Today I felt so outraged about something that I've written to my federal MP about it.  He's a very busy and important person, so I doubt I'll hear back.

ISP filtering is something that does not protect the members of our society, it only serves to meet a political end.  It is one of the most objectionable aspects about the controlling dictatorships of China, Korea and Cuba (amongst other countries) and has no place in Australia.  If the government really is concerned about kids accessing porn, then there are other ways to do it.

I know the Christian Lobby has come out in support of it, which I think is a very dumb idea.  The fact of the matter is any laws that you can use to restrict alternative points of view, can be used against you.  ISP filtering could block Christian content as much as it block porn or the Anarchists Handbook.

I'd encourage you to write to your local MP and also Steven Conroy, the Minster for this issue.  If you do borrow anything from my letter, please change the words so they are said the way you would write (otherwise it will seem suspicous and be plagarism).

PO Box xxx

C------

Queensland 4xxx

29 October 2008

Kevin Rudd

Electorate Office

PO Box 476

Morningside

Queensland 4170

Dear Mr Rudd,

I want to write to you, as my local federal member, to let you know that I do not support ISP filtering and believe that the government needs to listen to the people and stop this initiative from proceeding.

Prior to the election, this was an issue raised during the ALP campaign, however the proposed form was to have the filtering to be optional.  I am disappointed to read in recent press that the government has no intention of making the filtering optional and there are also no clear statements of exactly what will be allowed and what will not.

The Federal Government has already run an extensive campaign aimed at making the internet safer for children, including offering net filters that parents can install on computers that children use.  This course of action has not proven to be unsuccessful and is the only course of action to continue with to ensure that all Australians are entitled to the freedom they deserve.

At present there is no guaranteed way to filter internet contents via ISPs that will not slow the speed of internet connections for all users, regardless of the content they access.  This means that filtering will mean that we have some of the worst internet access in the world.  In addition to punishing all users with slow internet, there is no assurance that the cost of filtering will not be passed back to users, meaning that access will become further out of the reach of low income earners and those in full time education such as university students who have very limited incomes.  It hardly seems reasonable for the government to take steps that will prevent Australians from receiving the best and broadest education possible.

The government has made no guarantees as to what content will and will not be filtered, and the experience of other countries that have filtered their internet has shown that some quite innocuous sites have been prohibited and those who want to access content that is illegal are still able to do so if they have the right skill set to bypass filtering.  All in all ISP filtering has never proven to meet it’s intended purpose.

Finally the purpose of ISP filtering is not to catch those engaged in illegal activity.  It seems that it is purely moral in intention.  Australia is a multi-cultural, pluralistic society.  There is a wide range of moral and ethical views that exist in the country and it is not the place of the government to enforce one view over the other.  Even if this is not the original intention of ISP filtering, it could very easily become that way.  Furthermore, many of the sites that have been touted as potentially being blocked – euthanasia or pro-anorexia sites – may actually be accessed for legitimate reasons and could also potentially lead to legitimate sites designed for informational purposes to be blocked.  Even if such sites are accessed for the wrong reasons, it is not illegal activity, it is only immoral, and it is not the place or even the right of the government to condone or maintain a moral point of view.  Additionally I wish to make the point that though I am a Christian, and I do not agree with people using the internet to access pornography, I do not think that I am in any way entitled to advocate taking away their right to access it.  The only exception for this is illegal material.

I am absolutely outraged that the government is not only considering, but making moves to go ahead with this plan.  I am also ashamed to see our country compared to societies that do not embrace freedom and respect for human rights and choice such as China, Iran and North Korea in this matter.  I love my country and I support it being a multicultural country that supports freedom and choice for every individual, so I ask that the government do the right and democratic thing and listen to the people on this issue.

Yours Sincerely,

Angela James

I recently attended a function where Julie Bishop observed that one of the ministers she shadows did not know the difference between government debt and government spending.  This was based on the person in question responding to a question about government spending in the financial sector by observing that the government had issued bonds.  I’m still trying to get my head around how this person has not been moved to another portfolio – as an Arts graduate I know that we’d be more suited to ministries like Foreign Affairs or even Deputy Leader.  Yet still, Rudd persists in having Swann as his Treasurer.

Actually just to show how open I am to giving the guy a chance, I will state for the record that I am paying to hear him speak – at FINSIA.  I was initially worried that I would miss out on registration for this function as it might fill up quickly, however as it turns out I didn’t need to worry.  There’s still two weeks until registrations close.  I’m sure people will turn up…

I am wondering, however, what he will have to say that will impress a bunch of finance professionals as that is something he has failed to do so far (I’m also a Finance graduate for those not in the know).  Even the journalists in at the Australian have commented that he gives the impression that he is madly swotting through Economics for Dummies in the back room before he delivers speeches.

But for all that we could (and do) say about Swann, the one thing I don’t get is how he thinks that lowering the official cash rate will be passed on or even help at the moment.  The reason for this is simple.  Due to problems faced by banks in the US, Europe and the UK, there is a liquidity crisis.  That means that there is not a lot of cash available for borrowing and lending in the market.  When there is not a lot of something, the price goes up.  So the cost of borrowing and lending on the international market will go up – if you can convince someone to take your counterpoint in the contract, which is getting harder – we also see this with the US Dollar.  Even though the US economy could be diplomatically described as stuffed at present, their dollar is going up against ours.  This again stems from the fact that every one is holding on to what cash they have and not exchanging or lending it.  The way Australian banks get money to give to people in loans is through this international money market.  The rate that banks get is passed on to consumers with an added margin (so they can make some money, their share price goes up and my super fund looks healthy – not that anyone’s super looks very good at the moment).  Even though the official rate may be set by the RBA, there is also a margin added on when the Australian banks borrow and lend based on their credit rating and various other factors.  As these credit ratings have changed due to the International economic turmoil, the official rates for borrowing and lending could quite conceivably go down, but the rate at which money is exchanged is not.  If the banks can’t borrow at a cheaper rate to cover what they have lent to customers, then they can not pass on a cut in the official cash rate as the impact of the rate cut is zero.

