EDITORIAL THURSDAY 21.05.09.
It’s not likely that anyone will welcome the news that electricity prices are set to increase by 20%, which is a result of the combined effects of determinations by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal in New South Wales, and the national regulatory body, the Australian Energy Regulator. The price increases have been deemed necessary to reflect the increased costs of producing, purchasing and retailing electricity, including an increase in retail margins. Nobody is seriously denying the need for price increases, but there is certainly criticism of the circumstances which have brought about that necessity.
Of the total price increase by far the largest chunk is the federally mandated increase in network charges, which according to the tribunal are necessary to fund improvements in network reliability. In other words, the money is needed for the maintenance and upgrading of the physical network infrastructure. This is where the criticism is directed, because it would be reasonable to expect that such maintenance, upgrading, and expansion should and would have been provided for from past earnings. But the truth is it hasn’t been.
Instead, over the past 14 years, the energy providers in New South Wales have delivered to the government $11 billion in dividends, which has disappeared into consolidated revenue in an effort to keep the budget in the black. Even that hasn’t been successful, given that the State Budget was plunging towards deficit well before the Global Financial Crisis began to wreck the economy. Instead of those dividends being appropriately invested into future capacity, they have been squandered on recurrent spending, and many would say government wastefulness.
So now, somebody has to pay for the system to be modernized and expanded to provide for reliable electricity supply into the 21st Century, and it seems that it’s you and me who are once again left to pick up the bill. The State Government was desperate to avoid the need to spend big money on upgrading the infrastructure by selling it off, and hoping that private investors would do the job. But that process was derailed in a cloud of messy politics, and selling any or all of the industry now while the financial markets are weak is not likely to produce a worthwhile return anyway. In any event, it is clear that the people of New South Wales are opposed to privatization anyway.
So, it would appear that we are stuck with the prospect of paying more for our electricity in the future, to pay for the recklessness of the past. But, given that the Government has benefited so handsomely from those special dividends for so long, isn’t it only fair that the Government should chip in to pay for the needed infrastructure? Having extracted those billions from what is a public enterprise, surely there is a responsibility to put something back into it, rather than simply jack the prices up and slug the consumer. A 20% increase is not only unfair to the consumer, it is also an indication that something has gone very wrong in the way things have been managed.
Now, more than ever, it is the role of government to provide for the common good. I know that this brings us around full circle, and returns to the old fashioned idea of public infrastructure being paid for the public purse for the public good, and that notion does seem to have gone way out of fashion over the last couple of decades, but in the light of the current economic situation, and the neo-Keynesian policies of governments around the globe, and the call for nation building programs to both boost the economy now and lay the groundwork for recovery down the track, surely this is a philosophy whose time has come. Or I should say, has come back.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Nero Fiddling Is Just A Distraction From The Fire
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 20.05.09.
There must be a reason for the latest beat up story beating up on the politicians for using their living away from home allowance to pay off mortgages on houses in Canberra. It’s not news, as this has been going on for ages, and in fact was given a run a couple of years ago when Malcolm Turnbull was made to defend himself over this very practice. It’s not even a scam, or a rort. It is merely an allowance intended to provide for parliamentarians to be able to accommodate themselves when required to be in Canberra. So why all the fuss? Is it simply a matter of sensational headlines to sell more papers? Or is it a red herring to distract us all from something else that’s going on?
For those who think that this is just another example of politicians enjoying the gravy train, there will never be an acceptable level of pay or perks for parliamentarians. Any amount will be too much, but of course that view is unsustainable when examined with any kind of rational consideration. The basic rate of pay for a backbencher is currently $127 060 per annum, or roughly double the male average total earnings. It’s a comfortable salary to be sure, but by itself it isn’t going to make anyone wealthy. For the nature of the job and the level of responsibility involved, it is not an unreasonable amount.
Then there is the recently increased electoral allowance, which is supposed to fund community contributions and activities by the member of parliament. Controversy surrounds the practice of allowing politicians to retain any unspent funds from that allowance as taxable income for themselves. It should be obvious that such an arrangement is a disincentive to actually use the funds for the purpose intended, that is in service to the electorate. For that reason, the recent criticism was justified, and a far more satisfactory arrangement would be to require unspent funds to be returned to treasury.
At the same time, the living away from home allowance is specifically intended for the benefit of the politician, putting it into a different category. Rather than running an expense account system where hotel bills and the like are picked up by the taxpayer, which would require the expense and effort of accounting and auditing, the politicians are paid an allowance and left to make their own arrangements, which is arguably a more efficient approach. Given those circumstances, what does it matter whether the politician spends the money on a hotel room, or on a mortgage to pay off a residence in Canberra?
