grind, and absolutely no sense of propriety. He has been described as a great big boofhead, and other much less polite names, and his behaviour doesn’t do anything to dispel those opinions. His blunt observations might leave no doubt as to what he is thinking, but they are widely interpreted as thoughts which are distorted by an apparent contempt for his one time colleagues every bit as strong as his disdain for his erstwhile opponents. So why on earth did Channel Nine think it would be a good idea to hire him to prepare a report for Sixty Minutes?

Well, there are a number of reasons. Notwithstanding the lack of affection in which Mr. Latham is held by the community, it should not be forgotten that he has genuine political experience at a level that very few ever attain. He does possess a substantial intellectual capacity, despite what many might find to be loutish manners. His exceedingly blunt manner might be confronting, but it can also be incisive. But most importantly, the potential for conflict and confrontation is likely to make for captivating television, and both the Channel Nine executives and Mr. Latham himself know it. Conflict is drama, and drama is irresistible entertainment. There is no doubt that people will want to watch whatever report Mark Latham puts together, in much the same way that they can’t stop staring at a train wreck, and Mark Latham was a powerful political locomotive that went off the rails in a most spectacular fashion.

None of that, of course, makes it good journalism, nor is it necessarily in the public interest. The confrontation between Mark Latham and Julia Gillard in Brisbane at the weekend certainly registered highly as sensationalist tabloid television, and it can only be assumed that the product of Mr. Latham’s work, when it is finally broadcast next weekend, will be of a similar character. But most people found that confrontation to be quite unsettling, to the point that Channel Nine CEO David Gyngell felt it was necessary to issue an apology to the Prime Minister. Veteran Channel Nine political commentator Laurie Oakes felt moved to criticise his own network, on his own network, in no uncertain terms. It has been reported that his colleagues in the Nine newsroom were cheering him on, and it’s not hard to understand why.

Laurie Oakes is in a position of such respect that he is free to say what others have been thinking, and he didn’t hold back. Among other things he said, “He's not a journalist; he's still full of bile and settling old scores. I don't really think it does 60 Minutes or the network much of a favour really to have him posing as a journalist." The fact is that what Mark Latham is doing isn’t journalism or reporting. At best it will be commentary, but more likely it will be nothing more than hollow spectacle akin to the door busting beat-ups on Today Tonight. Real journalists who have devoted their lives to a career in the pursuit of excellence in objective reporting and analysis have every right to be affronted that this political reject has been paid the sort of money that they can only dream of, solely on the basis that he can be expected to draw a crowd.

Really, the best thing we can all do about Mark Latham is to ignore him, although I suspect that there will always be some who just can’t help themselves and just keep on staring at the train wreck.

Take Nothing For Granted

2010-08-09T13:57:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 09.08.10.
While some have criticised Tony Abbott’s campaign launch in Brisbane yesterday as lacking in substance or vision, right now that approach remains a smart strategy. There’s no need for the opposition to offer any bold agenda at a time when the bold agenda of the current Government has come into such ill repute. The combination of the mismanaged economic stimulus programs, the mining tax debacle, the shock change of leadership, along with the Cabinet leaks, the Rudd soap opera, and the Latham sideshow, adds up to a struggling campaign for Labor. In this context, it would seem that the best thing for Tony Abbott to do is to keep his mouth shut, smile and nod politely, and look as if he knows what he is doing while his opponents continue along the path of self destruction.

Of course, that will only work so long as Labor continues to struggle, and while the Opposition clearly won the first two weeks of the campaign, I believe that week three should be declared a draw. Tony Abbott has been looking increasingly confident as the opinion polls have been swinging his way. At yesterday’s launch, he was surrounded by supporters including former Prime Minister John Howard, promising not much more than to reopen the detention centre on Nauru and to fill us in on the rest of his plans after he gets elected. Contrasting himself with Julia Gillard, he said “Isn’t it great to lead a united political party with a deputy I can trust, a predecessor who’s a friend and a former prime minister who’s a hero!”

The funny thing is that former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may yet attain hero status for the Labor Party. Last week, Mr. Rudd was brought back into the fray for Labor, and as awkward and uncomfortable as it was, it was also a major step forward for the Government. The Rudd Factor hasn’t been entirely neutralised as an issue, but at least it has been reigned in to some degree. The embarrassing internal leaks have stopped, and finally it seems as if the whole team is rowing in the same direction. The government is finally shifting the attention away from its internal affairs and onto policy matters, especially the economy, and while there have also been problems associated with policy, no one can deny that the economy is strong.