An aside for those who are wondering why the rate is not fixed at the start of the loan for the whole 20 or 30 years.  Money Market borrowing and lending and the execution of interest rate derivatives is done in large quantities, but for short periods – from a day to a couple of months being most usual to a maximum of 3-5 years.  Also people working in the money markets tend not to like to borrow or lend for long periods as the more time elapses, the more one party may loose out (ie they could get a better rate elsewhere) and the risk that they will not pay or close the contract early increases.

So all of this seems fairly straight forward to me.  And I’ve only worked at a low level in a bank, finished a finance degree and done some consulting work for a few different corporate treasuries.  Which does put me a bit ahead of most other Arts graduates*, but is should not put me ahead of the Federal Treasurer.  I will also say that I am not knocking Swann just because he’s a member of a party I don’t support (but that is a good reason), if our current government wants to be seen as having any credibility at all, it does need to put good and appropriate people into ministry positions.  Just doing a quick survey of the biographies of the current front bench – the Ministers Rudd have chosen overwhelmingly hold Arts and Law degrees (in most cases both, including, to my surprise, Peter Garrett) however Joel Fitzgibbon holds a Grad Cert in Business Administration, not quite the full MBA, but a start, Jenny Macklin has a Bachelor in Commerce, which is really just a fancy way to say a qualified accountant, but again a solid financial background, and Anthony Albanese, Stephen Conroy and Martin Furguson all hold Bachelors of Economics.  Obviously ministerial positions are not being chosen based on experience or qualifications.  We could do better, we could even have someone who knows the difference between debt and spending.

*I will say that I went to UQ for my Arts Degree, and the university offered 52 different majors (only 49 now) including Mathematics (which I studied) and Economics.  So it is possible that it is a suitable qualification for an economist.

Four Corners recently aired a report showing footage of Cornelia Rau’s apprehension under the Mental Health Act (possibly before she was assumed to be an illegal immigrant?) and it reminds me again of why the government should not be in charge of people’s lives.  Whilst being no bleeding heart in favour of getting rid of detention centres, I do think the case points to two issues and also my argument against government intervention.  The report I just watched highlighted very poor treatment of the mentally ill when detained by private facility operators who were little more than thugs.  It also went on to show how many guards in the facility (it was unclear if it was Baxter or a mental health facility) actually ended up on work cover and unable to work because of the mental issues that the facility produced in people working there.  It shows that there is still a very poor understanding of mental illness, not only in the community, but amongst policy makers and those they have put in place to enact their policies.  Rau, for example, when detained was strapped down and hand cuffed when taken away and the way her apprehension was set up, this would have happened to her even if she had come willingly rather than showing some resistance as she did.  This surprised me as whilst she was obviously at risk – her doctor having made the referral to the mental health authorities perhaps because she wasn’t taking her medication – she did not seem violent or at risk of harming herself or others.  Although I do say this not fully understanding her diagnosis.  The other thing that studies have shown is that people locked up and treated poorly in prison and mental health facilities, even if completely normal, will actually start acting out and in some cases show signs of mental illness such as depression.  Which I believe is argument for better facilities and also processes for apprehension.  In Queensland we don’t even have rent-a-thugs or men in white coats to take people away.  The police are left to take care of the mentally ill, which is arguably even more traumatic.

My biggest beef with immigration detention, which comes into the Rau case, is that people are in these facilities for a long time.  It’s not unusual to hear of people being held from 18 months – 2 years.  But his report was saying it can also be something like 5 years.  5 years is too long to have some one detained.  In that time people’s social and job skills deteriorate, they become completely out of touch with the outside world and reality and I would argue in many cases would not be able to participate in society upon release.  I fail to understand how it is considered acceptable to detain someone waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy to function for years and years with no end in sight.  As far as I’m concerned there should be limits to how long it takes to process someone’s asylum application after which point the application process is terminated.  I know it begs the question of what happens to people whose identities can’t be established and there are also mental health issues, although I’ve blogged about them before and will spare you reading the details again.

The big point that this really highlights is why the government should not be called upon to interfere or control people’s lives.  Politicians and bureaucrats are ordinary people like you and me, and in some cases they are not as well educated, informed or as intelligent.  They can not make better decisions than most ordinary individuals.  As such we should default to individual decision making as only one person knows all of the particulars relating to persons situation – the individual in question.  Whilst there are some extreme cases where people can not decide for themselves, this is a tiny minority, which does not justify impinging on the majority of people.  The other issue that shows how governments miserably fail in their interfering is the way that they measure what is acceptable when it comes to decisions that have major impacts on people’s lives.  A reasonable person knows it’s not acceptable to take two years to process a visa whilst the person is held in detention.  A reasonable person knows that you do not keep people waiting for emergency medical treatment for hours and hours or in some cases day and in other cases until they keel over dead whilst lying on a hospital trolley.  A reasonable person knows that some one who is on a low income and can’t pay their rent should not be kept waiting for 2 years for emergency department of housing accommodation.  A reasonable person knows that you should not be expected to live on under $200 a week, even if you are elderly.  However all of these things are acceptable to the government, policy makers and politicians.  And that really does beg the question of why we want them so involved in decision making for our lives and why we find it acceptable that they continue to exert more and more control over our decisions?

As an Arts (English, Communications and Cultural Studies) graduate, this article about how Rudd uses language was interesting.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24067445-7583,00.html

Well I must say all the press regarding World Youth Day is bringing out my rather fiercely Protestant side.  This however, is amusing.  The link below is about how anti-WYD protesters will be handing out condoms to pilgrims.  As much as I think the pope and the idea of the pope is wrong, I’m not about to go out and protest people exercising their freedom to practice a religion (and there are other places I’d start first if I did give up on this belief).

The thing I find most amusing about the whole condom thing is how much many Roman Catholics have taken to heart that wearing one is a sin.  In the context of marriage then yes, there is some grounds for saying that you should love and cherish each little bundle of joy the Lord decides to bestow upon you.  Personally though, I’ll be taking the pill faithfully until I know I’m in a financial position to hire a nanny.  However, if you are having sex with someone that you are not married to, it’s already a sin.  Is it that much worse to wear a condom as well to ensure that you don’t suffer punishment here on earth in the form of STD’s.  Not believing in purgatory (because it’s not in the Bible), I have no idea how it works, and if you’ll be there for that much longer just for making your illicit sex safe as well, but it is a rather amusing thought. 