Yes, of course that provides a benefit for the politician, but only if he or she has been smart enough to take this approach. So who would you rather have running the country? People who are smart enough to put this money to productive use for themselves, or who are stupid enough to simply squander it on four star hotels? Or would you simply prefer them to pay for their Canberra accommodation out of their basic salary? Perhaps if the basic salary was significantly above community standards that might be justified, but despite the popular opinion to the contrary, politicians are not overpaid. Sure, it could be said that some individual politicians are not up to standard, but that’s our fault for electing them.
When I am flying in a commercial airliner, I want the pilot to be well paid, because I want him to be calm confident and in control. I do not want him to be stressed out and worried about making his next mortgage payment, or anxious about finding the money for medical treatment for his children. I want him to have his mind on the job. If I am going to have brain surgery, I want my surgeon to be well paid, so that he is not distracted by the fear of having his car repossessed, or his mortgage foreclosed. In the same way, I want the people who are running my country to remain focused on the job and not constantly distracted by the need to make a few dollars on the side.
There’s nothing wrong with reviewing pay and perks for politicians to ensure that scams and rorts are not encouraged, but at the same time there is a need for some balanced perspective. The sort of hysteria that can be generated by sensationalist headlines is all too often a convenient smokescreen to distract us all from far more important issues. That’s why I wonder what’s really going on when such artificial controversies are whipped up in the popular press. I suspect that rather than being distracted by politicians’ perks, we should be more concerned with whether or not they are making the right decisions for our economy, our wellbeing and our future. What really matters is not whether Nero is playing the fiddle, but whether Rome is burning at the time.
There must be a reason for the latest beat up story beating up on the politicians for using their living away from home allowance to pay off mortgages on houses in Canberra. It’s not news, as this has been going on for ages, and in fact was given a run a couple of years ago when Malcolm Turnbull was made to defend himself over this very practice. It’s not even a scam, or a rort. It is merely an allowance intended to provide for parliamentarians to be able to accommodate themselves when required to be in Canberra. So why all the fuss? Is it simply a matter of sensational headlines to sell more papers? Or is it a red herring to distract us all from something else that’s going on?
For those who think that this is just another example of politicians enjoying the gravy train, there will never be an acceptable level of pay or perks for parliamentarians. Any amount will be too much, but of course that view is unsustainable when examined with any kind of rational consideration. The basic rate of pay for a backbencher is currently $127 060 per annum, or roughly double the male average total earnings. It’s a comfortable salary to be sure, but by itself it isn’t going to make anyone wealthy. For the nature of the job and the level of responsibility involved, it is not an unreasonable amount.
Then there is the recently increased electoral allowance, which is supposed to fund community contributions and activities by the member of parliament. Controversy surrounds the practice of allowing politicians to retain any unspent funds from that allowance as taxable income for themselves. It should be obvious that such an arrangement is a disincentive to actually use the funds for the purpose intended, that is in service to the electorate. For that reason, the recent criticism was justified, and a far more satisfactory arrangement would be to require unspent funds to be returned to treasury.
At the same time, the living away from home allowance is specifically intended for the benefit of the politician, putting it into a different category. Rather than running an expense account system where hotel bills and the like are picked up by the taxpayer, which would require the expense and effort of accounting and auditing, the politicians are paid an allowance and left to make their own arrangements, which is arguably a more efficient approach. Given those circumstances, what does it matter whether the politician spends the money on a hotel room, or on a mortgage to pay off a residence in Canberra?
Yes, of course that provides a benefit for the politician, but only if he or she has been smart enough to take this approach. So who would you rather have running the country? People who are smart enough to put this money to productive use for themselves, or who are stupid enough to simply squander it on four star hotels? Or would you simply prefer them to pay for their Canberra accommodation out of their basic salary? Perhaps if the basic salary was significantly above community standards that might be justified, but despite the popular opinion to the contrary, politicians are not overpaid. Sure, it could be said that some individual politicians are not up to standard, but that’s our fault for electing them.
When I am flying in a commercial airliner, I want the pilot to be well paid, because I want him to be calm confident and in control. I do not want him to be stressed out and worried about making his next mortgage payment, or anxious about finding the money for medical treatment for his children. I want him to have his mind on the job. If I am going to have brain surgery, I want my surgeon to be well paid, so that he is not distracted by the fear of having his car repossessed, or his mortgage foreclosed. In the same way, I want the people who are running my country to remain focused on the job and not constantly distracted by the need to make a few dollars on the side.
There’s nothing wrong with reviewing pay and perks for politicians to ensure that scams and rorts are not encouraged, but at the same time there is a need for some balanced perspective. The sort of hysteria that can be generated by sensationalist headlines is all too often a convenient smokescreen to distract us all from far more important issues. That’s why I wonder what’s really going on when such artificial controversies are whipped up in the popular press. I suspect that rather than being distracted by politicians’ perks, we should be more concerned with whether or not they are making the right decisions for our economy, our wellbeing and our future. What really matters is not whether Nero is playing the fiddle, but whether Rome is burning at the time.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Computers Are Supposed To Assist The Driver To Keep Control Of The Vehicle, Not To Take It Away
EDITORIAL TUESDAY 19.05.09.
