EDITORIAL FRIDAY 30.04.10.
It almost feels like Christmas Eve. Over the weekend, the much anticipated Henry Review of taxation will be released, along with the federal government’s response. Just what will be included in the review and what will be adopted by the government has been the subject of much speculation and some informed discussion. The interim report gave us a few clues as to what to expect, but it remains to be seen if it will be a Santa sack full of goodies for taxpayers, or another missed opportunity for genuine reform.
While many headlines have already been devoted to a host of possible measures, including a resource rent tax on mining, standardized individual tax deductions removing the need for many people to file a return at all, concessions on the tax paid on savings, and removing the disincentives involved in the transition from welfare to work, it remains to be seen if you and I will actually be any better off as a result. There’s no doubt that reform is overdue, and that simplifying the tax system would reduce costs and improve efficiency, but whenever bureaucrats talk about becoming more efficient at collecting tax there is the risk that what they really mean is that they will find ways to collect more tax.
I think I can safely say that there are a few things that will not be included in tax reform. For example, I’m pretty sure that the tax free threshold will not be increased to the level of the minimum wage, something which would actually fix a lot of those problems with high effective marginal rates for welfare recipients. Neither do I expect to see any sudden commitment to make it compulsory for road and fuel taxes to actually be spent on building and maintaining roads. I don’t expect to see a proposal to make it possible to claim interest payments as a personal tax deduction, even though we are forced to pay tax on any interest payments we might receive.
While I would not be surprised to see a proposal for income tax marginal rates to be indexed for inflation, I doubt that the government will actually adopt it. There’s no doubt that there will recommendations to fine tune the tax treatment of superannuation, but somehow I doubt that the report will go far enough in quarantining super funds from tax so that retirement savings can be maximized more efficiently. That’s an idea which would both benefit future retirees as well as ultimately save the government money on its future liability for the age pension. All in all, I do not believe that the Henry Review will put forward a plan which will result in a reduction in overall taxation. In fact, the opposite is likely as the government contemplates the ever increasing demands upon its resources over the years ahead.
Even so, I am still looking forward to Sunday with some optimism that perhaps something good will be lurking in the bottom of the Santa sack.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Smoke And Mirrors
EDITORIAL THURSDAY 29.04.10.
It has been suggested that the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes from July 2012, along with an immediate increase in excise from midnight tonight has been deliberately timed to distract us all from the decision to delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Certainly, it is a stunt which has attracted a great deal of attention, and generated some debate, but whether it is enough to deflect attention from the federal government’s growing list of fumbles, failures and flip flops is doubtful. In fact the only thing that is likely to cause us to forget them is the fact that there are now so many it is becoming difficult to keep track of them all.
There should be no doubt that postponing the Emissions Trading Scheme amounts to abandoning it. If it is ever revived, whether in 2013 or later, it is likely to be more expensive, more complicated and more difficult to pass than it is now. Not one, but two elections will be conducted before it could possibly come into effect, and the chances of Kevin Rudd still being around at that stage are becoming increasingly remote. Even if he is, there is every chance that any future version of the scheme will bear little resemblance to the one which has effectively been scuttled by Tony Abbott’s relentless campaign against it.
As such, the dumping of the plan represents one of the most significant policy backdowns by any government, somehow transforming from the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, to “oh well, we won’t worry about that right now”. But it is far from the only policy retreat exhibited by this government. The COAG agreement on health is not an agreement for the Commonwealth to takeover hospitals at all, with the states now set to retain administration of the new system even though it was the states that were blamed for the administrative failures that have prompted the need for reform in the first place. Then there is a list of other backflips as long as both of your arms.
Let’s see, there’s Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch, private health insurance rebates, general practice superclinics, childcare centres, and of course the bungled and ultimately abandoned home insulation program. But while the government might well wish that we would overlook this ever increasing list of embarrassments, that doesn’t necessarily mean that increasing tobacco excise and introducing plain packaging for cigarettes is just a smoke and mirrors trick to distract our attention.