This has been born out with the latest poll figures showing a bounce in support for Labor. It’s not much, but it’s something, with the Newspoll showing Labor ahead on the two party preferred figures at 52% to 48%. That’s a clear improvement on last week’s 50/50 split, while
the Galaxy poll now has Labor in front at 51% to 49%. It’s not enough to ensure victory, not only because of the margin for statistical error, but also the fact that it is possible to win more than 50% of the popular vote and still hold less than 50% of the seats in Parliament. But for Labor it is at least a move in the right direction.

The only certainty is that with less than two weeks now remaining until polling day, nobody can take anything for granted.

His Name Is Kevin, He’s From Queensland, And He’s (Still) Here To Help.

2010-08-06T13:53:00.000+10:00

EDITORIAL FRIDAY 06.08.10.
Following on from the former Prime Minister’s telephone interview with ABC Radio National this week, Mr. Rudd has now returned to the political battlefront looking even more like a Prime Minister than ever. Pictured standing in front of a pair of Australian flags, Mr. Rudd’s facial expression was a far cry from the tears of June 24. Gone were the tears, replaced by a look of satisfaction which gave the appearance of the canary that ate the cat. He didn’t just look Prime Ministerial, he looked Presidential. His message was that the fate of the nation is far more important than the fate of one K. Rudd, and so he has called upon his fellow Australians, and especially his fellow Queenslanders, to re-elect the Gillard Government.

Of course, the Opposition is claiming that this bizarre turn of events only highlights the deep divisions within Labor. How, they ask, if Julia Gillard was the solution to the Kevin Rudd problem, could Kevin Rudd possibly be the answer to the Julia Gillard problem? And they have a point. It’s hard to imagine anyone looking at the events of the past two months and concluding that they are an indication of a stable and competent government. At the same time, however, as I said yesterday, under the circumstances this is the best course of action that Mr. Rudd and the Labor Party can possibly take. Whether any of them like it or not, the mere fact that Levin Rudd exists at all is going to influence the election campaign so the only sensible thing to do is to attempt to use that influence to as much advantage as they can.

The irony of this is exquisite, and perhaps that’s why Mr. Rudd is suddenly looking a whole lot more cheerful. In so many ways this is a form of vindication for him, as well as an opportunity to once again play a meaningful role in events. Of course, the irony doesn’t stop there. On the same day we have also seen former Prime Minister John Howard addressing Liberal party supporters with a speech which has made national headlines and left no one in any doubt about his support for Tony Abbott, or his views on Julia Gillard. Mr. Howard has absolutely trashed the Labor Government, labelling Julia Gillard as “an even greater failure than her predecessor”. All of a sudden, we seem to have former Prime Ministers popping up everywhere.

As well as Kevin Rudd and John Howard commanding centrestage, we have had Bob Hawke campaigning with Julia Gillard, and today we’ve had former Liberal PM Malcolm Fraser also throwing in his two cents worth. The funny thing is that he seems to be campaigning for the Labor side, saying that the Coalition is not ready to govern the nation. All we need now is Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam to release a television advertisement and we’ll have the complete set of past and present Prime Ministers on display. It has certainly livened up what was previously a rather uninspiring election campaign in all quarters. Watching Tony and Julia has been like watching the second grade players in the warm up match. Now at last the first grade players are on the paddock, warming up for the main event.

Forget about a second debate between Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard, how about a debate between Kevin Rudd and John Howard?

Two Dogs…

2010-08-05T13:11:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL THURSDAY 05.08.10.
As James Grubel, the senior political correspondent from Reuters, said today, this is becoming a most unusual election in that it now appears to have two underdogs. Historically speaking, a Tony Abbott victory might seem to be unlikely for a number of reasons. Simply by being in opposition he is already starting out from behind, needing a significant swing to win enough seats to take power. Secondly, it would be highly unusual for any government to lose office after just one term. Even Gough Whitlam managed to win two elections before being sacked by the Governor General in 1975. Thirdly, for all the shortcomings of the government, the opposition isn’t exactly immune from fumbles and stumbles of their own. For all these reasons, Tony Abbott could rightly expect to be considered the underdog. But this is no ordinary election.

History might mean nothing, because history has already been made by the Labor Government’s own unprecedented decision to cut down a first term Prime Minister, taking all of us into uncharted territory. Just how voters respond to the lingering disquiet that they have somehow been robbed of the right to make their own choice can still play a big part in deciding the outcome of this election. That the leadership change was itself triggered by a decline in support for the Government in the polls has become something of an irony with those same polls now delivering even worse news for the new Prime Minister. With the polls showing Labor ranking at best level with the Coalition, and at worst well behind, it now seems that Julia Gillard has become the underdog.

