Not terribly surprising news today that Telstra is to invest $100M is building "public" WiFi.
Well, it is not really public WiFi - it is a WiFi network open to all Telstra subscribers. In doing so it is partnering with Fon which advertises it has over 12 million WiFi points. The process is easy - because the network piggy-backs off all their customers private connections and uses duplicate SSID's - one for the customer's own network and one for the WiFi.
Telstra will not use a line if it isn't providing better than 3 Mbps.
This is not a new development - as shown by Fon's base. By partnering with Fon Telstra is opening up access to that network for its customers.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Friday, May 16, 2014
Smokin' Joe just doesn't get it
The Federal Budget announced on Tuesday night can be attacked on philosophical grounds - because it does target the weaker members of society and barely touches the privileged. But we can expect that - that is his party's ideological position.
More concerning is that the Treasurer fails to understand how what Keating used to call "the levers" work. His budget is based on an incompetent understanding of how decisions today affect the outcomes tomorrow.
This becomes clearest in his answer to a question without notice in the House on Thursday. In response to a question about the doctor visit fee Mr Hockey said, in part:
Labor has not yet said whether it supports the Medical Research Future Fund, because the only way the Medical Research Future Fund can be created is if there is a co-contribution when people go to visit the doctor. That is because every dollar of savings over the next six years in the health portfolio is going into the Medical Research Future Fund. It is the biggest medical research fund of its kind in the world.
Why we doing this? We are doing this because only through—cure and discovery are we going to ensure that the health system Australians want and deserve over the next 50 years is going to be delivered. That is, finding a cure for cancer, finding a cure for dementia and finding a cure for Alzheimer's, and the Labor Party does not support that. The member for Chifley says that they do not support the medical research that is going to find a cure for cancer, dementia or Alzheimer's. Why?
That is because the Labor Party has never, ever paid it forward. They have never invested for the future. They have never understood that if you really want to build something that is going to improve the quality of life of everyday Australians you have the start investing now.
Medical research doesn't always reduce the health care bill. While some research finds easy to implement cures, or procedures that dramatically reduce periods of hospitalisation, the bulk of them just create new ways to spend money.
The unpalatable truth is that medical research makes the Budget position worse every year. Australia's "ageing population" is not just because of the demographic bubble of the baby boomers - it is that the life expectancy of every Australian is increasing year by year.
The ageing population isn't as much of a challenge if it is a healthy ageing population, but it isn't. The consequence of the combination was highlighted in a recent article in the SMH that started:
Australia needs to rethink how it keeps sick, elderly people alive in hospitals and stop overtreating them at the end of their lives, the outgoing director of St Vincent's Hospital's Intensive Care Unit says.
Bob Wright, AM, a pioneer of intensive care medicine, said older patients are being treated more intensively and expensively than ever before and ''sometimes you wonder whether it's the right thing''.
Medical and legal experts have backed his call for greater discussion of the issue, warning that politicians and doctors are hamstrung by a system geared to save as many lives as possible. New figures show over 65s are the most expensive age group to treat in intensive care, costing more than complicated neonatal cases.
I am not arguing against investing in medical research, I am just saying The Treasurer is wrong to assert that investment in medical research improves the long term budget outlook.
The Treasurer also asserts that Labor never invested in the future at all.
That is also untrue. Firstly Labor invested in the National Broadband Network, and intentionally chose the technology that would meet our needs for broadband now and in the future.
Broadband can and will play a critical role in managing our healthcare and aged care costs in the future. The ABC's Nick Ross has put together a comprehensive list of studies that demonstrate the real and enduring savings that can be made to the Budget through telehealth.
Interestingly the Coalition's 40 page brochure on Infrastructure investment didn't mention communications infrastructure once - and unlike roads, health or education - it actually is a Federal constitutional responsibility. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten highlighted the absence of any reference to "digital infrastructure" in his budget reply.
Thankfully the Budget only reduced the Government equity contribution to NBN Co by less than one billion dollars (less than 3%). If NBN Co management take off their blinkers, look at the costs they identify in the redesigned FTTP scenario and recognise that they have been too pessimistic about revenue they might well use the technology agnostic approach to build an all FTTP network.
But the other thing that can reduce the burden of the health care budget is an active investment in preventative health. The Budget went in the other direction and abolished the Australian National Preventative Health Agency and terminated the National Partnership Agreement on Preventative Health.
When you really want to dig into the background of these types of decisions just realise that the people who benefit from the Government's health decisions are vendors - drug companies, medical equipment supplies and private health care providers like Ramsey Health. Good investigative journalists might like to look at which parties these companies contribute to - and whether they are members of the North Sydney Forum.
And Smokin' Joe Hockey needs to be reminded that real investment in the future was what Labor did - not his farce of a budget.
More concerning is that the Treasurer fails to understand how what Keating used to call "the levers" work. His budget is based on an incompetent understanding of how decisions today affect the outcomes tomorrow.
This becomes clearest in his answer to a question without notice in the House on Thursday. In response to a question about the doctor visit fee Mr Hockey said, in part:
Labor has not yet said whether it supports the Medical Research Future Fund, because the only way the Medical Research Future Fund can be created is if there is a co-contribution when people go to visit the doctor. That is because every dollar of savings over the next six years in the health portfolio is going into the Medical Research Future Fund. It is the biggest medical research fund of its kind in the world.