The fact is that there is nothing good that can be said for cigarettes. There is no benefit to smoking, the adverse impact on health is beyond dispute, the addictive nature of tobacco is insidious, and the social cost is enormous. Research indicates that packaging does have an influence on the decision to purchase, and it is blatantly obvious that higher prices due to increased excise act as a successful deterrent. The simple fact that the smoking rate among adults has already been reduced from about 30% down to just under 17% over the past thirty years has amply proven that.
If that is a distraction, then it is at least a useful one.
It has been suggested that the introduction of plain packaging for cigarettes from July 2012, along with an immediate increase in excise from midnight tonight has been deliberately timed to distract us all from the decision to delay the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Certainly, it is a stunt which has attracted a great deal of attention, and generated some debate, but whether it is enough to deflect attention from the federal government’s growing list of fumbles, failures and flip flops is doubtful. In fact the only thing that is likely to cause us to forget them is the fact that there are now so many it is becoming difficult to keep track of them all.
There should be no doubt that postponing the Emissions Trading Scheme amounts to abandoning it. If it is ever revived, whether in 2013 or later, it is likely to be more expensive, more complicated and more difficult to pass than it is now. Not one, but two elections will be conducted before it could possibly come into effect, and the chances of Kevin Rudd still being around at that stage are becoming increasingly remote. Even if he is, there is every chance that any future version of the scheme will bear little resemblance to the one which has effectively been scuttled by Tony Abbott’s relentless campaign against it.
As such, the dumping of the plan represents one of the most significant policy backdowns by any government, somehow transforming from the “greatest moral challenge of our time”, to “oh well, we won’t worry about that right now”. But it is far from the only policy retreat exhibited by this government. The COAG agreement on health is not an agreement for the Commonwealth to takeover hospitals at all, with the states now set to retain administration of the new system even though it was the states that were blamed for the administrative failures that have prompted the need for reform in the first place. Then there is a list of other backflips as long as both of your arms.
Let’s see, there’s Grocery Watch, Fuel Watch, private health insurance rebates, general practice superclinics, childcare centres, and of course the bungled and ultimately abandoned home insulation program. But while the government might well wish that we would overlook this ever increasing list of embarrassments, that doesn’t necessarily mean that increasing tobacco excise and introducing plain packaging for cigarettes is just a smoke and mirrors trick to distract our attention.
The fact is that there is nothing good that can be said for cigarettes. There is no benefit to smoking, the adverse impact on health is beyond dispute, the addictive nature of tobacco is insidious, and the social cost is enormous. Research indicates that packaging does have an influence on the decision to purchase, and it is blatantly obvious that higher prices due to increased excise act as a successful deterrent. The simple fact that the smoking rate among adults has already been reduced from about 30% down to just under 17% over the past thirty years has amply proven that.
If that is a distraction, then it is at least a useful one.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Government Cannot Afford Any More Embarrassments
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 28.04.10.
Is Kevin Rudd losing his grip on the political agenda? That’s the suggestion made by the front page headline of today’s Australian newspaper, following the announcement that the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will be postponed until at least the end of 2012. The Australian reports that this represents the latest in a series of policy reversals, adding up to the appearance of a government in retreat. When all the cards are put on the table it’s not hard to see why.
Despite the economic success of the government’s response to the Global Financial Crisis, the implementation of the home insulation program has resulted in tragedy and disaster leading to the ultimate cancellation of the program. Details are still emerging about the flawed process which lead to this monumental failure, and none of them are flattering for the government. In addition, the other big ticket item in the economic stimulus plan, the Building the Education Revolution schools construction program, has been revealed to be riddled with rip offs and rorts, resulting in inadequate and often unwanted facilities at ridiculous prices, rather than a once in a lifetime opportunity for real refurbishments.
The promise to build 260 childcare centres has been abandoned, and even the much vaunted agreement on health and hospitals failed to include every state, and in any event will not show any discernable impact on how hospitals are run for another five years. Even the pledge to participate in a series of three leaders’ debates leading up to the election appears to be floating away in the breeze. That in itself might be a minor thing, but it is just one more piece of the picture that Australians will be forming in their minds as they consider their options at the ballot box.