The plan by the New South Wales government to test new technology to prevent drivers from speeding has triggered a heated debate. While many people would be likely to consider it a good idea, there are still some concerns about a range of issues. Two forms of the technology will be the subject of the trial. One will alert the driver whenever the speed limit is exceeded, and it will be up to the driver to take action, while the second will allow the computer to cut power to the engine if the driver ignores the warning. This version will allow the driver to override the computer, but a third variation where the driver has no power to override the computer is also possible. All three depend on a GPS navigation system and a database of every speed limit on every road in the state. That is where the trouble starts.
Already many people use GPS in-car navigation systems, and most of those already offer the speed advisory feature which warns the driver by sounding an alarm if he is travelling too quickly. It is a very useful feature, and works well to keep drivers out of trouble. Unfortunately however, the database is not always correct. There are occasions when the speed limit in the computer is not the same as the speed limit posted on the road. Sometimes there are variations because of road works. Sometimes there is simply a mistake in the programming. While the driver still has control of the vehicle he can recognize such errors and act accordingly. On the other hand, if the computer takes control of the car at an inopportune moment it could potentially be dangerous.
In the development of computer management systems for modern aircraft, problems were encountered in situations where pilots were unable to regain control of the aircraft from a computer which was following its programming despite impending disaster. Any computer is only as good as the input it has been given, and is incapable of judgement or discretion. That is why it should be a device which assists the driver, but which leaves the ultimate responsibility up to the individual in charge of the vehicle.
In the end, the driver of the vehicle is supposed to be responsible. The driver is supposed to exercise sound judgement. If society continues to remove the need for personal responsibility, we will only have more and more individuals who are not responsible, and who don’t know how to act independently without the nanny state to think for them. As personal responsibility is undermined, individuals will also come to feel disempowered, potentially promoting resentment, frustration, and anti-social reactions.
While it might make some sense to restrict the top speed of cars in a country where the highest speed limit is 110 km/h on motorways, there is another reason why the George Orwell system of complete computer control is unlikely to get the green light anytime soon. Indeed, 82 million reasons, as that is the number of dollars collected by the state from speeding drivers in a year. If the government were to be serious about so called “intelligent speed adaptation” devices, assuming that they could be made to work properly and fairly, it would then need to find that revenue somewhere else.
Of course, speeding is against the law because it is dangerous, and it would not be right to encourage or condone speeding. Road safety is important, but the most important contribution to road safety is responsible driver behavior. That means drivers being in control of their cars and making responsible decisions. If we give that responsibility away to a computer we are diminishing the individual. If the individual abuses that responsibility, then it is a matter for the law. Computers are supposed to assist the driver to keep control of the vehicle, not to take it away.
The plan by the New South Wales government to test new technology to prevent drivers from speeding has triggered a heated debate. While many people would be likely to consider it a good idea, there are still some concerns about a range of issues. Two forms of the technology will be the subject of the trial. One will alert the driver whenever the speed limit is exceeded, and it will be up to the driver to take action, while the second will allow the computer to cut power to the engine if the driver ignores the warning. This version will allow the driver to override the computer, but a third variation where the driver has no power to override the computer is also possible. All three depend on a GPS navigation system and a database of every speed limit on every road in the state. That is where the trouble starts.
Already many people use GPS in-car navigation systems, and most of those already offer the speed advisory feature which warns the driver by sounding an alarm if he is travelling too quickly. It is a very useful feature, and works well to keep drivers out of trouble. Unfortunately however, the database is not always correct. There are occasions when the speed limit in the computer is not the same as the speed limit posted on the road. Sometimes there are variations because of road works. Sometimes there is simply a mistake in the programming. While the driver still has control of the vehicle he can recognize such errors and act accordingly. On the other hand, if the computer takes control of the car at an inopportune moment it could potentially be dangerous.
In the development of computer management systems for modern aircraft, problems were encountered in situations where pilots were unable to regain control of the aircraft from a computer which was following its programming despite impending disaster. Any computer is only as good as the input it has been given, and is incapable of judgement or discretion. That is why it should be a device which assists the driver, but which leaves the ultimate responsibility up to the individual in charge of the vehicle.
In the end, the driver of the vehicle is supposed to be responsible. The driver is supposed to exercise sound judgement. If society continues to remove the need for personal responsibility, we will only have more and more individuals who are not responsible, and who don’t know how to act independently without the nanny state to think for them. As personal responsibility is undermined, individuals will also come to feel disempowered, potentially promoting resentment, frustration, and anti-social reactions.