Why we doing this? We are doing this because only through—cure and discovery are we going to ensure that the health system Australians want and deserve over the next 50 years is going to be delivered. That is, finding a cure for cancer, finding a cure for dementia and finding a cure for Alzheimer's, and the Labor Party does not support that. The member for Chifley says that they do not support the medical research that is going to find a cure for cancer, dementia or Alzheimer's. Why?
That is because the Labor Party has never, ever paid it forward. They have never invested for the future. They have never understood that if you really want to build something that is going to improve the quality of life of everyday Australians you have the start investing now.
Medical research doesn't always reduce the health care bill. While some research finds easy to implement cures, or procedures that dramatically reduce periods of hospitalisation, the bulk of them just create new ways to spend money.
The unpalatable truth is that medical research makes the Budget position worse every year. Australia's "ageing population" is not just because of the demographic bubble of the baby boomers - it is that the life expectancy of every Australian is increasing year by year.
The ageing population isn't as much of a challenge if it is a healthy ageing population, but it isn't. The consequence of the combination was highlighted in a recent article in the SMH that started:
Australia needs to rethink how it keeps sick, elderly people alive in hospitals and stop overtreating them at the end of their lives, the outgoing director of St Vincent's Hospital's Intensive Care Unit says.
Bob Wright, AM, a pioneer of intensive care medicine, said older patients are being treated more intensively and expensively than ever before and ''sometimes you wonder whether it's the right thing''.
Medical and legal experts have backed his call for greater discussion of the issue, warning that politicians and doctors are hamstrung by a system geared to save as many lives as possible. New figures show over 65s are the most expensive age group to treat in intensive care, costing more than complicated neonatal cases.
I am not arguing against investing in medical research, I am just saying The Treasurer is wrong to assert that investment in medical research improves the long term budget outlook.
The Treasurer also asserts that Labor never invested in the future at all.
That is also untrue. Firstly Labor invested in the National Broadband Network, and intentionally chose the technology that would meet our needs for broadband now and in the future.
Broadband can and will play a critical role in managing our healthcare and aged care costs in the future. The ABC's Nick Ross has put together a comprehensive list of studies that demonstrate the real and enduring savings that can be made to the Budget through telehealth.
Interestingly the Coalition's 40 page brochure on Infrastructure investment didn't mention communications infrastructure once - and unlike roads, health or education - it actually is a Federal constitutional responsibility. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten highlighted the absence of any reference to "digital infrastructure" in his budget reply.
Thankfully the Budget only reduced the Government equity contribution to NBN Co by less than one billion dollars (less than 3%). If NBN Co management take off their blinkers, look at the costs they identify in the redesigned FTTP scenario and recognise that they have been too pessimistic about revenue they might well use the technology agnostic approach to build an all FTTP network.
But the other thing that can reduce the burden of the health care budget is an active investment in preventative health. The Budget went in the other direction and abolished the Australian National Preventative Health Agency and terminated the National Partnership Agreement on Preventative Health.
When you really want to dig into the background of these types of decisions just realise that the people who benefit from the Government's health decisions are vendors - drug companies, medical equipment supplies and private health care providers like Ramsey Health. Good investigative journalists might like to look at which parties these companies contribute to - and whether they are members of the North Sydney Forum.
And Smokin' Joe Hockey needs to be reminded that real investment in the future was what Labor did - not his farce of a budget.
PS I also note that Feros healthcare has just been funded to extend a telehealth service initially trialled over the NBN. The extended service accepts the fact that the NBN is not complete but instead uses 3G and 4G networks. However the announcement also says the long term is still tablets connected using fixed line. This is one of the important but forgotten features of FTTP. A client can be given both the tablet AND a simple WiFi router preconfigured to plug into the second port of the NTD. The telehealth services are not dependent on what actual service the household is paying for, nor are they captive of the contention ratios in CVC and back haul.
If the Coalition was taking eGovernment, and eServices, seriously they would understand that.
Sunday, May 11, 2014
The Socialist Objective and All That's Left
The NSW branch of the Fabian Society hosted a useful discussion last week on the question of What is Labor's Objective?
It was useful because an effectively full range of views was available through just three speakers. Chris Bowen advanced the line he advanced in Hearts & Minds, that the party objective should be social-liberalism. In his view the party stands for just two things, economic growth and opportunity for all. These together are supposed to improve the lot of everyone, even the most disadvantaged in our society. Bowen claimed that the socialist objective and its nascent call for government control of industry confused means and ends.
Jenny McAlister gave a far more strident speech, in which she addressed much of the core. In a prepared remark she responded to the idea of equality of opportunity with Anatole Franc's dictum that the law "in its majestic equality...forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. Social democrats seek more than just equality of opportunity, they want to see a reduction in the overall level of inequality. As democrats they separate themselves from revolutionary socialists, believing that the outcome can be achieved by democratic means. Indeed they assert that the objective of "democracy" is more than just an objective about political equality, but also socio-economic equality.
There were three main distinctions Jenny drew between social democracy and social liberalism.
1. By retreating to social liberalism we retreat from our commitment to using the power of government to build a stong (and I would add fairer) economy.
2. Social liberalism leads to greater individualism, and hence a retreat from universalism in health and education.
3. Social liberalism doesn't provide the conceptual tools we need to tackle inequality.
Nick Dyrenfurth talked about aspects of the objective which were more than just "economic", what it means to also value the "social." This includes a direct reference to the other half of Labor's history. It wasn't just action for equality, it was co-operative action for equality.