All of this adds up to a series of policy failures and disappointments which can’t help but take the gloss off the reputation of the government. Add to that the concerns about government debt and the budget deficit, and it would seem that Tony Abbott and the opposition have plenty of ammunition as the election inexorably looms nearer. At this point, the government still commands the lead in the opinion polls, but the question is whether that can continue to be the case if there are any more embarrassments between now and the election.
Is Kevin Rudd losing his grip on the political agenda? That’s the suggestion made by the front page headline of today’s Australian newspaper, following the announcement that the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will be postponed until at least the end of 2012. The Australian reports that this represents the latest in a series of policy reversals, adding up to the appearance of a government in retreat. When all the cards are put on the table it’s not hard to see why.
Despite the economic success of the government’s response to the Global Financial Crisis, the implementation of the home insulation program has resulted in tragedy and disaster leading to the ultimate cancellation of the program. Details are still emerging about the flawed process which lead to this monumental failure, and none of them are flattering for the government. In addition, the other big ticket item in the economic stimulus plan, the Building the Education Revolution schools construction program, has been revealed to be riddled with rip offs and rorts, resulting in inadequate and often unwanted facilities at ridiculous prices, rather than a once in a lifetime opportunity for real refurbishments.
The promise to build 260 childcare centres has been abandoned, and even the much vaunted agreement on health and hospitals failed to include every state, and in any event will not show any discernable impact on how hospitals are run for another five years. Even the pledge to participate in a series of three leaders’ debates leading up to the election appears to be floating away in the breeze. That in itself might be a minor thing, but it is just one more piece of the picture that Australians will be forming in their minds as they consider their options at the ballot box.
All of this adds up to a series of policy failures and disappointments which can’t help but take the gloss off the reputation of the government. Add to that the concerns about government debt and the budget deficit, and it would seem that Tony Abbott and the opposition have plenty of ammunition as the election inexorably looms nearer. At this point, the government still commands the lead in the opinion polls, but the question is whether that can continue to be the case if there are any more embarrassments between now and the election.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Why The Flag Is Relevant… And The Debate Is Not
EDITORIAL TUESDAY 27.04.10.
Although Ray Martin and Channel Nine appear to have done everything they can to provoke debate about changing the Australian flag, I am not really sure just how many people are keen to pursue the idea. Simply scheduling the discussion to be broadcast on Anzac Day could in itself be seen as being deliberately contentious, and there are no doubt some people who have been genuinely offended by the timing. But in spite having chosen to be as provocative as possible, there doesn’t appear to be any great uprising of Australians responding to the call to arms and demanding change.
Proponents of change suggest that the current flag is anachronistic, and no longer representative of modern day Australia. They suggest that the inclusion of the Union Jack in the top left corner amounts to having another country’s flag as part of our own, and reflects a time when Australia was a part of the British Empire, rather than the independent and sovereign Australia of today. They suggest that a significant number of Australians agree with these views, and therefore support changing the flag. Unfortunately, these assertions amount to a misrepresentation.
A survey conducted for Ausflag has found that 51% of Australians want a new flag without the Union Jack, with a further 19% undecided. While this represents a slender majority, it does not indicate an overwhelming force for change. However, it is not surprising given the considerable publicity given to the idea that the Union Jack somehow represents subservience to Britain. I suspect that many of the people who favour change do so because they have not been taught the meaning of the flag, and have been encouraged to embrace a new flag as a somewhat jingoistic statement of independence.
Unfortunately, they are not the only ones to have misunderstood or misinterpreted the significance of our flag. Supporters, with every good intention in the world, have sought to defend the current flag by saying that our armed forces have fought and died for our flag, or at the very least under it. It is a view which can lead to deeply held feelings, and to passionate argument, without grasping what is truly important. No one fought and died for the flag, they fought and died for what it represents, and that is the democratic freedoms and the principles of justice that form the foundations of our existence as a nation.