Thomson Reuters Poll Trend Analysis shows that boiling down all the major poll figures gives the Government a two party preferred figure of 51.5% and the Opposition 48.5%. On those figures the Government might just scrape back into office, but it is by no means guaranteed. There is a risk that there will be a hung Parliament with independent members, and maybe even a Green, holding the balance of power in the lower house, something which hasn’t happened since 1941. There is also the prospect that the Government might be ahead on the two party preferred popular vote but still lose the election anyway. It has happened before with both Kim Beazley and Andrew Peacock winning more than 50% of the vote, but still not securing enough seats to take government.

In this environment, it is conceivable the entire fate of the nation could hinge on the most unlikely of circumstances. It could be that voters in a handful of marginal electorates could swing one way or the other based on local issues. It could be that opinions about the Prime Minister’s religious views or marital status actually do make a difference to the outcome. It could be that resentment over the treatment of Kevin Rudd is enough to tip the balance. That’s why Mr. Rudd’s decision to break his silence and unreservedly support the Gillard Government is crucially important for Labor. It won’t necessarily remove all concerns over the impact of the ghost of his leadership hanging over the campaign, but no matter what he does, or even if he does nothing, Kevin Rudd will remain an influence over this election.

That’s why, as a Labor Party member, the best thing he can do is attempt to use that influence for the benefit of the Party.

Hijacking The Language

2010-08-04T13:17:00.001+10:00

EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 04.08.10.
Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has been accused of having difficulty keeping his foot out of his mouth, and it would seem that yesterday has provided us with yet another example. In response to questioning over his refusal to accept Julia Gillard’s invitation to debate the economy, he pointed out that the Prime Minister had previously and repeatedly rejected any further debate, and suggested that she had only changed her mind because her campaign was flagging. In the interim, the Opposition had taken the Prime Minister at her word and made arrangements for their own campaign accordingly. When the questioning continued he said, ''Are you suggesting to me that when it comes from Julia, no doesn't mean no?''

The reaction was both rapid and rabid. How dare Tony Abbott make a reference to a phrase which is widely associated with the campaign against sexual harassment and assault? How dare he trivialise the issue of violence against women? How dare he use those words to attack the Prime Minister who happens to be a woman? How dare he play the so called “gender card” in the election campaign? Tony Abbott, screamed the feminist lobby, just doesn’t “get it”. Of course, the issue of violence against women is a very serious one, and deserves to be addressed accordingly. But to suggest that Tony Abbott’s remarks trivialise the issue, or display a lack of respect for women, or could be construed as in some way condoning abuse is not fair or reasonable.

Even Tony Abbott’s harshest critics have admitted that they understand clearly the meaning of Tony Abbott’s comments. They acknowledge that he was criticising the Prime Minister for saying “no” one day, and “yes” the next. They recognise that he was suggesting that the word of the Prime Minister could not be relied upon, and not intended to be any kind of attack on women or their rights. But surely, if they are capable of understanding what Mr. Abbott was saying, without misconstruing it as an endorsement of antisocial behaviour, than any other reasonable person could too. If there is no doubt about what he meant, how then could the comments be considered inappropriate?

Of course, the critics have taken issue with the choice of words rather than the actual meaning, claiming that it was an attempt to make a joke about violence against women. Comparisons have even been made with Alexander Downer’s infamous joke about the “things that batter”. But that’s not what Mr. Abbott has done. He has used a commonplace expression, one which is widely applied in many contexts, to make a point about the veracity of his opponent. Just because it is a phrase which has been used in a social issues campaign doesn’t mean that the politically correct brigade has the right to hijack the English language and prohibit the use of particular words and phrases for purposes other than their own. It verges on the Orwellian.

To Debate Or Not To Debate, That Is The Question.

2010-08-03T13:32:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL TUESDAY 03.08.10.
It’s eighteen days since Julia Gillard drove to Yarralumla to ask the Governor General to dissolve the Parliament so that an election could be called. It is eighteen more days until that election takes place, so this is the half way mark. The first half of the campaign has been filled with more trip-ups than triumphs, especially for the Government, leading to the promise to unleash the “Real Julia”. At the same time, the opposition also had a few wobbly moments, especially in the first week of the campaign when Tony Abbott seemed to be tying himself in knots to kill off work choices without actually promising not to give it mouth to mouth after the election. It has given rise to the perception that while Labor wants us to see more of the “Real Julia”, there might be concerns that the “Real Tony” can’t be trusted not to put his foot in his mouth.