I'll confess that I think the discussion of the objective gets confused because it needs to follow-on from the discussion of the values. Bill Shorten said in his speech last month on modernising the party that he would seek a review of Chapter One of the National Platform that outlines Labor's Values. A statement of values is where it gets hard - it is where you have to already start making choices - or else you just add so much that they become meaningless, as Labor's now have.
At the same time the focus is now on the claims to be socialist, even the legitimacy of the social democratic tradition, or of democracy itself. For these three I rely most immediately on that paragon of politically neutral reporting - The Australian.
In an editorial of 8 May the Oz opined on the socialist objective. I asserted that Bill Shorten thinks it should go, that Paul Keating asserts it confuses "ends and means" and concludes:
Labor’s challenge is to once again become an advocate for economic growth and not simply to trumpet the post-materialist agenda of the inner-city elites. Fundamental to this is rebuilding relations with business and regaining economic credibility. Cheap shots at business leaders and attacks on the Commission of Audit may play well impress backbench MPs but to voters it shows that Labor still has not learnt the lessons of its election defeat.
There is so much in this that sits outside the framework of this discussion, however, if it is the case that the form of words we use to describe the true objective allows the objective to be misrepresented, then it should be changed.
Of more of a concern was a column by Greg Sheridan that argued that the experience of Europe was that there is a point at which social democracy makes so many people dependent on the State that no reform of State finances is ever possible. That this both misrepresents the objective and the means pales into insignificance compared to what it says of the neoliberal and public choice theory of voting behaviour. This point was made only a few weeks ago by demographer Bernard Salt (I think that was who it was but I can't find the article), who was mouthing something similar, a general claim that the democratic project was now doomed because everyone was only in it for what they could get.
The even more extreme view was mounted by Henry Ergas in a Libertarian Society talk shown on A-PAC. His view was that the tax free threshold should be abolished because it was important that every citizen understand that Government services are only delivered by taxes. He perhaps forgets that the GST taxes everyone, even those on welfare. He made a strange claim that in fact the GST and income tax were effectively the same...because they tax the individual.
In this context it is critical that the Labor Party is in a position to be able to coherently state its strong egalitarian purpose and the role Government plays in that. A rewrite of the objective is called for - but it should be remembered that it is a lot more than just the first point. It is reproduced in full below.
My suggestion for a shorter version that gets to the heart of the matter is as follows:
2. The Australian Labor Party is a social democratic party and has the objective of Government management of the economy to achieve the political and social values of equality, democracy, liberty and social cooperation. In particular the Australian Labor Party stands for:
(a) redistribution of political and economic power so that all members of society have the opportunity
to participate in the shaping and control of the institutions and relationships which determine their
lives
(b) establishment and development of public enterprises, based upon Government and other forms
of social ownership, in appropriate sectors of the economy, especially natural monopolies and those delivering critical social services
(c) management of Australian natural resources for the benefit of all Australians
(d) maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector
(e) the right to own private property
(f) recognition and encouragement of the right of labour to organise for the protection and
advancement of its interests
(g) the application of democracy in industry to increase the opportunities for people to work in
satisfying, healthy and humane conditions; and to participate in and to increase their control over
the decision making processes affecting them
(h) the restoration and maintenance of full employment
(i) the abolition of poverty, and the achievement of greater equality in the distribution of income,
wealth and opportunity
(j) social justice and equality for individuals, the family and all social units, and the elimination of
exploitation in the home
(k) equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and
welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law
(l) reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect
the will of the majority of Australian citizens and the existence of Australia as an independent
republic
(m) recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including freedom of
expression, the press, assembly, association, conscience and religion; the right to privacy; the
protection of the individual from oppression by the state; and democratic reform of the Australian
legal system
(n) the development of a democratic communications system, as an integral part of a free society, to
which all citizens have opportunities for access
(o) elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality,
religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic
or household status
(p) recognition of the prior ownership of Australian land by Aborigines and Islanders; recognition
of their special and essential relationship with the land as the basis of their culture; and a
commitment to the return of established traditional lands to the ownership of Aboriginal and
Islander communities
(q) recognition and encouragement of diversity of cultural expression and lifestyle within the
Australian community
(r) the use, conservation and enhancement of Australia’s natural resources and environment so that
the community’s total quality of life, both now and into the future, is maintained and improved
(s) recognition of the need to work towards achieving ecologically sustainable development
(t) maintenance of world peace; an independent Australian position in world affairs; the recognition
of the right of all nations to self determination and independence; regional and international
agreement for arms control and disarmament; the provision of economic and social aid to
developing nations; a commitment to resolve international conflicts through the UN; and a
recognition of the inalienable right of all people to liberty, equality, democracy and social justice
(u) recognition of the right of citizens to work for progressive changes consistent with the broad
principles of democratic socialism.
**************************
The Current Objective
2. The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic
socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate
exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.