In that context, the presence of the Union Jack signifies not allegiance or subservience to Britain, but rather our living legacy of the Rule Of Law, including Common Law stretching back to the Magna Carta and beyond, Habeus Corpus and the Presumption Of Innocence, along with the Westminster system of Parliamentary Democracy, and the Separation Of Powers. That marks Australia as different from other nations which are founded on different, and in many cases less attractive, legal principles. Far from being anachronistic, those principles are more relevant now than ever before, and the only reason that anybody could think otherwise is because we are failing to teach our children the truth about what our flag actually means.
Although Ray Martin and Channel Nine appear to have done everything they can to provoke debate about changing the Australian flag, I am not really sure just how many people are keen to pursue the idea. Simply scheduling the discussion to be broadcast on Anzac Day could in itself be seen as being deliberately contentious, and there are no doubt some people who have been genuinely offended by the timing. But in spite having chosen to be as provocative as possible, there doesn’t appear to be any great uprising of Australians responding to the call to arms and demanding change.
Proponents of change suggest that the current flag is anachronistic, and no longer representative of modern day Australia. They suggest that the inclusion of the Union Jack in the top left corner amounts to having another country’s flag as part of our own, and reflects a time when Australia was a part of the British Empire, rather than the independent and sovereign Australia of today. They suggest that a significant number of Australians agree with these views, and therefore support changing the flag. Unfortunately, these assertions amount to a misrepresentation.
A survey conducted for Ausflag has found that 51% of Australians want a new flag without the Union Jack, with a further 19% undecided. While this represents a slender majority, it does not indicate an overwhelming force for change. However, it is not surprising given the considerable publicity given to the idea that the Union Jack somehow represents subservience to Britain. I suspect that many of the people who favour change do so because they have not been taught the meaning of the flag, and have been encouraged to embrace a new flag as a somewhat jingoistic statement of independence.
Unfortunately, they are not the only ones to have misunderstood or misinterpreted the significance of our flag. Supporters, with every good intention in the world, have sought to defend the current flag by saying that our armed forces have fought and died for our flag, or at the very least under it. It is a view which can lead to deeply held feelings, and to passionate argument, without grasping what is truly important. No one fought and died for the flag, they fought and died for what it represents, and that is the democratic freedoms and the principles of justice that form the foundations of our existence as a nation.
In that context, the presence of the Union Jack signifies not allegiance or subservience to Britain, but rather our living legacy of the Rule Of Law, including Common Law stretching back to the Magna Carta and beyond, Habeus Corpus and the Presumption Of Innocence, along with the Westminster system of Parliamentary Democracy, and the Separation Of Powers. That marks Australia as different from other nations which are founded on different, and in many cases less attractive, legal principles. Far from being anachronistic, those principles are more relevant now than ever before, and the only reason that anybody could think otherwise is because we are failing to teach our children the truth about what our flag actually means.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Every Dark Cloud…
EDITORIAL FRIDAY 23.04.10.
They say that every dark cloud has a silver lining, although the huge cloud which has descended over Rugby League as a result of the Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal threatens to wreak more damage than any other incident in a sport which has never been short of controversy. Not only does it bring into question the future of the Melbourne franchise, it also raises questions about the probity of all the clubs, about the administrative structure of the competition, and about the salary cap system itself. Perhaps most importantly of all, it raises questions about the duty towards the fans and supporters of the game to act honestly and to play fairly.
One of the greatest things about sport is its ability to bring people together, to strengthen communities, to promote the ideals of teamwork and mateship, while at the same time offering the opportunity for individuals to test the limits of their talents, to achieve greatness, and to become examples and role models to others in the community. To be, in a word, heroes. And now this. The disappointment for fans is overwhelming, and although it might be a bit old fashioned and even a bit naïve, I would like to think that players, clubs, and managers have some sort of obligation to the fans who are after all the people who buy the tickets and spend the money that makes it all possible.
For that reason, the recent discussions about restructuring the administration of the competition so that it is run by an independent commission are now more relevant than ever. There has always been an ethical dilemma around the idea that a team can be owned by a corporation which also owns a half share in the competition itself, along with a major chunk of the media which covers the game. While that in itself isn’t to blame for the salary cap fraud, it has never been an ideal way to run the competition.