The thing that I find less amusing, is what I have been told about the situation in East Timor.  Not only does it have a very high birth rate, I have been told that there are quite a few pregnancies directly attributable to Australia’s military presence there, if you get my drift.  The solution being touted by the government at the moment is to fund abortions.  An insider tells me that this is being done because East Timor is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic and would find sending boat loads of condoms to the nation offensive.  Great logic, when you consider that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the most vocal campaigners against abortion.  Also fails to address the spread of disease and the lack of healthcare for women before and after pregnancy.

The issue does create some amusing and also tragic hypocrisies, but I think it will remain until there is a pope who says, “look if you’re married you’re going to have to use the rhythm method, but if you’re not, for Pete’s sake, wear a condom.”  And that’s about as likely as Sheik Taj al-Din al-Hilay becoming the next Dali Lama.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23994331-953,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23859123-7583,00.html

One of the things that I find down right disturbing about the parts of the new federal budget is the mentality that “It’s okay to tax the “rich.””

I have a few issues with this and many of the specific policies which have been unveiled.

First of all “the rich” is a little hard to define.  There have been suggestions that families on six figures are rich.  Executives are rich.  People who can afford cars over $55k are rich.  I beg to differ.  I don’t see how people can comfortably bring up a family on less than $100k these days, considering the cost of housing, health care, childcare education, food and clothing.  And that’s before you even consider sending your one child to a private school, to extra curricular activities or family holidays.  I also fail to see how any one who wants a decent sized family car that can fit the kids and all their stuff into it (and possibly the kid’s friends or the family dog) for under $55k, if you are in the fortunate position of being able to get a new car.  I know people can and have to raise a family on significantly less, however I fail to see how you could be comfortable on much less than $250k (combined income).  I would say that these people are far from rich.  Additionally as the cost of housing does not get cheaper if you are a single trying to live by yourself, you need an income of $4k/month (post tax = aprox $66k pa) to service a $250k loan (the average loan in Australia at the moment), which incidentally in Brisbane only really buys a shoe box apartment or town house a good 20kms from the city.  Not exactly ideal for the young working professional, if indeed they can find a job which pays that well.  The said young professional who may want to move up in the world would probably not consider themselves rich even when they finally made it from a supervisory or senior role to manager (which should pay over $110k pa).  To me to be rich, you really have to have more money than you can use to cover sensible expenses for yourself and your family as well as being able to make some investments for the future so they are self-sufficient if and when one or all of the family members can not work.  I don’t really think that that is a huge percentage of the population at all.

But what I also have a problem with is that there are people in government who think that it’s okay to take money off these people for no other reason than they’re rich and the government wants to look like they have a great big budget surplus.  It’s not much of an achievement to have a budget surplus when you are providing less services and are taxing people more.  Oh and I forgot, they’re also increasing tax to curb inflation.  Since when is that a reason to take money off people?

People are paid more than the average for a variety of reasons.  They may have worked hard and climbed up the career ladder.  They now work longer, harder and are responsible for the livelihoods of a variety of other hard-working Australians.  They may be working in a job which is undesirable and has to offer higher salaries to attract people to the industry.  There may also be a wages premium for people who have engaged in a more extensive education or training scheme than other roles, because they have valuable experience or are highly specialised.  None of these are reasons to penalise people for their extra income, and they are all valid reasons to pay people more.  If we do no, we loose the incentive for having any roles which require a skilled, educated or experienced workforce.  It reeks of malice to penalise people because we perceive them to be rich or label them wealth.  Especially in this instance when they are not, not really.

I also have a few other issues with systems which tax people more as they earn more.  First it removes some of the incentive for people to aim higher and progress in their careers and also in their business enterprises.  The second has a worse impact as well, I’m sure it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that as businesses expand and do more business, they provide more jobs for Australians.  Which is a good thing.  Taxing people more with higher incomes also provides an incentive for those who have the resources, to avoid paying their fair share of tax.  People who are able to access advice which allows them to set up business and other structures which optimise their incomes and minimise their taxation (eg trusts which split income between family members to take advantage of lower rates of tax when the same income is split amongst two, three or more people).  Also I’ve heard the suggestion that increasing rates of tax as people earn more is a way to ensure that people pay their fair share.  The fact of the matter is that as you earn more money, you pay more tax anyway, even if there is a flat rate of tax.

I think that I may sound like more of a ranting idiot than intended if I introduce the idea that there should be a flat rate of tax which should be low enough that it’s not worth people’s while to find ways of avoiding paying it.  But that’s probably a bit extreme.

But back to my first point, it is extremely vague saying that “rich” people, who are mostly just middle class people, deserve to pay more tax.  It is unjust to remove people’s property (which includes money/wealth) for no discernable benefit (as it is just for a budget surplus not to deliver more services or benefit to the public).  It's not even from those who have to those who need, it's just from those who have.  And it is irrational to say that it is good or better to remove it from people who have more from their working activities.

Share on Facebook

I had a smug sense of satisfaction today as I opened the Australian and for the second day in the row Rudd was being criticized by the press for the ALP's green credentials.  Actually I would have felt smug no matter what the criticism was (fair or not) but this one is particularly good.

And it's a sign that the Honeymoon with the press is over.

One thing I remember learning as a young impressionable journalism student is that generally the press is anti-incumbent when it comes to the government.  And now they've turned on the Milky Bark Kid, who was some what of a press darling before the election.  My only lament is that it is not really helping Nelson at all.