3 To achieve the political and social values of equality, democracy, liberty and social cooperation
inherent in this objective, the Australian Labor Party stands for:
(a) redistribution of political and economic power so that all members of society have the opportunity
to participate in the shaping and control of the institutions and relationships which determine their
lives
(b) establishment and development of public enterprises, based upon federal, state and other forms
of social ownership, in appropriate sectors of the economy
(c) democratic control and strategic social ownership of Australian natural resources for the benefit
of all Australians
(d) maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector, including small
business and farming, controlled and owned by Australians, operating within clear social
guidelines and objectives
(e) the right to own private property
(f) recognition and encouragement of the right of labour to organise for the protection and
advancement of its interests
(g) the application of democracy in industry to increase the opportunities for people to work in
satisfying, healthy and humane conditions; and to participate in and to increase their control over
the decision making processes affecting them
(h) the promotion of socially appropriate technology and the monitoring of its introduction to ensure
that the needs and interests of labour, as well as the requirements of competitive industry and
consumer demand, are taken into consideration
(i) the restoration and maintenance of full employment
(j) the abolition of poverty, and the achievement of greater equality in the distribution of income,
wealth and opportunity
(k) social justice and equality for individuals, the family and all social units, and the elimination of
exploitation in the home
(l) equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and
welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law
(m) reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect
the will of the majority of Australian citizens and the existence of Australia as an independent
republic
(n) recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including freedom of
expression, the press, assembly, association, conscience and religion; the right to privacy; the
protection of the individual from oppression by the state; and democratic reform of the Australian
legal system
(o) the development of a democratic communications system, as an integral part of a free society, to
which all citizens have opportunities for free access
(p) elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality,
religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic
or household status
(q) recognition of the prior ownership of Australian land by Aborigines and Islanders; recognition
of their special and essential relationship with the land as the basis of their culture; and a
commitment to the return of established traditional lands to the ownership of Aboriginal and
Islander communities
(r) recognition and encouragement of diversity of cultural expression and lifestyle within the
Australian community
(s) the use, conservation and enhancement of Australia’s natural resources and environment so that
the community’s total quality of life, both now and into the future, is maintained and improved
(t) recognition of the need to work towards achieving ecologically sustainable development
(u) maintenance of world peace; an independent Australian position in world affairs; the recognition
of the right of all nations to self determination and independence; regional and international
agreement for arms control and disarmament; the provision of economic and social aid to
developing nations; a commitment to resolve international conflicts through the UN; and a
recognition of the inalienable right of all people to liberty, equality, democracy and social justice
(v) commitment to and participation in the international democratic socialist movement as
represented by the Socialist International
(w) recognition of the right of citizens to work for progressive changes consistent with the broad
principles of democratic socialism.
It was useful because an effectively full range of views was available through just three speakers. Chris Bowen advanced the line he advanced in Hearts & Minds, that the party objective should be social-liberalism. In his view the party stands for just two things, economic growth and opportunity for all. These together are supposed to improve the lot of everyone, even the most disadvantaged in our society. Bowen claimed that the socialist objective and its nascent call for government control of industry confused means and ends.
Jenny McAlister gave a far more strident speech, in which she addressed much of the core. In a prepared remark she responded to the idea of equality of opportunity with Anatole Franc's dictum that the law "in its majestic equality...forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. Social democrats seek more than just equality of opportunity, they want to see a reduction in the overall level of inequality. As democrats they separate themselves from revolutionary socialists, believing that the outcome can be achieved by democratic means. Indeed they assert that the objective of "democracy" is more than just an objective about political equality, but also socio-economic equality.
There were three main distinctions Jenny drew between social democracy and social liberalism.
1. By retreating to social liberalism we retreat from our commitment to using the power of government to build a stong (and I would add fairer) economy.
2. Social liberalism leads to greater individualism, and hence a retreat from universalism in health and education.
3. Social liberalism doesn't provide the conceptual tools we need to tackle inequality.
Nick Dyrenfurth talked about aspects of the objective which were more than just "economic", what it means to also value the "social." This includes a direct reference to the other half of Labor's history. It wasn't just action for equality, it was co-operative action for equality.
I'll confess that I think the discussion of the objective gets confused because it needs to follow-on from the discussion of the values. Bill Shorten said in his speech last month on modernising the party that he would seek a review of Chapter One of the National Platform that outlines Labor's Values. A statement of values is where it gets hard - it is where you have to already start making choices - or else you just add so much that they become meaningless, as Labor's now have.
At the same time the focus is now on the claims to be socialist, even the legitimacy of the social democratic tradition, or of democracy itself. For these three I rely most immediately on that paragon of politically neutral reporting - The Australian.
In an editorial of 8 May the Oz opined on the socialist objective. I asserted that Bill Shorten thinks it should go, that Paul Keating asserts it confuses "ends and means" and concludes:
Labor’s challenge is to once again become an advocate for economic growth and not simply to trumpet the post-materialist agenda of the inner-city elites. Fundamental to this is rebuilding relations with business and regaining economic credibility. Cheap shots at business leaders and attacks on the Commission of Audit may play well impress backbench MPs but to voters it shows that Labor still has not learnt the lessons of its election defeat.
There is so much in this that sits outside the framework of this discussion, however, if it is the case that the form of words we use to describe the true objective allows the objective to be misrepresented, then it should be changed.
Of more of a concern was a column by Greg Sheridan that argued that the experience of Europe was that there is a point at which social democracy makes so many people dependent on the State that no reform of State finances is ever possible. That this both misrepresents the objective and the means pales into insignificance compared to what it says of the neoliberal and public choice theory of voting behaviour. This point was made only a few weeks ago by demographer Bernard Salt (I think that was who it was but I can't find the article), who was mouthing something similar, a general claim that the democratic project was now doomed because everyone was only in it for what they could get.
