Finally, the fat lady is warming up her vocal chords in the United States presidential race. After a protracted campaign, Barack Obama has the numbers to be the Democratic Party candidate, and Hillary Clinton has announced that her campaign will be suspended from this weekend. Of course, the real race between the two major parties is only just beginning. It also remains to be seen just who will be chosen to run as Obama’s vice presidential candidate. Many have suggested Hilary, others, including former President Jimmy Carter, have said that would be a bad choice.
Clearly, Hilary still has ambitions, but running for Vice President might not only undermine Obama, but her own future prospects for success. It might be better for her own aspirations to bide her time for a future election race. If Obama wins, she would still be a viable chance to succeed him in eight years time. And if the Republican John McCain wins she might even get a shot in four years.
Of course, it’s easy to look at American politics from a distance and feel that it has little relevance for us here on the other side of the world. But that ignores the obvious. From World War Two onwards, American politics and foreign policy has dictated the direction of our own country in almost every way. From “all the way with L.B.J.” right through to George W. Bush’s deputy sheriff in the Pacific, our nation and our way of life have been dominated by American doctrine.
So it makes a difference who sits in the Oval Office, and what their policies are. The relationship between Australia and the United States is one of the things which defines our own identity. It has for decades determined whether or not we go to war, and it continues to be the predominant outside cultural influence upon us. American foreign policy decisions have the effect of shaping the world, whether we like it or not, and Australia has made a point of remaining inside that particular tent.
We may not have a vote in determining the outcome of the Presidential elections, but that outcome will certainly have an impact on how we live.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Michael Costa Means Business
The New South Wales State budget has the strange distinction of being for the most part warmly welcomed by business groups, while being the subject of outrage from the unions. That’s not exactly the outcome you would normally expect from a Labor Government. However, in this case, it’s no surprise. The division between the government and the unions was on display for the world to see at the recent ALP state conference.
The budget has clearly kicked important goals with the commitment to expend record amounts on infrastructure, and to reduce the tax burden on business. $58 billion has been earmarked for capital investment, and it’s long overdue. Despite the fact that the government is essentially making up for its past negligence, the move has been welcomed even by the government’s critics. Similarly, the move to reduce payroll tax may not go far enough to redress the imbalance between the states, but it does go some way to providing relief for business and incentive to invest in jobs and is to be applauded. The Treasurer clearly wants to get the message across that New South Wales is open for business.
But this comes at a cost. First, the budget confirms the government’s intention to press ahead with the privatization of the electricity industry, despite the fact that both the general public and the union movement are opposed to it. Secondly, the budget requires the public employees of New South Wales to accept wage and salary increases limited to 2.5%, well below the rate of inflation. This has incensed the unions, and it’s easy to understand why. Nurses, teachers, police officers, and other essential workers are being told that their living standards must decline for the good of the state’s finances.
The truth is that many people employed in these essential roles already cannot afford to live near their work, especially within Sydney. In fact, housing affordability is perhaps the biggest missed opportunity in the budget, which is disappointing because it is also one of the biggest challenges confronting the community.
Cutting people’s income in real terms is only going to make it worse.
The budget has clearly kicked important goals with the commitment to expend record amounts on infrastructure, and to reduce the tax burden on business. $58 billion has been earmarked for capital investment, and it’s long overdue. Despite the fact that the government is essentially making up for its past negligence, the move has been welcomed even by the government’s critics. Similarly, the move to reduce payroll tax may not go far enough to redress the imbalance between the states, but it does go some way to providing relief for business and incentive to invest in jobs and is to be applauded. The Treasurer clearly wants to get the message across that New South Wales is open for business.
But this comes at a cost. First, the budget confirms the government’s intention to press ahead with the privatization of the electricity industry, despite the fact that both the general public and the union movement are opposed to it. Secondly, the budget requires the public employees of New South Wales to accept wage and salary increases limited to 2.5%, well below the rate of inflation. This has incensed the unions, and it’s easy to understand why. Nurses, teachers, police officers, and other essential workers are being told that their living standards must decline for the good of the state’s finances.