Whilst, unlike many other conservatives, I do have an environmental conscience, it is a moderate one.  And as always I favor actions over words.  So I do not buy into extremism when it comes to protecting the environment.  I want to see genuine discourse and a range of opinions propagated AND I don't want people to talk big and not deliver.  The Howard Government was strongly criticized for not signing the Kyoto protocol.  And this criticism was somewhat misplaced for a couple of reasons, including that they had successfully worked at reducing emissions since Kyoto was formulated AND they were also in the process of starting a carbon trading scheme.  Essentially jumping on board for no good reason.  I have many criticisms of carbon trading schemes, but the biggest one being that all the money made from them either goes to the government, traders or speculators and not towards researching and developing cleaner technology.  At the end of the day all it does is increase costs to consumers rather than help the environment.  But one thing the Howard government did do was encourage business success in all sectors.

Rudd's downfall is that he is encouraging success in the Mining sector.  As we all know, he really did believe the ALP press releases criticizing the our economic success as being wholly dependent on the Mining sector - an unfortunate mistake in terms of understanding but also improving our environmental credentials.  It is perceived that the Mining Sector is the biggest contributor to "climate change", not so much in Australia, but in our biggest customers countries such as China and India.  How can someone claim to be 'green' and then rely on the dirtiest industry in the country to prop up the economy?  It's a good question.

It's a very good question in light of the fact that environmental concerns are almost at hysterical levels.  Obviously I was not old enough to remember much of the cold war, but the hunt for environmental bogie men and the need to drastically change our lifestyle does remind me somewhat of the 'Reds under the bed' hysteria in distant decades.  So much for being more enlightened than previous generations.  Apparently we will never tire of witch trials and inquisitions.

Sadly the Australian took it a little too far for my liking criticizing Penny Wong's office having lights on during Earth Hour (actually come to think of it, the whole building may have had the lights on).  But they are doing their job.  And in turn, helping the Opposition do theirs.

My one lament is that it seems to me, this pattern of the press being anti-incumbent is much stronger in Federal politics than State.  We are in a time where most of our state governments have been in there forever and are becoming stagnant and foul-smelling.  Unfortunately in State politics the honeymoon rolled over into happily wedded bliss rather than dysfunction and discord.  But that's the stops.

Now if I can just stop feeling so confidently smug, as there are another 3 years before we all see if hypocrisy will pay off!

Just for good measure I've included a rather good article from the above mentioned paper regarding Global Warming.

Share on Facebook

I am so over merger talks.  It’s like an instant dose of Dozile the minute I hear about it.

What I am now firmly convinced of, is that Lawrence Springborg, seems to have found the one instant way to get publicity and be in the news more than Blight is to mention a merger.  I’m starting to get a little bit cynical about him using his position for much other than progressing his own agenda in this matter.

The rumor mill on this topic started again just over a year ago when apparently the Nationals had voted on the issue in favour of merging.  Springborg announced that the Liberals had done the same.  The Liberals had not done the same, their management committee had voted to commence discussions with the Nationals.

In the mean time, from what I can gather, the general sentiment in the Liberal party has been that they support a coalition, not a merger.  And I have to say if there is any one who has not been able to stick to a coalition agreement in Qld, it’s Springborg, not the Liberals.  Let’s face it, most Liberal state MP’s are too juvenile not to (not even being able to vote on a leader in a reasonable amount of time).  I am of the opinion that the conservative parties will be more factionalised and dysfunctional than even the Labor party if they merge prematurely – ie before they can agree on and behave within the bounds of a coalition agreement.

Today Springborg and one federal Liberal MP is criticising the Qld Liberals for referring the issue to their federal party.  A move which has been justified as necessary as the party constitution mandates decisions such as this one be referred to the federal party.  I hate to say it, but criticising someone for following due course is not endearing at all.  Although I realise it may upset Springborg as it takes the power out of his hands, not only in terms of timelines, but also in terms of the people he will now have to negotiate with.  Although I’m sure he and his supporters could see it coming.

Springborg, like Seeney before him has also said that he will push on and form his own party if the merger does not proceed.  I’ve also noticed he’s started promoting himself even more lately – with TV advertisements to add to the desktop pictures and screensavers that you could already download from the website.  I think that he should go ahead with the idea for a few reasons.  The first one being that he has no idea what needs to be done behind closed doors and what should be done in public.  If this merger fails, he will bring the coalition and himself into even further disrepute (and I know the cynics out there will be quick to say that was not possible, but to those who haven’t voted Labor all their life, occasionally the Libs and the Nats do hit the right note).  Secondly, I am highly sceptical that the merger will proceed and if he really has his heart set on a new party, he should push on with it.  Both the Liberals and the Nationals have very distinctive policies, branding and constituents.  And the constituents and rank and file in particular, don’t buy into each other’s ideas and discourses easily.  Finally, I think that Springborg is showing the signs of a somewhat over inflated ego (not quite in the vicinity of Beattie, but definitely closely modelled on it).  Whilst I would hate to loose one of the best coalition leaders that the Qld Liberals and Nationals have had, a failed attempt at forming a new party may serve as just downer he needs to avoid continuing the arrogance of the previous state government into the next.

So I do have an opinion on the topic, but I formed it a while ago and I’m just completely over Springborg and the Press recycling this story every time there’s nothing else going on.  It’s like the perpetual slow news day story.

For once I have to admit I'm struggling to understand something.

I have no idea what is in the Government's new IR laws and I really don't want to have to restort to reading the legislation (I hate reading legislation).  But there seems to be a shroud of mystery surrounding exactly what it is that our Federal Government is changing.

All we know is that there are changes.

I'm not sure if the reason for this is because the government is relying on everyone to love and accept the new laws because they're not Work Choices.  If Julie Bishop's comment that the new legislation is even more complex is correct, we should all be very worried.  Particularly those of us in the business community.

I have, as with all legal and compliance issues, consulted with CCH on the topic.  There is nothing.  There is not even a guide availible yet, which is somewhat distrubring as most firms offering legal information for businesses, like CCH, have them published when the legislation is still in draft.

It's an uncomfortable shroud of silence, which needs to be questioned, regardless of the Oppositions decision to not challenge the legislation.

http://www.cch.com.au/au/MiscPages/MiscPage.aspx?ID=25

Share on Facebook

"The hustings are over, the bunting is down, the mad hysteria is at an end. After the chaos of a general election, we can return to normal." -- Blackadder.

Well Queensland has elected it's city councils for the next four years.  And what a day I had whilst we were doing it!