The even more extreme view was mounted by Henry Ergas in a Libertarian Society talk shown on A-PAC. His view was that the tax free threshold should be abolished because it was important that every citizen understand that Government services are only delivered by taxes. He perhaps forgets that the GST taxes everyone, even those on welfare. He made a strange claim that in fact the GST and income tax were effectively the same...because they tax the individual.
In this context it is critical that the Labor Party is in a position to be able to coherently state its strong egalitarian purpose and the role Government plays in that. A rewrite of the objective is called for - but it should be remembered that it is a lot more than just the first point. It is reproduced in full below.
My suggestion for a shorter version that gets to the heart of the matter is as follows:
2. The Australian Labor Party is a social democratic party and has the objective of Government management of the economy to achieve the political and social values of equality, democracy, liberty and social cooperation. In particular the Australian Labor Party stands for:
(a) redistribution of political and economic power so that all members of society have the opportunity
to participate in the shaping and control of the institutions and relationships which determine their
lives
(b) establishment and development of public enterprises, based upon Government and other forms
of social ownership, in appropriate sectors of the economy, especially natural monopolies and those delivering critical social services
(c) management of Australian natural resources for the benefit of all Australians
(d) maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector
(e) the right to own private property
(f) recognition and encouragement of the right of labour to organise for the protection and
advancement of its interests
(g) the application of democracy in industry to increase the opportunities for people to work in
satisfying, healthy and humane conditions; and to participate in and to increase their control over
the decision making processes affecting them
(h) the restoration and maintenance of full employment
(i) the abolition of poverty, and the achievement of greater equality in the distribution of income,
wealth and opportunity
(j) social justice and equality for individuals, the family and all social units, and the elimination of
exploitation in the home
(k) equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and
welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law
(l) reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect
the will of the majority of Australian citizens and the existence of Australia as an independent
republic
(m) recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including freedom of
expression, the press, assembly, association, conscience and religion; the right to privacy; the
protection of the individual from oppression by the state; and democratic reform of the Australian
legal system
(n) the development of a democratic communications system, as an integral part of a free society, to
which all citizens have opportunities for access
(o) elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality,
religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic
or household status
(p) recognition of the prior ownership of Australian land by Aborigines and Islanders; recognition
of their special and essential relationship with the land as the basis of their culture; and a
commitment to the return of established traditional lands to the ownership of Aboriginal and
Islander communities
(q) recognition and encouragement of diversity of cultural expression and lifestyle within the
Australian community
(r) the use, conservation and enhancement of Australia’s natural resources and environment so that
the community’s total quality of life, both now and into the future, is maintained and improved
(s) recognition of the need to work towards achieving ecologically sustainable development
(t) maintenance of world peace; an independent Australian position in world affairs; the recognition
of the right of all nations to self determination and independence; regional and international
agreement for arms control and disarmament; the provision of economic and social aid to
developing nations; a commitment to resolve international conflicts through the UN; and a
recognition of the inalienable right of all people to liberty, equality, democracy and social justice
(u) recognition of the right of citizens to work for progressive changes consistent with the broad
principles of democratic socialism.
**************************
The Current Objective
2. The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic
socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate
exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields.
3 To achieve the political and social values of equality, democracy, liberty and social cooperation
inherent in this objective, the Australian Labor Party stands for:
(a) redistribution of political and economic power so that all members of society have the opportunity
to participate in the shaping and control of the institutions and relationships which determine their
lives
(b) establishment and development of public enterprises, based upon federal, state and other forms
of social ownership, in appropriate sectors of the economy
(c) democratic control and strategic social ownership of Australian natural resources for the benefit
of all Australians
(d) maintenance of and support for a competitive non-monopolistic private sector, including small
business and farming, controlled and owned by Australians, operating within clear social
guidelines and objectives
(e) the right to own private property
(f) recognition and encouragement of the right of labour to organise for the protection and
advancement of its interests
(g) the application of democracy in industry to increase the opportunities for people to work in
satisfying, healthy and humane conditions; and to participate in and to increase their control over
the decision making processes affecting them
(h) the promotion of socially appropriate technology and the monitoring of its introduction to ensure
that the needs and interests of labour, as well as the requirements of competitive industry and
consumer demand, are taken into consideration
(i) the restoration and maintenance of full employment
(j) the abolition of poverty, and the achievement of greater equality in the distribution of income,
wealth and opportunity
(k) social justice and equality for individuals, the family and all social units, and the elimination of
exploitation in the home
(l) equal access and rights to employment, education, information, technology, housing, health and
welfare services, cultural and leisure activities and the law
(m) reform of the Australian Constitution and other political institutions to ensure that they reflect
the will of the majority of Australian citizens and the existence of Australia as an independent
republic
(n) recognition and protection of fundamental political and civil rights, including freedom of
expression, the press, assembly, association, conscience and religion; the right to privacy; the
protection of the individual from oppression by the state; and democratic reform of the Australian
legal system
(o) the development of a democratic communications system, as an integral part of a free society, to
which all citizens have opportunities for free access
(p) elimination of discrimination and exploitation on the grounds of class, race, sex, sexuality,
religion, political affiliation, national origin, citizenship, age, disability, regional location, economic
or household status
(q) recognition of the prior ownership of Australian land by Aborigines and Islanders; recognition
of their special and essential relationship with the land as the basis of their culture; and a
commitment to the return of established traditional lands to the ownership of Aboriginal and
Islander communities
(r) recognition and encouragement of diversity of cultural expression and lifestyle within the
Australian community
(s) the use, conservation and enhancement of Australia’s natural resources and environment so that
the community’s total quality of life, both now and into the future, is maintained and improved
(t) recognition of the need to work towards achieving ecologically sustainable development
(u) maintenance of world peace; an independent Australian position in world affairs; the recognition
of the right of all nations to self determination and independence; regional and international
agreement for arms control and disarmament; the provision of economic and social aid to
developing nations; a commitment to resolve international conflicts through the UN; and a
recognition of the inalienable right of all people to liberty, equality, democracy and social justice
(v) commitment to and participation in the international democratic socialist movement as
represented by the Socialist International
(w) recognition of the right of citizens to work for progressive changes consistent with the broad
principles of democratic socialism.