The truth is that many people employed in these essential roles already cannot afford to live near their work, especially within Sydney. In fact, housing affordability is perhaps the biggest missed opportunity in the budget, which is disappointing because it is also one of the biggest challenges confronting the community.
Cutting people’s income in real terms is only going to make it worse.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Homes Out Of Reach For Ordinary Workers
It has always been the conventional wisdom that it is more expensive to live in Sydney than in the rest of Australia. That has been born out once again by research by Bank West which shows that Sydney remains Australia’s most expensive place to live. And it’s getting worse.
The report identifies so called “key workers”, that is people such as nurses, police officers, teachers, paramedics and so on, who can no longer afford to live where they work. Across Australia, wages for key workers have increased by about 31 per cent, while house and unit prices have risen by a dramatic 66 percent. Although other capital cities such as Perth and Canberra have had more dramatic increases, Sydney was already expensive to start with. The report shows that 93 per cent of Sydney’s local government areas are now beyond the reach of key workers.
There’s no simple solution to this, but it is one of the most significant challenges confront all Australian governments, State and Federal, at this time. It’s not just a matter of a few people falling behind in the economy. It’s a matter of the whole community suffering from an increasing inability to both accommodate it’s members, along with an inability to deliver services to where they are needed.
Something somewhere simply doesn’t add up, and it is not sustainable. In the long run, such disparity inevitably leads to social disruption, and the break down of community cohesion. It’s simply un-Australian that ordinary families can no longer aspire to owning a home in a significant and growing number of locations. It’s a trend which cannot continue, but for which there is no easy escape.
Housing prices must fall relative to incomes, but how we get to that result without considerable fallout is the conundrum which currently confounds the experts. But unless our governments do come to grips with this problem the Australian way of life will be profoundly changed.
The report identifies so called “key workers”, that is people such as nurses, police officers, teachers, paramedics and so on, who can no longer afford to live where they work. Across Australia, wages for key workers have increased by about 31 per cent, while house and unit prices have risen by a dramatic 66 percent. Although other capital cities such as Perth and Canberra have had more dramatic increases, Sydney was already expensive to start with. The report shows that 93 per cent of Sydney’s local government areas are now beyond the reach of key workers.
There’s no simple solution to this, but it is one of the most significant challenges confront all Australian governments, State and Federal, at this time. It’s not just a matter of a few people falling behind in the economy. It’s a matter of the whole community suffering from an increasing inability to both accommodate it’s members, along with an inability to deliver services to where they are needed.
Something somewhere simply doesn’t add up, and it is not sustainable. In the long run, such disparity inevitably leads to social disruption, and the break down of community cohesion. It’s simply un-Australian that ordinary families can no longer aspire to owning a home in a significant and growing number of locations. It’s a trend which cannot continue, but for which there is no easy escape.
Housing prices must fall relative to incomes, but how we get to that result without considerable fallout is the conundrum which currently confounds the experts. But unless our governments do come to grips with this problem the Australian way of life will be profoundly changed.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Iraq: Was It Worth It?
Well it’s over. Australian combat troops have been withdrawn from Iraq. After 5 years and a cost of $2.3 billion the question still remains: has it been worth it?
About 14 000 Australian troops have served in Iraq, 110 will remain in Baghdad guarding the Australian Embassy, and the joint command headquarters is also in Baghdad until it moves to refocus on Afghanistan. Unlike the Americans and British, no Australians have been killed in battle.
There has been some discussion about the policy to keep Australian troops confined to low risk missions, and the feeling that perhaps their standing amongst allies had been diminished as a result. Of course, that ignores the high risk missions carried out by Australian S.A.S. teams, as well as the reality that Baghdad continues to be a dangerous place. If the policy has meant that Australian Mothers and Fathers have been spared the anguish of lost sons and daughters then it has been a good policy.
When Australia went to war in 2003 we were told that it was to disarm Saddam Hussein and make the world a safer place. Critics at the time have largely been proven right, as it turned out that the weapons of mass destruction existed only in the American administration’s imagination, and that the risk of terrorism is now seen by many as greater than it was before. The war has even been blamed for contributing to the high price of oil, which is impacting on us all.