Now is the time to seize the opportunity to reshape the administration of the game, starting with an independent commission. Now is also the time to revisit the operation of the salary cap system, which is obviously intended to ensure that less wealthy clubs have the opportunity to remain competitive. Unfortunately, it would seem that all it has achieved is to drive the money out of sight and under the table. It is clear that the present arrangements are not working as they are intended, and now is the time to consider either a player draft, or some other alternative.
If there is a silver lining in this very dark Storm cloud, it is that. It is the opportunity to restructure, reform, and reinvigorate the administration of what is supposed to be “the greatest game of all”.
They say that every dark cloud has a silver lining, although the huge cloud which has descended over Rugby League as a result of the Melbourne Storm salary cap scandal threatens to wreak more damage than any other incident in a sport which has never been short of controversy. Not only does it bring into question the future of the Melbourne franchise, it also raises questions about the probity of all the clubs, about the administrative structure of the competition, and about the salary cap system itself. Perhaps most importantly of all, it raises questions about the duty towards the fans and supporters of the game to act honestly and to play fairly.
One of the greatest things about sport is its ability to bring people together, to strengthen communities, to promote the ideals of teamwork and mateship, while at the same time offering the opportunity for individuals to test the limits of their talents, to achieve greatness, and to become examples and role models to others in the community. To be, in a word, heroes. And now this. The disappointment for fans is overwhelming, and although it might be a bit old fashioned and even a bit naïve, I would like to think that players, clubs, and managers have some sort of obligation to the fans who are after all the people who buy the tickets and spend the money that makes it all possible.
For that reason, the recent discussions about restructuring the administration of the competition so that it is run by an independent commission are now more relevant than ever. There has always been an ethical dilemma around the idea that a team can be owned by a corporation which also owns a half share in the competition itself, along with a major chunk of the media which covers the game. While that in itself isn’t to blame for the salary cap fraud, it has never been an ideal way to run the competition.
Now is the time to seize the opportunity to reshape the administration of the game, starting with an independent commission. Now is also the time to revisit the operation of the salary cap system, which is obviously intended to ensure that less wealthy clubs have the opportunity to remain competitive. Unfortunately, it would seem that all it has achieved is to drive the money out of sight and under the table. It is clear that the present arrangements are not working as they are intended, and now is the time to consider either a player draft, or some other alternative.
If there is a silver lining in this very dark Storm cloud, it is that. It is the opportunity to restructure, reform, and reinvigorate the administration of what is supposed to be “the greatest game of all”.
Our Rights Are Already Protected.
EDITORIAL THURSDAY 22.04.10.
With all of the attention directed towards the Council Of Australian Governments agreement on health reform over the past few days it would be easy to overlook the Federal Government’s announcement on the proposal for a Charter or Bill of Rights. After spending almost $3 million, and almost 3 years, on a public consultation process headed by Father Frank Brennan, a process which many people were led to believe would result in the creation of such a charter, the Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland this week rejected the inquiry’s recommendation for a Charter to be established. Instead, your human rights and mine will continue to be safeguarded by our elected politicians, aided by a new parliamentary committee which is supposed to assess proposed legislation for compliance with existing human rights obligations.
In making the announcement he said, "A legislative charter of rights is not included in the framework as the government believes that the enhancement of human rights should be done in a way that, as far as possible, unites rather than divides our community." The division to which he was referring arises from the view that a Bill of Rights which constrains the powers of Parliament would see a shift in power from our elected representatives, who by nature of their position remain accountable directly to the people, to unelected judicial officers, enslaving the Parliament to the whims of the senior members of the legal profession. Critics of the concept of a Charter of Rights also expressed the view that a Charter which defines human rights also risks limiting them.
While it certainly sounds appealing to have a Bill or a Charter which would guarantee such things as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, the right to fair and just treatment, the right to education, the right to decent healthcare and so on, the reality is that Australians already take these rights for granted. Even though they may not be specifically protected by any codified Bill of Rights, they have been and remain protected by our democratic process itself, along with the established principles of Common Law, stretching all the way back to the Magna Carta and King Henry I’s Charter of Liberties. While the clauses of those documents have been almost entirely replaced by modern law, the basic principles of fairness and just treatment remain at the heart of our legal system.