While it might make some sense to restrict the top speed of cars in a country where the highest speed limit is 110 km/h on motorways, there is another reason why the George Orwell system of complete computer control is unlikely to get the green light anytime soon. Indeed, 82 million reasons, as that is the number of dollars collected by the state from speeding drivers in a year. If the government were to be serious about so called “intelligent speed adaptation” devices, assuming that they could be made to work properly and fairly, it would then need to find that revenue somewhere else.
Of course, speeding is against the law because it is dangerous, and it would not be right to encourage or condone speeding. Road safety is important, but the most important contribution to road safety is responsible driver behavior. That means drivers being in control of their cars and making responsible decisions. If we give that responsibility away to a computer we are diminishing the individual. If the individual abuses that responsibility, then it is a matter for the law. Computers are supposed to assist the driver to keep control of the vehicle, not to take it away.
Monday, May 18, 2009
No Double Dissolution Just Yet
EDITORIAL MONDAY 18.05.09.
Well, after all of the blood and thunder of budget week, with the Opposition Leader accusing the Prime Minister of rushing to an early election, while being reported as calling the government’s bluff, the whole thing has turned into a damp squib. After seeing Malcolm Turnbull standing up in the parliament, to all intents and purposes challenging the government to bring it on, it would be easy to get the impression that an early election would suit him just fine. Nothing could be further from the truth. Last week I asked just who was bluffing who, and although the question was obviously rhetorical, the opposition have given a clear answer with its abrupt reversal on the question of the alcopops tax increase.
In order for the Prime Minister to be in a position to “rush to an early election”, there must be a trigger for calling it, at least if there is to be a double dissolution, and without that there is not much point. For a double dissolution to be called, the government must have had a piece of legislation rejected twice by the senate in a period of not less than three months. The alcopops legislation, originally rejected so dramatically by the combination of the opposition and the lone Families First Senator Steve Fielding, has been re-introduced by the government and would have been such a trigger if it had been rejected again. But instead, after all of the chest thumping last week, the opposition has quietly decided to wave it through without any further resistance.
Originally, the opposition opposed the alcopops tax hike on the grounds that it was simply a revenue measure masquerading as health policy. Now they say that they support it for the very same reason, pointing to the budget bottom line and claiming that they don’t want to do anything to add to the deficit. Quite aside from the obvious point that the distinction between a revenue measure with health benefits as compared to a health measure with revenue benefits is really just a case of excessive pedantry, I have to wonder does this mean that the opposition will also backflip on its promise to block the introduction of a means test on the private health insurance rebate? I seriously doubt it, but by their own logic, they could, and will, be accused of placing greater strain on the budget bottom line.
The opposition could also be accused of hypocrisy, and of not having a coherent policy on anything other than a policy of opposing government measures for the sake of opposition. That would not be entirely fair, as the private health insurance matter is an ideology close to the Liberal heart, and linked to their central political philosophy. I would expect that their opposition to the government’s proposal on that will be more robust than has been their stand on alcohol. Either way though, the coalition is unlikely to be in a hurry for an election, and last week’s bravado was more about style than substance, as illustrated by the opposition’s reluctance to load the double dissolution gun for the government.
Well, after all of the blood and thunder of budget week, with the Opposition Leader accusing the Prime Minister of rushing to an early election, while being reported as calling the government’s bluff, the whole thing has turned into a damp squib. After seeing Malcolm Turnbull standing up in the parliament, to all intents and purposes challenging the government to bring it on, it would be easy to get the impression that an early election would suit him just fine. Nothing could be further from the truth. Last week I asked just who was bluffing who, and although the question was obviously rhetorical, the opposition have given a clear answer with its abrupt reversal on the question of the alcopops tax increase.
In order for the Prime Minister to be in a position to “rush to an early election”, there must be a trigger for calling it, at least if there is to be a double dissolution, and without that there is not much point. For a double dissolution to be called, the government must have had a piece of legislation rejected twice by the senate in a period of not less than three months. The alcopops legislation, originally rejected so dramatically by the combination of the opposition and the lone Families First Senator Steve Fielding, has been re-introduced by the government and would have been such a trigger if it had been rejected again. But instead, after all of the chest thumping last week, the opposition has quietly decided to wave it through without any further resistance.
Originally, the opposition opposed the alcopops tax hike on the grounds that it was simply a revenue measure masquerading as health policy. Now they say that they support it for the very same reason, pointing to the budget bottom line and claiming that they don’t want to do anything to add to the deficit. Quite aside from the obvious point that the distinction between a revenue measure with health benefits as compared to a health measure with revenue benefits is really just a case of excessive pedantry, I have to wonder does this mean that the opposition will also backflip on its promise to block the introduction of a means test on the private health insurance rebate? I seriously doubt it, but by their own logic, they could, and will, be accused of placing greater strain on the budget bottom line.