Of course, the real question is not whether not Tony Abbott might sometimes stumble on his words, because let’s face it we all do that from time to time, but whether he can be taken at his word. Even on that score, his own words can be used to condemn him after his confession that not everything he says can be considered to be the “gospel truth”. To be fair, that indiscretion was also the result of mangling his own message, but even so it is a less than reassuring performance. But the real measure of his intent should be found in his policies. While the Government has been suffering in the polls as a result of its own shortcomings, Tony Abbott has been enjoying a relatively free run, getting away with a series of inconsistencies.

Having said that climate change is “crap”, he now wants to spend taxpayers’ money on “direct action” against climate change. Having denigrated the Government for introducing a “Great Big New Tax”, he announced his own Big New Tax on business to pay for a parental leave scheme to which he had previously been opposed. Having imposed that Big New Tax he then announced that he would cut Company Tax by a similar amount, at the same time gazumping the Government’s own plan to cut Company Tax. Having done that he has now changed his plan for parental leave to start a year later and reduced the tax increase so that it exactly matches the tax cut for companies. Having demanded two more Leaders’ debates during the campaign he has now refused the challenge from the “Real Julia” to engage in a debate on the economy.

Now that the Opposition appears to have the upper hand in the opinion polls, perhaps Tony Abbott can afford to reject the opportunity for another debate. Perhaps he is right to claim that the invitation is nothing more than a stunt, especially as the date would conflict with his own campaign launch. Perhaps he is unconcerned that he will be accused of wanting to avoid a debate or that he is afraid of the outcome. But the bottom line now is that he can no longer accuse the Prime Minister of the same thing. If he really wants a second or even a third debate, it now appears that the Prime Minister would be prepared to accommodate him. Having said no, it would now seem that the “Real Tony” really doesn’t want a debate after all.

I wonder if he ever actually did.

Will The Real Julia Please Stand Up

2010-08-02T13:36:00.002+10:00

EDITORIAL MONDAY 02.08.10.
On Friday I offered the opinion that the first two weeks of the election campaign had been won by Tony Abbott and the opposition. That opinion has been born out by the poll figures released over the weekend, with the credible Neilson poll showing the opposition with a winning lead in the two party preferred vote of 52 to 48 percent. This morning, the Newspoll gave a result which has the two major parties neck and neck at 50 percent each, which represents a dramatic advance for the opposition in past fortnight, and an equally dramatic decline in the fortunes of the Government. On Friday I observed that the Government had lost control of the agenda, and that seems to have been reflected in the polls. In response, the Prime Minister has announced that it is now time to “unleash the Real Julia”, to borrow the headline from today’s Telegraph.

Over the weekend, Julia Gillard said it was time to “make sure the real Julia is well and truly on display”. She said, “I'm going to step up and take personal charge of what we do in the campaign from this point". Maybe that’s a good idea, given the difficulty that seems to have overcome the Government, but it does raise a couple of very curly questions. If Julia has not been in charge of the campaign up until now, just who exactly has? And if it’s time to unleash the “Real Julia”, does that mean the Julia we have been watching is some sort of fake? After sternly warning all Australians to beware of falling for the forked tongue of “Phony Tony”, talk of the “Real Julia” could be seen as somewhat precious.

Of course, the truth is that the “Real Julia” has been there all along, but any political campaign is run by the Party, not just the Leader. In this case, the Party is still being driven by the very same people who decided to dismiss Kevin Rudd and install Julia Gillard as Prime Minister in June. Those people, including Senator Mark Arbib and Party Secretary Karl Bitar, are also responsible for coaching and grooming the Leader, whoever it might be, to lead the campaign. And that’s where the lines can become blurred. How much of what we see, of any politician, is the real person and how much is the focus group driven result of polling can become difficult to determine. What Ms. Gillard seems to be telling us is that for a while there even she had trouble telling the difference between the two.

Regardless of just who is really running the campaign, or whether the ‘Real Julia” will now step up, there’s a very good chance that it’s already too late to make a difference. The underlying disquiet about the ability of a Party to callously discard a Leader in an apparent attempt to win at all costs has only been amplified by the events of the past fortnight. After displaying contempt not only for their own former Leader, but also for the people who voted for him three years ago, the Party now appears to be desperate to appear not to be desperate. With almost three weeks of the campaign still to run, it’s too soon to say that they have lost the election, but unless there is a dramatic turnaround that will be the outcome. Labor hasn’t yet fallen to the bottom of the cliff, but they have tripped at the top.

If they don’t grab a safety rail there can only be one result.