Our society operates on the simple assumption that everything is permitted, unless it is prohibited. This means that our human rights should be considered to be automatic. We are already free to speak our minds, to travel about the county, to seek our fortune, and to care for our families as we see fit. The purpose of a Bill of Rights would be to prevent politicians from creating bad laws which deny us our rights. But we have already seen that governments who pass bad laws will inevitably pay the penalty at the polls and lose office. And more to the point, the idea that passing a law would prevent bad laws from being passed ignores the simple fact that any government in a position to force through repugnant legislation could also force the repeal of any such Charter of Rights.
In that sense, a Charter of Rights would really provide only the illusion of protection.
With all of the attention directed towards the Council Of Australian Governments agreement on health reform over the past few days it would be easy to overlook the Federal Government’s announcement on the proposal for a Charter or Bill of Rights. After spending almost $3 million, and almost 3 years, on a public consultation process headed by Father Frank Brennan, a process which many people were led to believe would result in the creation of such a charter, the Federal Attorney General Robert McClelland this week rejected the inquiry’s recommendation for a Charter to be established. Instead, your human rights and mine will continue to be safeguarded by our elected politicians, aided by a new parliamentary committee which is supposed to assess proposed legislation for compliance with existing human rights obligations.
In making the announcement he said, "A legislative charter of rights is not included in the framework as the government believes that the enhancement of human rights should be done in a way that, as far as possible, unites rather than divides our community." The division to which he was referring arises from the view that a Bill of Rights which constrains the powers of Parliament would see a shift in power from our elected representatives, who by nature of their position remain accountable directly to the people, to unelected judicial officers, enslaving the Parliament to the whims of the senior members of the legal profession. Critics of the concept of a Charter of Rights also expressed the view that a Charter which defines human rights also risks limiting them.
While it certainly sounds appealing to have a Bill or a Charter which would guarantee such things as freedom of speech, freedom of movement, the right to fair and just treatment, the right to education, the right to decent healthcare and so on, the reality is that Australians already take these rights for granted. Even though they may not be specifically protected by any codified Bill of Rights, they have been and remain protected by our democratic process itself, along with the established principles of Common Law, stretching all the way back to the Magna Carta and King Henry I’s Charter of Liberties. While the clauses of those documents have been almost entirely replaced by modern law, the basic principles of fairness and just treatment remain at the heart of our legal system.
Our society operates on the simple assumption that everything is permitted, unless it is prohibited. This means that our human rights should be considered to be automatic. We are already free to speak our minds, to travel about the county, to seek our fortune, and to care for our families as we see fit. The purpose of a Bill of Rights would be to prevent politicians from creating bad laws which deny us our rights. But we have already seen that governments who pass bad laws will inevitably pay the penalty at the polls and lose office. And more to the point, the idea that passing a law would prevent bad laws from being passed ignores the simple fact that any government in a position to force through repugnant legislation could also force the repeal of any such Charter of Rights.
In that sense, a Charter of Rights would really provide only the illusion of protection.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
The First Step Of A Journey Of A Thousand Miles
EDITORIAL WEDNESDAY 21.04.10.
Are you running through the streets celebrating and cheering the astonishing revolution in health and public hospitals? Are you throwing hour hands in the air and dancing a jig, surrounded by cheering crowds with streamers and confetti raining down all around? No? Haven’t you heard? Saint Kevin has single handedly saved us all from the tragedy of a crumbling public hospital system. Well, perhaps not single handedly, since all of the Premiers and Chief Ministers have all signed up to make it happen. Well, almost all. There is one Premier who has refused to be saved, condemning his constituents to continue to depend on the existing hospital services. That’s the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, who by the strangest coincidence also happens to be the only Liberal Party Leader in government.