The opposition could also be accused of hypocrisy, and of not having a coherent policy on anything other than a policy of opposing government measures for the sake of opposition. That would not be entirely fair, as the private health insurance matter is an ideology close to the Liberal heart, and linked to their central political philosophy. I would expect that their opposition to the government’s proposal on that will be more robust than has been their stand on alcohol. Either way though, the coalition is unlikely to be in a hurry for an election, and last week’s bravado was more about style than substance, as illustrated by the opposition’s reluctance to load the double dissolution gun for the government.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Who’s Bluffing Who?
EDITORIAL FRIDAY 15.05.09.
Amidst a sea of headlines devoted to the Rugby League sexual conduct controversy, it’s easy to forget that there have been other things going on this week. Following Wayne Swan’s second budget on Tuesday night, opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has delivered his right of reply speech in the parliament. As would be expected of a former high flying lawyer, Mr. Turnbull delivered a well crafted speech with confidence and eloquence. Newspaper headlines responded by reporting that the Opposition Leader has called the bluff of the Government. But has he really given us anything of consequence to consider?
The first point that Mr. Turnbull made was that the Treasurer made no mention of the deficit in his speech. Could it be that Wayne Swan is embarrassed by the sheer size of the $57.6 billion worth of red ink on the nation’s books? It is certainly easy to interpret it that way. Mr. Turnbull then accused the Prime Minister of rushing towards an early election, and then proceeded to provide the ammunition to do so, by promising to block the proposed introduction of a means test for the private health insurance rebate. Not content with offering a possible trigger for a double dissolution election, Mr. Turnbull further proposed an alternative way to find the $1.9 billion savings that the government expects from the private health insurance rebate change. He suggested increasing the tax on tobacco by 3 cents a cigarette.
Reporting this response as “calling the government’s bluff” gives the impression that a game of poker is being played here, and in some senses it is. But the prospect of an early election is a genuine one, and while both sides claim not to desire one, circumstances could easily conspire bring it about. More importantly, there are good reasons to think that an early election would be in the government’s favour, despite the reluctance of voters generally to reward what is often seen as a “tricky” political tactic that costs the taxpayers money and inconvenience. The trick is, therefore, to make it look like the opposition’s fault.
Ever since the idea of an early election first arose when the alcopops tax was rejected in the Senate, I have pointed out that an early election could well suit the government. At that time there was considerable speculation about the Liberal leadership, and the possible intentions of Peter Costello. That is still an unresolved issue, leaving the Liberal’s less than well equipped to present a united front in an election fight, should it be called early. Secondly, the government still holds a clear lead in the opinion polls, and despite what they all say about the only poll that matters being the election itself, it is obviously far better to be in front than to be behind.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, all of the economic indications point to conditions becoming far worse next year in the lead up to the scheduled election. Although this year’s budget was supposed to be tough, next year’s will most likely need to be much tougher. Additionally, while the government still enjoys a great deal of credit for its stimulus policies which are generally perceived to be working, unemployment is still expected to rise next year, and conditions to deteriorate. By the time the scheduled election rolls around at the end of next year, the government may have lost its luster. By then, people may well believe that Malcolm Turnbull was right and that the big spending stimulus policies were a waste of time. By then, more people could well be placing the blame for the recession on the government. On the other hand, if the government is re-elected late this year it could remain in office until early 2013, well after the projected economic recovery arrives.
That’s why an early election could well suit the government. Rush to the polls now, before the really bad news hits the proverbial fan. But in order to get away with it, Kevin Rudd needs it to look like Malcolm Turnbull has left him with no choice. By opposing a measure central to the budget, Malcolm Turnbull could be seen as doing exactly that, which is why so many newspapers used the reference to a bluff. Under the circumstances though, I wonder who’s really doing the bluffing? The popular Prime Minister who is threatening the early election, or the opposition leader who is still well behind in the polls?
I said it a few months ago, and I still have the same view. Don’t be surprised if we are all asked to go back to the polls before Christmas.
Amidst a sea of headlines devoted to the Rugby League sexual conduct controversy, it’s easy to forget that there have been other things going on this week. Following Wayne Swan’s second budget on Tuesday night, opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull has delivered his right of reply speech in the parliament. As would be expected of a former high flying lawyer, Mr. Turnbull delivered a well crafted speech with confidence and eloquence. Newspaper headlines responded by reporting that the Opposition Leader has called the bluff of the Government. But has he really given us anything of consequence to consider?
The first point that Mr. Turnbull made was that the Treasurer made no mention of the deficit in his speech. Could it be that Wayne Swan is embarrassed by the sheer size of the $57.6 billion worth of red ink on the nation’s books? It is certainly easy to interpret it that way. Mr. Turnbull then accused the Prime Minister of rushing towards an early election, and then proceeded to provide the ammunition to do so, by promising to block the proposed introduction of a means test for the private health insurance rebate. Not content with offering a possible trigger for a double dissolution election, Mr. Turnbull further proposed an alternative way to find the $1.9 billion savings that the government expects from the private health insurance rebate change. He suggested increasing the tax on tobacco by 3 cents a cigarette.