So, was it worth it? For Australia, the benefits include operational experience which adds to the capabilities of our defence forces, along with the strengthening of our strategic alliance with the United States. The negatives are perhaps an increased profile as a terrorism target, and higher petrol prices. The relative merits will be debated for decades, but the most important thing at this time is that Australia’s troops have come home safely from Iraq. That has to be worth more than anything else.
About 14 000 Australian troops have served in Iraq, 110 will remain in Baghdad guarding the Australian Embassy, and the joint command headquarters is also in Baghdad until it moves to refocus on Afghanistan. Unlike the Americans and British, no Australians have been killed in battle.
There has been some discussion about the policy to keep Australian troops confined to low risk missions, and the feeling that perhaps their standing amongst allies had been diminished as a result. Of course, that ignores the high risk missions carried out by Australian S.A.S. teams, as well as the reality that Baghdad continues to be a dangerous place. If the policy has meant that Australian Mothers and Fathers have been spared the anguish of lost sons and daughters then it has been a good policy.
When Australia went to war in 2003 we were told that it was to disarm Saddam Hussein and make the world a safer place. Critics at the time have largely been proven right, as it turned out that the weapons of mass destruction existed only in the American administration’s imagination, and that the risk of terrorism is now seen by many as greater than it was before. The war has even been blamed for contributing to the high price of oil, which is impacting on us all.
So, was it worth it? For Australia, the benefits include operational experience which adds to the capabilities of our defence forces, along with the strengthening of our strategic alliance with the United States. The negatives are perhaps an increased profile as a terrorism target, and higher petrol prices. The relative merits will be debated for decades, but the most important thing at this time is that Australia’s troops have come home safely from Iraq. That has to be worth more than anything else.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Game Over In Power Struggle?
It appears that the way is now clear for the privatization of the electricity industry in New South Wales to go ahead. Treasurer Michael Costa has announced that the government will meet all of the opposition’s demands for the sale to go ahead. That means there is no need for the government to seek the support of the Greens or the independents, but can press ahead with the process. This, despite the fact that the unions and many within the Labor Party are still firmly opposed to the idea.
But is it really all over? Not yet. Chief among the demands made by the opposition is the requirement for the sale to be assessed by the Auditor General in reference to the price, the timing, and the consumer guarantees. Other demands include the preparation of a rural and communities impact statement, independent monitoring of the use of the proceeds, and parliamentary oversight of the clean energy requirements. These add up to a series of hoops that may yet scupper the deal.
If the opposition was bluffing with its demands, then the treasurer has just called them. But the fact is that the Auditor General may well find some deficiency in the sale arrangements and that would be enough for the opposition to withdraw their support. If the assessment does have an unfavourable result, then the real test will be what the opposition decides to do.
Will they oppose it and win the support of the 80 per cent of voters who are against privatization? Or will they continue to support it because they believe in the principle of the privatization if not the detail?
In this case, it aint over until Barry O’Farrel sings.
But is it really all over? Not yet. Chief among the demands made by the opposition is the requirement for the sale to be assessed by the Auditor General in reference to the price, the timing, and the consumer guarantees. Other demands include the preparation of a rural and communities impact statement, independent monitoring of the use of the proceeds, and parliamentary oversight of the clean energy requirements. These add up to a series of hoops that may yet scupper the deal.
If the opposition was bluffing with its demands, then the treasurer has just called them. But the fact is that the Auditor General may well find some deficiency in the sale arrangements and that would be enough for the opposition to withdraw their support. If the assessment does have an unfavourable result, then the real test will be what the opposition decides to do.
Will they oppose it and win the support of the 80 per cent of voters who are against privatization? Or will they continue to support it because they believe in the principle of the privatization if not the detail?
In this case, it aint over until Barry O’Farrel sings.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Give Fuelwatch A Go
It seems we can’t stop talking about the price of petrol. That’s understandable given that motorists around the country are entitled to feel that we are all being taken for a ride. Now, to add to the confusion, two embarrassing leaks from the government have prompted us all to question whether Fuelwatch is going to be an expensive waste of time which could even cost us all more at the bowser. It’s easy to feel that the whole thing is falling apart before the scheme has even left the starting blocks.