Perhaps it is overly cynical to suggest that the decision not to sign is motivated purely by politics, and a desire to derail the success of the Labor Leaders. The truth is that a genuine philosophical difference does exist between the parties, and the surrender of any State power to the Commonwealth is a move which cannot and should not be taken lightly. However, it has proven to be the one fly in the ointment for Kevin Rudd’s grand reform of health and hospitals. Without that one signature, the Prime Minister cannot truly claim to have achieved the agreement he was seeking. But equally, it cannot be said that he has failed either. With the weight of the other States and Territories aligned with the Commonwealth, the fact is that the Western Australian Premier will ultimately be forced to come to an agreement because there really is no other option.
While it has been Kevin Rudd who has forced the issue of health reform, with the promises made at the last election leading to the Health And Hospital Reform Commission, and culminating in the Council Of Australian Governments agreement, it would never have happened if the Premiers and Chief Ministers remained intransigent. It is a matter of record that New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally has played in integral role in bringing this agreement about. Aside from being the Chair of the cohort of State and Territory leaders, it has been reported that it was Kristina Keneally who negotiated the deal with Victorian Premier John Brumby. In fact, she was credited in one report as having “dug him out of a hole” after his previous reluctance to sign up for the change to the GST arrangements. Perhaps that’s why the Prime Minister appeared to be a lot more friendly to the New South Wales Premier than he has on previous occasions.
But now that the backslapping and mutual congratulations are behind us, not to mention the rampant public celebrations in the streets, the real question remains: does this agreement actually deliver the genuine reform that we were promised, and which we all know we desperately need? If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, we won’t really know for at least four years, but the significance of what has been decided here should not be underestimated. The financial underpinnings have been put into place to pave the way for the operational reforms that are needed, such as more hospital beds, as well as better access to community based care, mental health care, and aged care.
In that respect, it is the first step of a journey of a thousand miles.
Are you running through the streets celebrating and cheering the astonishing revolution in health and public hospitals? Are you throwing hour hands in the air and dancing a jig, surrounded by cheering crowds with streamers and confetti raining down all around? No? Haven’t you heard? Saint Kevin has single handedly saved us all from the tragedy of a crumbling public hospital system. Well, perhaps not single handedly, since all of the Premiers and Chief Ministers have all signed up to make it happen. Well, almost all. There is one Premier who has refused to be saved, condemning his constituents to continue to depend on the existing hospital services. That’s the Premier of Western Australia, Colin Barnett, who by the strangest coincidence also happens to be the only Liberal Party Leader in government.
Perhaps it is overly cynical to suggest that the decision not to sign is motivated purely by politics, and a desire to derail the success of the Labor Leaders. The truth is that a genuine philosophical difference does exist between the parties, and the surrender of any State power to the Commonwealth is a move which cannot and should not be taken lightly. However, it has proven to be the one fly in the ointment for Kevin Rudd’s grand reform of health and hospitals. Without that one signature, the Prime Minister cannot truly claim to have achieved the agreement he was seeking. But equally, it cannot be said that he has failed either. With the weight of the other States and Territories aligned with the Commonwealth, the fact is that the Western Australian Premier will ultimately be forced to come to an agreement because there really is no other option.
While it has been Kevin Rudd who has forced the issue of health reform, with the promises made at the last election leading to the Health And Hospital Reform Commission, and culminating in the Council Of Australian Governments agreement, it would never have happened if the Premiers and Chief Ministers remained intransigent. It is a matter of record that New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally has played in integral role in bringing this agreement about. Aside from being the Chair of the cohort of State and Territory leaders, it has been reported that it was Kristina Keneally who negotiated the deal with Victorian Premier John Brumby. In fact, she was credited in one report as having “dug him out of a hole” after his previous reluctance to sign up for the change to the GST arrangements. Perhaps that’s why the Prime Minister appeared to be a lot more friendly to the New South Wales Premier than he has on previous occasions.
But now that the backslapping and mutual congratulations are behind us, not to mention the rampant public celebrations in the streets, the real question remains: does this agreement actually deliver the genuine reform that we were promised, and which we all know we desperately need? If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, we won’t really know for at least four years, but the significance of what has been decided here should not be underestimated. The financial underpinnings have been put into place to pave the way for the operational reforms that are needed, such as more hospital beds, as well as better access to community based care, mental health care, and aged care.
In that respect, it is the first step of a journey of a thousand miles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