Reporting this response as “calling the government’s bluff” gives the impression that a game of poker is being played here, and in some senses it is. But the prospect of an early election is a genuine one, and while both sides claim not to desire one, circumstances could easily conspire bring it about. More importantly, there are good reasons to think that an early election would be in the government’s favour, despite the reluctance of voters generally to reward what is often seen as a “tricky” political tactic that costs the taxpayers money and inconvenience. The trick is, therefore, to make it look like the opposition’s fault.
Ever since the idea of an early election first arose when the alcopops tax was rejected in the Senate, I have pointed out that an early election could well suit the government. At that time there was considerable speculation about the Liberal leadership, and the possible intentions of Peter Costello. That is still an unresolved issue, leaving the Liberal’s less than well equipped to present a united front in an election fight, should it be called early. Secondly, the government still holds a clear lead in the opinion polls, and despite what they all say about the only poll that matters being the election itself, it is obviously far better to be in front than to be behind.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, all of the economic indications point to conditions becoming far worse next year in the lead up to the scheduled election. Although this year’s budget was supposed to be tough, next year’s will most likely need to be much tougher. Additionally, while the government still enjoys a great deal of credit for its stimulus policies which are generally perceived to be working, unemployment is still expected to rise next year, and conditions to deteriorate. By the time the scheduled election rolls around at the end of next year, the government may have lost its luster. By then, people may well believe that Malcolm Turnbull was right and that the big spending stimulus policies were a waste of time. By then, more people could well be placing the blame for the recession on the government. On the other hand, if the government is re-elected late this year it could remain in office until early 2013, well after the projected economic recovery arrives.
That’s why an early election could well suit the government. Rush to the polls now, before the really bad news hits the proverbial fan. But in order to get away with it, Kevin Rudd needs it to look like Malcolm Turnbull has left him with no choice. By opposing a measure central to the budget, Malcolm Turnbull could be seen as doing exactly that, which is why so many newspapers used the reference to a bluff. Under the circumstances though, I wonder who’s really doing the bluffing? The popular Prime Minister who is threatening the early election, or the opposition leader who is still well behind in the polls?
I said it a few months ago, and I still have the same view. Don’t be surprised if we are all asked to go back to the polls before Christmas.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Respect and Responsibility
EDITORIAL THURSDAY 14.05.09.
There are so many different issues thrown up by the Matthew Johns saga that it is difficult to make any kind of definitive assessment of them all. But perhaps we should get back to the starting point, which is the fact that the Four Corners TV program was presenting a report examining the culture of sexual behavior associated with rugby league. It’s not just about Matt Johns and the anonymous participants who joined him and whether or not they did anything wrong, either legally or morally. It is about all of us, and what we collectively consider to be an appropriate way to behave with each other as men and women.
It’s not just Rugby League, but Australian society generally which has a history of double standards, of rewarding outrageous behavior in some circumstances and punishing it in others. We have a history of treating promiscuous men as heroes but treating sexually adventurous women as sluts. A culture of treating sporting stars as if they can do no wrong, and then becoming shocked when they start to believe it themselves. We are encouraged to view fictional characters such as James Bond, a violent sociopathic womanizer, as role models. We live in a permissive and sexualized society where nearly naked women are served up in advertising and entertainment, and raunchy humour is commonplace, while at the same time women are still in many cases made to feel dirty about sex as if it might be wrong for them to actually enjoy it.
Most of us still believe that the best relationship is the committed, and exclusive relationship between two people who love and respect each other. Such people are unlikely to be caught in an embarrassing situation because they simply would not get involved in such a thing in the first place. Life sure would be a whole lot easier if everybody felt the same way, and we all followed the same rules. But this is a free country which accepts that there are other people who have different sexual orientations, and different sexual preferences. There are people who enjoy swingers clubs, partner swapping, casual relationships, and yes, even group sex. The majority of people might find those things distasteful, or even disgusting, but so long as people conduct their activities among consenting adults, they have every right to quite literally do whatever turns them on.
And let’s not deceive ourselves. The number of married people, both men and women, who have extra marital affairs is enough to indicate that there is a significant level of hypocrisy in the community about making a promise to be faithful, while secretly indulging whatever fantasy might make itself available. In fact, attitudes towards sex are so divergent and confused, and the messages so mixed, that I am astounded that we aren’t even more screwed up about such things than we already are.
The truth is that there is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that people who are tempted to engage in some of the more extreme sexual practices are not as happy about it as they thought they would be. While some people no doubt enjoy themselves, others try what seems to be a lifestyle choice, only to discover that they are left feeling unfulfilled, empty, even used. The willingness to make yourself the play thing of others can often be a sign of much deeper problems, which may not be immediately evident on the surface.