I discovered that getting to the polling booth at 6am in the morning is just not early enough to beat the ALP.  Just like the state election, not only that they got there 3 hours before polling even began, but they had taken up the entire fence with their bunting.  Their bunting had a picture of Campbell Newman (the Liberal Lord Mayor) and was advertising the cost of the cross Brisbane tunnel as $2 billion.  (I know the official ALP line is that the tunnel costs have blown out, but the number seems to be different every time.  And they've ignored the fact that we need it, regardless of the cost and it will more than pay for itself as the Gateway bridge has).  Fortunately I've learned a few tricks and made sure my a-frames were in front of their signage, and put core flutes above the bunting on the fence and also on the gates of the community hall that had the polling station in it.  The last thing people got to see on the way in was a rather more flattering picture of the Lord Mayor than on the ALP bunting.

I spent the day co-ordaining workers from three campaigns rather than the one I had signed up for.  And challenging as it is to ensure a group of people are orderly, timely, saying the right thing, well hydrated and well fed, I actually enjoyed it...  well right up to the point where I got heat stroke, was headachy and dehydrated and started dry-retching (fortunately I hadn’t eaten much during the day).

I was kind of disappointed by the ALP trying to confuse voters, but I'm pretty sure the voting public are a bit more intelligent than either party gives credit for.  First of all there was the campaign of tunnel mis-information.  Then there was a sign up about how rates had increased 21% - double the rate of inflation.  First of all, inflation would have been 12-16%, so 21% is well short of double AND all of the increases that were over and above inflation, where actually at the initiative of the ALP councilors and passed because they had a majority.  Then there was the issue of Greens preferences.  The greens did not actually consistently put the Libs or Labor as a preference on their how to vote cards.  One of the electorates being voted on at my polling station didn't run a Greens candidate either, but I don't think that they had a HTV card for them aside for Mayor.  For the ward where the greens were directing their preferences to the Libs, the ALP had produced a second how to vote card, saying if you vote 1 greens, but care about the tunnel blow out, vote 2 ALP.  If I was in the Greens and found out about it, I'd be pretty annoyed and reconsider any future preference deals.  Also the guys handing out that card were in the I <3 BNE t-shirts, which were the Liberal Lord Mayor's policy initiative.

All in all I can see that the ALP adopted the campaign tactics that the Libs did at the state and federal campaign (where they had bunting with Beatie's face or the map of Australia with 'debt' all over it and something to do with how the ALP would run the country).  And it was as successful for the ALP as it was for the Libs - not at all.  Having an intelligent, decisive leader with integrity and credibility at the helm is also an incredible help.  Campbell Newman is a go-getter who has shown time after time that he is there to help the community, which contrasts hugely with a federal politician I recently heard speaking about how you have to do what you can to get into office, but shouldn't be swayed by what the people want if you're a real leader.  And it also contrasts with the Liberals in our state parliament who seem to have almost no self-control and certainly can't make a decision even if it saves their public face.

The day itself was actually interesting too.  I didn't realize that one of the sitting ALP councilors was handing out fliers with me until she was joined by my ALP state member as well.  I mentioned to my state member that he had actually shown me around state parliament and was berated for not remember 14 years later that he spoke about separation of powers (I was 12 for Pete’s sake, he's lucky I remembered at all!)  It then rained and I had to share shelter under the ALP bunting on the fence with the councilor.  She insisted on telling me how the Lib fellow running against her had done no work and that she was doing info booths and door knocking every day.  I didn't want to argue and say that actually the fellow in question (who's pre-selection I have previously blogged about), had pretty much been out at my closest bus stop at least twice a week even before the election was called and had been talking to people along with his wife.  I'd be surprised if he wasn't also at other locations as well.  But I think that she was, quite rightly, worried about loosing her seat, so much so that she had even produced campaign material with Kevin Rudd on it (including a big moving bill board, which I saw drive past several times on the day), an obvious attempt to key into Rudd's branding as many of the Liberal councilors were able to key into Newman's reputation.  She also was a little bitter about how many people in the ALP don't work together and are very territorial.  I think that she and the neighboring councilor (who managed to keep her seat) and the state member in that area had had some conflicts.  I told her that that's why the Latham Diaries were such a fascinating read, as it covered many of the conflicts and disagreements in the party.  Whilst Bronwyn Bishop's comments that the Libs don't have factions would be far from accurate to any one who ever read the paper, the divides aren't quite so pronounced or interesting.  (although may well be if there were to be a merger of conservative parties).

All in all I'm glad that the Liberals finally have something to celebrate, and I hope, very much, that the learnings from the council are taken to state and federal level.

Share on Facebook

This week I’ve been surprised at the popular reception of Rudd’s political and intellectual wank fest, sorry think tank.  Whilst the think tank will be full of a lot of people who like to think that they know a lot and will most certainly enjoy sitting around telling others what they think about how the world, or the part they claim to know most about, I’m surprised it’s being held at all.  To me, it’s Rudd saying, “I have no idea how to run the country now I’m here, so I’m going to invite a bunch of people to give me a few pointers.”

In some respects it can only help as Rudd and Swann, every time they open their mouths to comment seem to just reinforce that they have never so much as read the introduction of an economics text, let along have any idea how the economy works.  It also cleverly removes them from the actual decision making.  So whilst they may determine which advice they take, they also create an ingenious scape goat should anything go wrong.

I definitely will never accuse the man of being stupid or un-astute in that respect – just clueless.  And what happened to all the brillant policy that was taken to the election?

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23160434-3102,00.html

Share on Facebook

I've been reflecting on a conversation I had during election day.  Some one from Family First made a comment to me that, "it's about issues, not ideology," in response to my saying I was Christian but found them too left-wing, which struck me as odd.

How can politics not be about ideology?

At first I wondered if I had too long, be reading essays from right-wing think tanks and ranting about the evils of authoritarianism to be blinded to this idea.  Perhaps even our last decent Prime Minister, JH, had taken this approach in his idea of choosing the popular solution (aka give the people what they want) rather than tending toward one brand of ideology which falls under the 'Liberal' umbrella.