Friday, May 02, 2014
The Commission of Audit, the States and the Right
Let me be clear, I have only read a very little of the National Commission of Audit report. Like most people, however, I have been bombarded with news reports.
The immediate impression is that the report contains all the recommendations one would expect from the typically shallow analysis provided by a cadre trained in "modern economics", which is just classical marginal economics tarted up a bit. But in part this is because that was the mission given to the Commission.
The Terrms of Reference specify that:
It is therefore timely that there should be another full-scale review of the activities of the Commonwealth government to: ;
– ensure taxpayers are receiving value-for-money from each dollar spent;
– eliminate wasteful spending;
– identify areas of unnecessary duplication between the activities of the Commonwealth and other levels of government;
– identify areas or programs where Commonwealth involvement is inappropriate, no longer needed, or blurs lines of accountability; and
– improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness with which government services and policy advice are delivered.
So addressing vertical fiscal imbalance and possible "duplication" of activities was a core function of the report.
The Terms of Reference also specify that:
The Commission should also be guided in its work by the principles that:
– government should have respect for taxpayers in the care with which it spends every dollar of revenue;
– government should do for people what they cannot do, or cannot do efficiently, for themselves, but no more; and
– government should live within its means.
As a consequence, the ideas in the report that are all about shrinking Government activity are part of the requirements of the report, not necessarily conclusions. Specifically the Commission was excluded from having any consideration of whether additional permanent revenue was an appropriate conclusion.
Prime Minister Abbott was even more succinct in his framing in his address in April 2014 to the Sydney Institute, where he said:
Every time a government spends people’s money for them, it limits their own freedom; hence the famous dictum that government should do what the people cannot do for themselves, and no more. (see note)
In addressing the question of "unnecessary duplication between the activities of the Commonwealth and other levels of government", the Commission has proposed two key principles that should apply to Commonwealth-State relations. These are:
• Subsidiarity - As far as practicable, policy and service delivery should be devolved to the level of government closest to the ultimate clients, to allow programmes to be tailored to meet community needs. Governments should operate at their natural levels (policy oversight for national issues should go to the Commonwealth and regional and local issues should go to the State governments).
• Sovereignty – As far as practicable, each level of government should be sovereign in its own sphere. When reviewing roles and responsibilities, government activities should be allocated to one level of government only, in order to provide greater clarity and accountability.
The recommendations of the Commission on devolving responsibilities and changing funding to untied grants and even increasing the States own taxing powers are consistent with these principles - if it is accepted that the current delineation of responsibilities in a three tier system are appropriate.
There are a number of reasons why the issues should be considered in a wider view.
1. The first and most obvious is that there are scale efficiencies inherent in many policy decisions in service delivery. Why instead of nine Governments (the Federal and the eight State and Territory Governments) grappling with the same issues does it make sense to have only eight Governments doing it, rather than one. This becomes particularly relevant when the contrasts between the capabilities in NSW and Victoria are compared to Tasmania, the ACT and NT.
2. The principle of the government that is "closest" to the ultimate clients is the flip side of the scale efficiencies. How significantly closer is the NSW Government, that administers 40% of the nation, or even Victoria at about 30%, to the "clients" than the Federal Government? The large States have historically experimented with issues like regional Health Boards to deal with their own remoteness. Would not a devolution of administrative functions to a democratic level below these State Governments not achieve better outcomes?
3. The existing State boundaries continue to limit the operation of the national economy. Cross border professional recognition has been a challenge. So too has been the development of innovative technology based service delivery models that can't be accredited, or funded, if the service cross State boundaries.
If the discussion on Government efficiency was not blinkered by a bias towards "small government" and existing constitutional arrangements, the correct response would be to try to develop a twenty or thirty year program that dealt permanently with the structure of Government.
It is one hundred and thirteen years since the colonies agreed to federate without giving up their sovereignty. It is a credit to the nation and a benefit of its geography that this is one of the world's longest continuing democracies. To refresh its structure does not invalidate this continuity.
Reform to the structure of the tiers of Government is not new. Bob Hawke advocated it in the first of his 1979 Boyer Lectures "Resolution of Conflict". He advocated it again at Woodford in December 2013.
A 2010 Newspoll reported that 4 out of 10 Australians supported the abolition of State Governments as they were the least effective level of Government. (The Australian article asserted this was due to voter dissatisfaction with various State Labor Governments. A later Newspoll in 2012 found a dramatic shift from 2008 to 2012 in the faith in the Federal Government - which the Oz was also keen to blame on Labor - but faith in the States had declined further and was still below the Federal Government ).
There are at least two very useful resources on the issue of the future of the States available online. The Abolish the States Collective and a political party called No State Governments.