So, where is the common sense in all of this? Surely the beginning point has to be respect for each other, not just between men and women, but as human beings generally, as well as a well developed self respect which recognizes that we can only value ourselves if we also value others. This is the point which is at the heart of the concerns about the supposed culture within rugby league circles, a culture which lacks respect for women, objectifies them, and demeans them. There has certainly been plenty of evidence to support that belief, but the truth is that it is a culture that is encouraged beyond simply the boundaries of Rugby League, or even sport generally, and still exists in many parts of the broader community. Equally, there are people passionately committed to Rugby League, and sport generally, who are just as horrified about the problems as the rest of the community.
Those are the people who will have to institute change within the game if it is to overcome the taint of this long list of scandals. The whole problem with changing a culture is that those people who are inside it find it very hard to see things the same way as do people on the outside. It is a feature of any culture that its members see it as normal. That’s why there has been so much denial, and disbelief. That’s why people accused of being in the wrong are so often tempted to see themselves as victims, and have such difficulty seeing who the real victims are.
As for Matthew Johns, it seems that he has been left to carry the can for a problem that extends well beyond his own involvement. Everybody makes mistakes in their lives. At least he seems to have accepted responsibility for his.
There are so many different issues thrown up by the Matthew Johns saga that it is difficult to make any kind of definitive assessment of them all. But perhaps we should get back to the starting point, which is the fact that the Four Corners TV program was presenting a report examining the culture of sexual behavior associated with rugby league. It’s not just about Matt Johns and the anonymous participants who joined him and whether or not they did anything wrong, either legally or morally. It is about all of us, and what we collectively consider to be an appropriate way to behave with each other as men and women.
It’s not just Rugby League, but Australian society generally which has a history of double standards, of rewarding outrageous behavior in some circumstances and punishing it in others. We have a history of treating promiscuous men as heroes but treating sexually adventurous women as sluts. A culture of treating sporting stars as if they can do no wrong, and then becoming shocked when they start to believe it themselves. We are encouraged to view fictional characters such as James Bond, a violent sociopathic womanizer, as role models. We live in a permissive and sexualized society where nearly naked women are served up in advertising and entertainment, and raunchy humour is commonplace, while at the same time women are still in many cases made to feel dirty about sex as if it might be wrong for them to actually enjoy it.
Most of us still believe that the best relationship is the committed, and exclusive relationship between two people who love and respect each other. Such people are unlikely to be caught in an embarrassing situation because they simply would not get involved in such a thing in the first place. Life sure would be a whole lot easier if everybody felt the same way, and we all followed the same rules. But this is a free country which accepts that there are other people who have different sexual orientations, and different sexual preferences. There are people who enjoy swingers clubs, partner swapping, casual relationships, and yes, even group sex. The majority of people might find those things distasteful, or even disgusting, but so long as people conduct their activities among consenting adults, they have every right to quite literally do whatever turns them on.
And let’s not deceive ourselves. The number of married people, both men and women, who have extra marital affairs is enough to indicate that there is a significant level of hypocrisy in the community about making a promise to be faithful, while secretly indulging whatever fantasy might make itself available. In fact, attitudes towards sex are so divergent and confused, and the messages so mixed, that I am astounded that we aren’t even more screwed up about such things than we already are.
The truth is that there is a considerable amount of evidence to suggest that people who are tempted to engage in some of the more extreme sexual practices are not as happy about it as they thought they would be. While some people no doubt enjoy themselves, others try what seems to be a lifestyle choice, only to discover that they are left feeling unfulfilled, empty, even used. The willingness to make yourself the play thing of others can often be a sign of much deeper problems, which may not be immediately evident on the surface.
So, where is the common sense in all of this? Surely the beginning point has to be respect for each other, not just between men and women, but as human beings generally, as well as a well developed self respect which recognizes that we can only value ourselves if we also value others. This is the point which is at the heart of the concerns about the supposed culture within rugby league circles, a culture which lacks respect for women, objectifies them, and demeans them. There has certainly been plenty of evidence to support that belief, but the truth is that it is a culture that is encouraged beyond simply the boundaries of Rugby League, or even sport generally, and still exists in many parts of the broader community. Equally, there are people passionately committed to Rugby League, and sport generally, who are just as horrified about the problems as the rest of the community.
Those are the people who will have to institute change within the game if it is to overcome the taint of this long list of scandals. The whole problem with changing a culture is that those people who are inside it find it very hard to see things the same way as do people on the outside. It is a feature of any culture that its members see it as normal. That’s why there has been so much denial, and disbelief. That’s why people accused of being in the wrong are so often tempted to see themselves as victims, and have such difficulty seeing who the real victims are.
As for Matthew Johns, it seems that he has been left to carry the can for a problem that extends well beyond his own involvement. Everybody makes mistakes in their lives. At least he seems to have accepted responsibility for his.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
So how was it for you?
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 13.05.09.
