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.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Herd Of Elephants In The Living Room
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 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.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The Only Poll That Matters
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.
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.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Moving Forward To The Finish Line
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.
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.
Friday, August 13, 2010
It’s A Cunning Plan…
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.
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.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Defence Families Won’t Be Evicted For Asylum Seekers
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Profits Are Not Obscene, But Bank Behaviour Can Be
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