The Commission of Audit report notes that there is a commitment for a White Paper on "Reform of the Federation". It is to be hoped that this White Paper is prepared with a remit to consider a wider agenda than that provided to the National Commission of Audit.
******************************************
Note: A Canberra Times article sourced the so-called "dictum" as follows:
The words seem to have been lifted from, of all places, a speech by President Barack Obama, in which he summarised and distorted the views of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln said: ''The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves.''
This is an apparent reference to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address. That annotated version of the address includes the correct original Lincoln quote as an annotation.
Commentators quickly noted that Obama was misquoting Lincoln - even describing it as deliberately misquoting. However, this critic thought that Obama was misquoting it to justify a bigger role for Government than Lincoln accepted. I'm not so sure.
The original is an 1854 piece by Lincoln The Nature and Objects of Government, with Special Reference to Slavery. The relevant longer quotes are:
Government is a combination of the people of a country to effect certain objects by joint effort. The best framed and best administered governments are necessarily expensive; while by errors in frame and maladministration most of them are more onerous than they need be, and some of them very oppressive.
The legitimate object of government is "to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves. There are many such things—some of them exist independently of the injustice in the world. Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property, are instances.
The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branches off into an infinite variety of subdivisions.
The first—that in relation to wrongs—embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage,estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.
From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.
It is worthwhile to note that Lincoln made these comments leading up to a statement on slavery, where he wrote:
Equality in society alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the British aristocratic sort or of the domestic slavery sort. We know Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired laborers among us. How little they know whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us. Twenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer. The hired laborer of yesterday labors on his own account to-day, and will hire others to labor for him to-morrow. Advancement—improvement in condition—is the order of things in a society of equals. As labor is the common burden of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burden onto the shoulders of others is the great durable curse of the race. Originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double-refined curse of God upon his creatures....
Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of the equal rights of men, as I have, in part, stated them; ours began by affirming those rights. They said, some men are too ignorant and vicious to share in government. Possibly so, said we; and, by your system, you would always keep them ignorant and vicious. We proposed to give all a chance; and we expected the weak to grow stronger, the ignorant wiser, and all better and happier together.
We made the experiment, and the fruit is before us. Look at it, think of it. Look at it in its aggregate grandeur, of extent of country, and numbers of population—of ship, and steamboat, and railroad.
It can be very easy to mistake Lincoln's sentiments as being something akin to neo-liberal, a mistake that can be made because he was a Republican President.
But in the application of his comments to the present case it is worth noting that Lincoln was making the case for Government action on slavery. As President he took the view that the Federal Government should outlaw slavery in the new territories being opened up, and the reaction to this by the South resulted in a Civil War that ultimately ended slavery and was as much a war about the relative positions of State and Federal Governments as it was about the specific issue of slavery.
The immediate impression is that the report contains all the recommendations one would expect from the typically shallow analysis provided by a cadre trained in "modern economics", which is just classical marginal economics tarted up a bit. But in part this is because that was the mission given to the Commission.
The Terrms of Reference specify that:
It is therefore timely that there should be another full-scale review of the activities of the Commonwealth government to: ;
– ensure taxpayers are receiving value-for-money from each dollar spent;
– eliminate wasteful spending;
– identify areas of unnecessary duplication between the activities of the Commonwealth and other levels of government;
– identify areas or programs where Commonwealth involvement is inappropriate, no longer needed, or blurs lines of accountability; and
– improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness with which government services and policy advice are delivered.
So addressing vertical fiscal imbalance and possible "duplication" of activities was a core function of the report.
The Terms of Reference also specify that:
The Commission should also be guided in its work by the principles that:
– government should have respect for taxpayers in the care with which it spends every dollar of revenue;
– government should do for people what they cannot do, or cannot do efficiently, for themselves, but no more; and
– government should live within its means.
As a consequence, the ideas in the report that are all about shrinking Government activity are part of the requirements of the report, not necessarily conclusions. Specifically the Commission was excluded from having any consideration of whether additional permanent revenue was an appropriate conclusion.
Prime Minister Abbott was even more succinct in his framing in his address in April 2014 to the Sydney Institute, where he said:
Every time a government spends people’s money for them, it limits their own freedom; hence the famous dictum that government should do what the people cannot do for themselves, and no more. (see note)
In addressing the question of "unnecessary duplication between the activities of the Commonwealth and other levels of government", the Commission has proposed two key principles that should apply to Commonwealth-State relations. These are:
• Subsidiarity - As far as practicable, policy and service delivery should be devolved to the level of government closest to the ultimate clients, to allow programmes to be tailored to meet community needs. Governments should operate at their natural levels (policy oversight for national issues should go to the Commonwealth and regional and local issues should go to the State governments).
• Sovereignty – As far as practicable, each level of government should be sovereign in its own sphere. When reviewing roles and responsibilities, government activities should be allocated to one level of government only, in order to provide greater clarity and accountability.
The recommendations of the Commission on devolving responsibilities and changing funding to untied grants and even increasing the States own taxing powers are consistent with these principles - if it is accepted that the current delineation of responsibilities in a three tier system are appropriate.
There are a number of reasons why the issues should be considered in a wider view.
1. The first and most obvious is that there are scale efficiencies inherent in many policy decisions in service delivery. Why instead of nine Governments (the Federal and the eight State and Territory Governments) grappling with the same issues does it make sense to have only eight Governments doing it, rather than one. This becomes particularly relevant when the contrasts between the capabilities in NSW and Victoria are compared to Tasmania, the ACT and NT.