So how was it for you? Did the earth move and fireworks fly? Or was the whole thing a massive anti-climax? After the barrage of pre-budget leaks there were no significant surprises in Wayne Swan’s second budget with the exception of the announcement that the eligible age for the age pension would increase from 65 to 67. It was a bolt from the blue, and was greeted with an outburst of laughter in the parliament. Then came the detail that it would be phased in over time from 2017 until 2023, so that people already over 57 won’t be affected at all, and those over 50 will only be partially affected. As far as surprises go, it wasn’t exactly a showstopper. Nevertheless, it will leave some people with the feeling that the goal posts have been shifted.
While the future viability of the pension is important, the immediate needs of today’s pensioners are more important. The increase of $32.49 per week for single pensioners is in line with expectations and anything less would have been a monumental breach of faith. But it still doesn’t ensure a decent standard of living in retirement. As much as we would all like to guarantee pensioners a much more substantial income, the real solution for the long term is to continue building up the superannuation system. For the first time since compulsory superannuation was introduced, concessions and benefits have actually been reduced. While the reduction of the allowable salary sacrifice contribution for high income earners arguably only impacts on people who will most likely be wealthy in retirement anyway, the supposedly temporary reduction in the co-contribution payment for lower income earners is a negative step which undermines the purpose in having superannuation in the first place.
The superannuation system remains in need of further improvements in order to deliver on its purpose of providing adequate retirement incomes for most Australians. By achieving that, the age pension would perform its proper function as a social safety net, and with fewer people relying on it there would be scope for it to be a little more generous. Of course, the superannuation system is included in the current Henry review of taxation, and it is to be expected that some reform will come out of that, although it remains to be seen if the system will ever be allowed to fulfill its potential and realize the long term vision of Paul Keating.
The opposition is focusing on the record budget deficit, and the long term debt which arises from that deficit, warning that we will be paying it off in future generations. Worse, they are questioning the optimism of the Treasury predictions for a strong recovery to 4.5% growth for an extended period of time after the recession ends. If they are right, it would be reasonable to expect the deficit, and the debt, become even bigger than forecast. But that’s the trouble with forecasting… none of it is certain. Just look at last year’s figures projecting a surplus of over $20 billion and only a minor economic slowing but no recession. None of them were even remotely accurate, so in these strange days who’s to say just what might be in store by this time next year?
In that light, the important thing is to keep people in jobs, and to support the needy. Despite the enormous deficit, I suspect this budget may not be enough to do that, especially in the light of international conditions.
So how was it for you? Did the earth move and fireworks fly? Or was the whole thing a massive anti-climax? After the barrage of pre-budget leaks there were no significant surprises in Wayne Swan’s second budget with the exception of the announcement that the eligible age for the age pension would increase from 65 to 67. It was a bolt from the blue, and was greeted with an outburst of laughter in the parliament. Then came the detail that it would be phased in over time from 2017 until 2023, so that people already over 57 won’t be affected at all, and those over 50 will only be partially affected. As far as surprises go, it wasn’t exactly a showstopper. Nevertheless, it will leave some people with the feeling that the goal posts have been shifted.
While the future viability of the pension is important, the immediate needs of today’s pensioners are more important. The increase of $32.49 per week for single pensioners is in line with expectations and anything less would have been a monumental breach of faith. But it still doesn’t ensure a decent standard of living in retirement. As much as we would all like to guarantee pensioners a much more substantial income, the real solution for the long term is to continue building up the superannuation system. For the first time since compulsory superannuation was introduced, concessions and benefits have actually been reduced. While the reduction of the allowable salary sacrifice contribution for high income earners arguably only impacts on people who will most likely be wealthy in retirement anyway, the supposedly temporary reduction in the co-contribution payment for lower income earners is a negative step which undermines the purpose in having superannuation in the first place.
The superannuation system remains in need of further improvements in order to deliver on its purpose of providing adequate retirement incomes for most Australians. By achieving that, the age pension would perform its proper function as a social safety net, and with fewer people relying on it there would be scope for it to be a little more generous. Of course, the superannuation system is included in the current Henry review of taxation, and it is to be expected that some reform will come out of that, although it remains to be seen if the system will ever be allowed to fulfill its potential and realize the long term vision of Paul Keating.
The opposition is focusing on the record budget deficit, and the long term debt which arises from that deficit, warning that we will be paying it off in future generations. Worse, they are questioning the optimism of the Treasury predictions for a strong recovery to 4.5% growth for an extended period of time after the recession ends. If they are right, it would be reasonable to expect the deficit, and the debt, become even bigger than forecast. But that’s the trouble with forecasting… none of it is certain. Just look at last year’s figures projecting a surplus of over $20 billion and only a minor economic slowing but no recession. None of them were even remotely accurate, so in these strange days who’s to say just what might be in store by this time next year?
In that light, the important thing is to keep people in jobs, and to support the needy. Despite the enormous deficit, I suspect this budget may not be enough to do that, especially in the light of international conditions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