Or perhaps this guy was just not a strategic thinker.  Which is the conclusion I've now come to.

You see issues, represent happenings in the microcosm of politics and society.  They are important as the affect people on a daily basis and they will form opinions on these issues.  However they are the domain of a tactical thinker.  Also only dealing with issues, and even trying to think ahead about them, will only take you so far.  In corporate management, these people are the middle managers, and generally if they are poor at what they do, they spend their time fire fighting, rather than progressing.  The Queensland State government is brilliant at this.

What is more important, however, than solving problems, is making sure that there is some overarching scheme to what you're doing.  Something that determines the direction that society and the government is taking, rather than just the random, haphazard path that "the issues" that arise form.  The most popular or pragmatic decision, may actually, long term, lead a country away from the path to development and benefiting all it's citizens.  It can also distract from determining a direction.  To return the analogy to the business world, the point of having a board of directors or senior management, is to make sure things are on track on a big scale.  That market predictions are made, that a strategy is set out.  This is what ideology does for politics and governement.  It keeps it on track and gives it an overarching purpose.  It determines what kind of society addressing all those issues will produce.  To not have ideology or to be dismissive of it, is for a party or a politician not to take their job seriously.

On a practical basis, this is why I have issues, with not only Family First, but also the Democrats.  They have the very best of intentions, they just don't articulate them well enough to form a cohesive ideological base, let alone a cohesive policy base.  Additionally not having a basis for their decision making, means that their parties are more open to being run in a very dictatorial way.  The party members may find it difficult to determine what is the right way to treat an issue and debates then become a challenge to follow the dominant power holders.

The closest example I can think of is in a religious organisation.  It is vitally important that members of a church group have the scriptures accessible and are familiar with them.  The reason being is that way they have the word of God and can then put their faith in God, not on the word of their teachers and leaders.  Christians especially have seen prior to the reformation how ignorance of the Bible can lead to unscrupulous people controling the body of believers.  This is equally applicable in organisations based on political beliefs.  If a member of the organisation does not understand the ideological base of the organisation, how can they know what the party does and doesn't stand for?  How can they keep their power brokers accountable?  It would never be in the interest of a union for it's members not to understand that collective bargaining can be good for empolyees and employers, it would never be in the interest of a Liberal to not understand that government should be designed to give individuals and families the maximum choices possible.  How can it be in the interest of the members of smaller parties not to understand where they stand on an ideological, strategic basis?

I've decided it will never be about issues, but who has the correct ideological basis to deal with them.

Share on Facebook

I’ve been trying to avoid commenting on the state leadership debate, but I can’t hold it in much longer.  As some one who is proud of what the party they support stands for it is nothing short of shaming to see elected representatives make such a spectacle and such a mockery of the institution which they purport to belong to.  The thing is I know who I support and who I don’t and I still can’t in good conscience take anyone’s side.  To put words in the mouths of Liberal critics, if the Liberals in office can not get together and choose who will best represent them in parliament and to the public, how on earth are they going to make decisions about running the state?  Instead of focusing on the business of ripping the state Labor party to shreds, which should actually be a very easy task given how flawed they are, they are ripping one another and their own reputations apart.  For the first time I feel sorry for the Nationals who have to sit and watch this behaviour from a group of people that they need to keep on side if they are to one day return to power.

Both of the men who have put their hands up for leadership are actually wonderful local members and have generally done well for themselves.  However the strongest criticism of the incumbent leader, which is that he does not present well to the public, is rapidly becoming the strongest criticism of every one involved.  Time and time again I am bewildered at the fact that what was such an impressive party on a federal scale (obviously prior to the latest, very disappointing, election) was so unruly and amateur on a state level.  It breaks my heart, as I know all of the people in that party room individually are capable of doing a much better job than the collective state Labor members.

Also it’s at a point where it’s not the fault of any one person refusing to step down, but the fault of all for allowing this to go on for so long in such a public manner.  It is such very bad form.  For the sake of winning office this needed to be resolved much more rapidly.

What concerns me even more is when I read an article from the Courier-Mail about Eric Idle offering to lead the party, and that calling the whole situation pythonesque was an insult to the very successful series, I started to nod.  It reminded me of a friends comment about the British Conservative party after watching Love Actually saying that having Hugh Grant run is probably what it would take for them to get back in because of all of their problems.  Obviously minus the dirty talking the portrait of Margaret Thatcher.  

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22868287-3102,00.html

Share on Facebook

The biggest news in business after the election is the same as that before it, the Industrial Relations shake up.  And whilst I have nothing to say about businesses rushing through AWA’s, except that they’re entitled to manage their affairs as they see fit, reading CCH did give me something to think about.

The unions have demanded that all AWA’s be torn up as of 1 January.  This demand seems idiotic to me as the unions have had the opportunity to negotiate every one of those AWA’s which were agreed to by their own members.  Get over it.  It would also be impossible for Rudd to achieve.  

Why?

The new senate will not be sworn in before the middle of next year. 

I finally had a look at the final figures after giving up on the AEC site and going to the ABC. ( http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal/2007/results/senate/)  Given that half the senate is elected at any one time, the senators who were voted in last time, were predominantly Liberal and will still stay in office until the next election.  This time the numbers of Liberal and Labor senators voted in were equal, with 3 Greens and 1 independent to compliment.  Which means…?

Yes you guessed it, anything Rudd wants to do, which will have a drastic negative effect on the country can still be blocked depending on who does the best wheeling and dealing.  Assuming that the Greens will always side with Labor (and let’s face it only Labor comes even close to the extremist left position that the Greens occupy), it will come down to which way the Independent (http://www.xen.net.au/) and the Family First senators choose to go.  Given that there is some overlap in their policies and they types of people they have running for the party, they may well tend to group together. 

Even before they’re sworn in Rudd may need to sure up their vote as the current, Liberal dominated senate, which will remain until mid-year is the same one which, thought Work Choices was a good idea.  They’re hardly going to vote it out.