2. The principle of the government that is "closest" to the ultimate clients is the flip side of the scale efficiencies. How significantly closer is the NSW Government, that administers 40% of the nation, or even Victoria at about 30%, to the "clients" than the Federal Government? The large States have historically experimented with issues like regional Health Boards to deal with their own remoteness. Would not a devolution of administrative functions to a democratic level below these State Governments not achieve better outcomes?
3. The existing State boundaries continue to limit the operation of the national economy. Cross border professional recognition has been a challenge. So too has been the development of innovative technology based service delivery models that can't be accredited, or funded, if the service cross State boundaries.
If the discussion on Government efficiency was not blinkered by a bias towards "small government" and existing constitutional arrangements, the correct response would be to try to develop a twenty or thirty year program that dealt permanently with the structure of Government.
It is one hundred and thirteen years since the colonies agreed to federate without giving up their sovereignty. It is a credit to the nation and a benefit of its geography that this is one of the world's longest continuing democracies. To refresh its structure does not invalidate this continuity.
Reform to the structure of the tiers of Government is not new. Bob Hawke advocated it in the first of his 1979 Boyer Lectures "Resolution of Conflict". He advocated it again at Woodford in December 2013.
A 2010 Newspoll reported that 4 out of 10 Australians supported the abolition of State Governments as they were the least effective level of Government. (The Australian article asserted this was due to voter dissatisfaction with various State Labor Governments. A later Newspoll in 2012 found a dramatic shift from 2008 to 2012 in the faith in the Federal Government - which the Oz was also keen to blame on Labor - but faith in the States had declined further and was still below the Federal Government ).
There are at least two very useful resources on the issue of the future of the States available online. The Abolish the States Collective and a political party called No State Governments.
The Commission of Audit report notes that there is a commitment for a White Paper on "Reform of the Federation". It is to be hoped that this White Paper is prepared with a remit to consider a wider agenda than that provided to the National Commission of Audit.
******************************************
Note: A Canberra Times article sourced the so-called "dictum" as follows:
The words seem to have been lifted from, of all places, a speech by President Barack Obama, in which he summarised and distorted the views of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln said: ''The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all or cannot do so well for themselves.''
This is an apparent reference to President Obama's 2012 State of the Union address. That annotated version of the address includes the correct original Lincoln quote as an annotation.
Commentators quickly noted that Obama was misquoting Lincoln - even describing it as deliberately misquoting. However, this critic thought that Obama was misquoting it to justify a bigger role for Government than Lincoln accepted. I'm not so sure.
The original is an 1854 piece by Lincoln The Nature and Objects of Government, with Special Reference to Slavery. The relevant longer quotes are:
Government is a combination of the people of a country to effect certain objects by joint effort. The best framed and best administered governments are necessarily expensive; while by errors in frame and maladministration most of them are more onerous than they need be, and some of them very oppressive.
The legitimate object of government is "to do for the people what needs to be done, but which they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do so well, for themselves. There are many such things—some of them exist independently of the injustice in the world. Making and maintaining roads, bridges, and the like; providing for the helpless young and afflicted; common schools; and disposing of deceased men's property, are instances.
The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves, in their separate and individual capacities. In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere. The desirable things which the individuals of a people cannot do, or cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two classes: those which have relation to wrongs, and those which have not. Each of these branches off into an infinite variety of subdivisions.
The first—that in relation to wrongs—embraces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-performance of contracts. The other embraces all which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires combined action, as public roads and highways, public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage,estates of the deceased, and the machinery of government itself.
From this it appears that if all men were just, there still would be some, though not so much, need of government.
It is worthwhile to note that Lincoln made these comments leading up to a statement on slavery, where he wrote:
Equality in society alike beats inequality, whether the latter be of the British aristocratic sort or of the domestic slavery sort. We know Southern men declare that their slaves are better off than hired laborers among us. How little they know whereof they speak! There is no permanent class of hired laborers amongst us. Twenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer. The hired laborer of yesterday labors on his own account to-day, and will hire others to labor for him to-morrow. Advancement—improvement in condition—is the order of things in a society of equals. As labor is the common burden of our race, so the effort of some to shift their share of the burden onto the shoulders of others is the great durable curse of the race. Originally a curse for transgression upon the whole race, when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part only, it becomes the double-refined curse of God upon his creatures....
Most governments have been based, practically, on the denial of the equal rights of men, as I have, in part, stated them; ours began by affirming those rights. They said, some men are too ignorant and vicious to share in government. Possibly so, said we; and, by your system, you would always keep them ignorant and vicious. We proposed to give all a chance; and we expected the weak to grow stronger, the ignorant wiser, and all better and happier together.
We made the experiment, and the fruit is before us. Look at it, think of it. Look at it in its aggregate grandeur, of extent of country, and numbers of population—of ship, and steamboat, and railroad.
It can be very easy to mistake Lincoln's sentiments as being something akin to neo-liberal, a mistake that can be made because he was a Republican President.
But in the application of his comments to the present case it is worth noting that Lincoln was making the case for Government action on slavery. As President he took the view that the Federal Government should outlaw slavery in the new territories being opened up, and the reaction to this by the South resulted in a Civil War that ultimately ended slavery and was as much a war about the relative positions of State and Federal Governments as it was about the specific issue of slavery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)