Adding to the conundrum is the fact that these two leaks of confidential documents from within the heart of government put on public display the deep divisions in opinion inside the cabinet. That in itself is a serious concern for the government, not because the differences of opinion exist, but because somebody inside the government is obviously working to undermine their credibility. This has been reported as the end of the Rudd honeymoon, and that is not putting the case too strongly. It is however out of all proportion to suggest that it might be the beginning of the Rudd demise.
Like any significant challenge, it may be the catalyst for the Labor government to lift its game, or it may not. That remains to be seen. What we do know however is that it should be no surprise that there is a range of different views and opinions about fuelwatch inside the government just as there is in the wider community.
While the projected savings of up to 1.9 cents a litre on average may not sound like much, the crucial point is that the A.C.C.C.’s analysis shows that fuelwatch will not cost consumers more, and that the program gives consumers a degree of certainty that does not exist now. I believe that we should not rely on fuelwatch alone, and that other measures need to be considered, including Brendan Nelson’s tax reduction. However, we should give fuelwatch a go and see if it delivers as promised.
And anyway, I would think that even if the savings are miniscule, and all it does is give the oil companies a thorn in the side, then it’s worth doing just for that.
Adding to the conundrum is the fact that these two leaks of confidential documents from within the heart of government put on public display the deep divisions in opinion inside the cabinet. That in itself is a serious concern for the government, not because the differences of opinion exist, but because somebody inside the government is obviously working to undermine their credibility. This has been reported as the end of the Rudd honeymoon, and that is not putting the case too strongly. It is however out of all proportion to suggest that it might be the beginning of the Rudd demise.
Like any significant challenge, it may be the catalyst for the Labor government to lift its game, or it may not. That remains to be seen. What we do know however is that it should be no surprise that there is a range of different views and opinions about fuelwatch inside the government just as there is in the wider community.
While the projected savings of up to 1.9 cents a litre on average may not sound like much, the crucial point is that the A.C.C.C.’s analysis shows that fuelwatch will not cost consumers more, and that the program gives consumers a degree of certainty that does not exist now. I believe that we should not rely on fuelwatch alone, and that other measures need to be considered, including Brendan Nelson’s tax reduction. However, we should give fuelwatch a go and see if it delivers as promised.
And anyway, I would think that even if the savings are miniscule, and all it does is give the oil companies a thorn in the side, then it’s worth doing just for that.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Police Call Time For Last Drinks
It’s easy to get the impression that crime is out of control. Whenever an outrageous crime is committed the headlines scream for justice, and there have been some horrendous crimes over the years. Sensationalist reporting might help to sell newspapers, but at the same time that it leaves us all with the idea that crime is escalating out of control. But’s just not true. All of the objective statistics indicate that overall the incidence of crime is declining. But there are some isolated exceptions.
The most notable exception is an increase in violent crime associated with alcohol. It’s a problem not only in News South Wales, but around the nation. That’s why police commissioners from around Australia and New Zealand have joined forces to take a united stand on the issue. Together the police commissioners have proposed a range of measures including lower tax on lower alcohol drinks, community sobering up centres, and the most important proposal, a reduction in trading hours.
In particular, the commissioners questioned the need for 24 hour trading. Research quite clearly links longer trading hours with violence, and plain common sense dictates that if the bars are all shut then that would reduce the opportunity for problems to arise. International comparisons show that in places such as Los Angeles bars close at 2am. Even if Australian bars were to close at 3am, would that really be such an inconvenience?
This is not about stopping people from having a good time. There is ample opportunity to go out on the town and have fun before 3am. I would suggest that the only people likely to complain are also the people likely to be causing trouble in the first place. There may be a few others inconvenienced, but they would be a small minority compared to the ratbag element who seem to delight in running amok.
Let’s face it. We’ve had our chance, we’ve tried 24 hour trading, and there are enough people who cannot be trusted to behave themselves to make the whole thing not worth the trouble. It’s time to close the door at a sensible hour.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