To be brutally honest, I do like having the upper and lower house in different hands (blasphemy to some I know), but even just having a few independents to help even things out does give law making a more balanced view.  As much as I would like to see us living in a Utopian free-market libertarian world, I know that it would be unpopular, and people would use the liberty which they have been granted to vote out a government which made decisions like that.  Balance is what ensures that the needs of the majority of Australians are met.  It's also why I think that Queensland needs to move for the swift and immediate re-introduction of an upper house.

But back to my rant.  We may well see that all the big talking which has swayed the votes of the 8% of people who changed the way they voted, will come to nothing.  I can only hold my breath until I'm as blue as my politics.

Share on Facebook

This gave me a giggle as I've been driving past the office the last few weeks as I've been working in Eagle Farm.  He may still need the services of White Lady.

At the time it was funny to send the sitting member a picture of me in his shirt, with his main contender.

...and so did our booth captain!

Share on Facebook

Let me say that I am glad to not be fighting on the front line of the war of ideas this week.  The election came at a bad time for me as I have been working flat out for a new client to complete 5 weeks of work in 3!

But my, my haven't those in the lime light given us lots to talk about.  Rudd has announced his front bench already.  And I guess there aren't a whole lot of surprises for the politically astue.  I have to say no matter who was in charge of IR, I would have been disappointed, but I'm just glad it's not Combet, who has been given the junior role of Defence Procurement.  No doubt if he's still got MUA contacts he could really slash prices as long as no one asked any questions about where supplies were sourced from.    I also think Gillard's new 'super ministry' is an interesting reflection on Rudd's theory that education and employability go hand in hand.  I'm also disappointed that the Arts have been lumped with the environment and given to Peter Garrett.  If there is one man in that parliament who you could immediately point to as having NO FREAKING IDEA ABOUT AESTHETICS, it would be him.  And Maxine McKew, the star celebrity candidate has not been given Media and Communications - I'd have thought that was something she couldn't wait to get her teeth into.

Government aside, the opposition have set chins wagging, not just with the national leadership debate, which looks to be contested by all remaining Liberal members (kidding).  I wish Nelson all the best, he has served the public well as a minister and hopefully will help us in the fight against Rudd, but our state leader has been making something of a stirr.  It would seem that the Liberals in state parliament can not decide who is or rather, should be in charge.  Personally I think having Bruce Flegg as parliamentary leader is the best thing the Beattie (and now Blight) government had going for it.  I'm just really disappointed to see the issue aired so publically.  What's wrong with a quiet swithch-a-roo?  But really, this is the best time to do it and will possibly even have us comfortable with the new Liberal/National leadership just in time for the next state election - in 2010.  Assuming Blight has not followed down Beattie's path, become a fully fledge dictator and dispensed with general elections.

Share on Facebook

Well, I can't believe it!  It's the final week of the Federal election campaign and in 6 days the nation will decide will make a decision about what direction it will take over the next 3 years.  If we can continue to grow more and more successful by following the same strategic plan, or if it's time to hand the reigns over to a new set of decison makers.

I stand by my original prediction that it will be close.  Very close and analysts are very brave to be predicting victory for either party.

At the end of the day I have my camp, and I've been working very hard to help the man in the photograph above.  Spending many of my Saturday and Sunday mornings waving placcards on street corners, walking arround community gatherings and today helping gather the final supplies for an army of voluntary workers to promote the Liberal message at your local polling stations.  I would also like to emphasise the voluntary nature of what I do because I know other parties, have to pay campaign workers to get any one out there to do anything.  We can and do not.

A few things in the last week at work have reminded me of how well we are actually doing in Australia.  I have been working with a colleague from Milan at an engineering company.

My colleague this week, could not believe that Australia's federal government has no debt.  His country is nearing the point where debt will exceed the annual GDP and he believes that there is no chance the country will ever repay their debt.  The prospect of returning to a government which is more than happy to increase national debt is not one that I relish, but inevitable if Rudd is to become Prime Minister.  I believe this firmly as Paul Keating and Bob Hawke have come out to help Rudd manage his campaign and his policy and these men have no problem with amassing debts with no regard to the future generations who must repay this.

Italy has a strong union movement, to protect workers "rights," however as a result, companies are obsessed with keeping head count down because if workers do not perform or if there are shifts in demand for the company, they can not reverse their decision to employ.  Even worse, there are penalties for workers to change jobs, so even those who are poorly treated, have a gross disincentive to move.  Additionally the lack of fluidity in the workforce has actually forced wages down.  Some one who started in a white collar graduate job as I did 12 months ago, would be paid, in an equivalent position, about 25,000 Euro.  This is not only not equivalent to the $42,000 that I recieved, but does not include any superannuation and after tax, reults in a pay package of just over 900 Euro per month.  For those who are not so good at adding and subtracting, this is equivalent of a tax rate of over 60%, and this is applied to low income earners.  At the end of the month, most of them have to ask their parents to pay their rent as they can not.  I hope Australia never follows the path where I do not have a choice about where I work and I have to accept such a low starting salary.

By contrast the Australian branch of the company which I have been working for, is struggling to pay salaries at a market rate, as they have increased so rapidly (I acknowledge that it is a very specialised market).  And is going to all ends to come up with initatives to keep their staff happy.  I will also add that this is not just their engineering staff, they also have a pool of blue collar workers who are still paid a number of allowances and at a variety of rates depending on where and when they work.  These benefits are far from gone from the face of the Australian Industrial Relations scene.

Also I have had exposure to a number of aspects employment in a developing country (which will remain nameless as I do not wish to make my client's name or industry public).  Complain as I might about red tape in Australia, the particular company in question operates in a market, where if the do not fill out up to 500 pages of forms correctly, they miss the monthly pay cycle of their clients.  I don't know who came up with the insane idea that this is a good way to do business, or made a regulatory environment so complex that businesses must keep such detailed complicated records, but all I can say is that we have made it easy for people do do business here in Australia.  Not as easy as some other countries, with much freer markets, but we are doing well.  And I would not jeopardise this advantage by electing a government, who will be led by a man who thinks capitalism is bad for the country, communities and families.  I hate to say it, but being free to consume a wide array of goods and services as seen fit, necessary or desirable, is what gives families, communties and the country a higher standard of living and a good lifestyle.  And this can not be achieved by restricting consumption (which flows on to restricting demand for workers).  But I digress.

Whilst I won't miss the early starts, I will miss the mateship of my fellow campaign workers, the encouraging toots from motorists and seeing that there are people from all walks of life who support all sides of politics and have all manner of opinion. 

I hope you all vote for the person you are convinced will do a good job over the person who looks and sounds good, and I also hope you all vote based on a local decision rather than for a leader.  A leader will make you feel good, but at the end of the day your local member will be the one who changes you community for the better or worse.

Over and out.

AJ

  Share on Facebook

If one thing has characterised this election it’s the bun fights over who stole whose policy.

If I was smarter, I would have seen it coming.

One thing I noticed about Rudd early on, when he was Shadow Foreign Affairs Minister was the number of times he said virtually the same things as Alexander Downer.  It lead me to the gentle reassurance that if this man ever became PM (which was obvious from the outset of his career).

But even now, in the midst of the campaign, there are so many policies which have been announced which are almost undifferentiated between the two parties.  Especially when it comes to the federal government budget.

A little while ago I read (most of) Howard’s Brutopia (http://www.smh.com.au/pdf/ruddbrutopia.pdf).  Which reminded me that Rudd was not a disenfranchised conservative, who joined the Labor party to stand out.  He was in fact right at home with all the other socialists who he has chosen to be his colleagues.  And whilst I can fault his criticism of Howard as being a proponent of the free market over other family values (our current federal government is anything but “big L” Liberal and has done very little to make the market freer), the biggest point of contention is that I can not agree with his criticism that neo-liberalism, materialism and consumerism is laying waste to traditional conservative institutions such as the family, community, church and country.  In fact I would say they are not opposite sides of one coin, but two very different currencies all together.  [Just to continue on the rant I’m trying not to go on, what could be better for any institution than the freedom to choose and practice what you think is right and best?]

What we must all remember is that what separates these two people who both aspire to be our Prime Minister, is ideology.

Whilst both leaders are tending toward the popular and have a range of influences in their own parties which will potentially tend to normalise what is enacted, they will have their own biases and preferences based on their ideology.  To me the question comes down to, do we want socialism, and the diminishment of property rights or do we liberalism with it’s freedom and choice for all?  At the end of the day, these are ideals which we, sadly, won’t see, but they will pave the way for the decisions that are made by our government.

Share on Facebook

Well the time is ripe at the moment, for me to really bring my political commentary into it’s own.  But to be honest, between work and interrogating my brother about exactly who it was that dropped off a Craig Thomas (the guy I wish was going to be my next local member) sign in our front yard, and travelling between the two capital cities which have made me a silver frequent flier, I’m actually kind of busy.

Lots of promises are made and no doubt, no matter where they come from (although they all seem to be coming from the same place), very few will be kept.  Mostly because they’re short term and no doubt we’ll find out very soon that they’re not viable.  Or they’re very far in the future, and we’ll not only have forgotten, but I’m sure I won’t be the first one to point out to you that 2020 is still 13 years off and we’ll have 4 more elections and potentially as many changes of government.  (I’m a realist not a blind optimist).

The one thing that’s bugging me at the moment is the hoo-har over the environment.  Actually it’s not over the environment, it’s over Kyoto, which is the annoying part.  First of all I believe it’s a big distraction from real issues that will affect how we function in a very real way.  Government needs to be pragmatic, and there’s not a lot of pragmatism going on at the moment.  Also I object to Kyoto for a number of reasons.  First the targets are arbitrary.  Second it creates an arbitrary market for trading something that doesn’t really exist (carbon credits, rather like options or CFD’s).  Third, this arbitrary market will force up the cost of business, meaning product prices are more expensive and less accessible to consumers.  And Fourth, none of the money made from this market will actually go towards developing cleaner technology or cleaning up the environmental mess we have.  Fifth, carbon credits may not be allocated in an optimal or equitable way, and we’ll have the same problems we have in Southern Qld/Northern NSW with farmers damming rivers having been, collectively, the rights to store more water than the river can actually hold.

In essence, Kyoto has no real value for the environment or the economy.  It sets targets but gives no reason or incentive to meet them.  It’s a dead issue.  What is really the issue is looking for ways to develop cleaner technology and providing individuals and businesses with incentives to pollute less.  Heck, when I look at transport in Brisbane, just offering more frequent transport to more areas would take hundreds of cars off the road in the morning and do more to reduce pollution than any trading scheme would.

Obviously, with my bias, I did appreciate that Howard was starting up a fund to alleviate rising utility costs to those on low incomes.  This will be inevitable if we do introduce a carbon trading scheme and force the cost of business up.  But I’m still miffed that he hasn’t stood by his original position.  And I was always miffed at Rudd for putting the strangest man in parliament in charge of his environmental polices.  But I’m yet to find a party that bridges extremist positions on the environment to come up with something sensible.

Share on Facebook

Once again we're starting to hear the idea propogated in the news that increasing the rights people have to their money, by decreasting tax, will cause inflation.

Where do these people learn their economics from?

Inflation is caused by a number of things, most commonly an increase in demand or a decreas in supply.  For example, labour is in short supply, the cost of labour inflates.  The drought has caused a decrease in supply but not demand, the cost of the products of primary industries goes up.

What I supspect is, that the coallition's new tax policy has struck fear into the hearts of those who don't really want them there.  I can only hope that this is the best they can do as it will be good for the country

I like this tax policy as unlike increasing welfare and other spending, it benefits single middle income earners like me.  Not as much as I'd like but I won't frown at having an extra $120 in my monthly pay cheque.

Even if I was willing to vote for the outher side, Rudd's avoiding committing to any definite tax policy annoys me.  But then again, I'm yet to see him commit to anything - IR policy, Foreign Policy on the death penalty...

I have to say once again Howard has impressed me, and I dare say that this is just the beginning.  It would not surprise me if this is the first of many announcements that will keep Labor on the back foot and the Liberals in the headlines.  The key will be to keep up momentum without giving voters and the press fatigue.  Now if only the Qld state politicians can pull something off like that we may actually get rid of Blight as well.