Ministers for Communications

The swearing in today of Anthony Albanese as Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy saw some tweeting about the longevity of Senator Conroy and contrasting it with the churn in the portfolio in the Hawke Government.

So I thought I'd share my table of Ministers for Communication since Federation. 

As "postal, telegraphic and other like services" are a Federal responsibility under the constitution the Post-Master General was a portfolio from the very start.

The initial ministries (1.1.1901- 12.7.1915) were constituted of PM, Minister for External Affairs, Minister for Home Affairs, Treasurer, Minister for Trade and Customs, Minister for Defence, Postmaster-General, Vice-President of the Executive-Council, Minister (without portfolio).  The Minister with responsibility for posts and telegraphs is therefore one of six that could have a list of Ministers since Federation.

 

Anthony Albanese is not the first Deputy Prime Minister to be the communications minister.  Lance Barnard was both in the two man Whitlam ministry from 5 to 19 December 1972.  Lionel Bowen was Post-Master General under Whitlam and subsequently served as DPM under Hawke.

 

John McEwen was the first Minister to be commissioned as Deputy Prime Minister in the Gorton Ministry on 10.1.1968.  Previously it was used unofficially for the second highest ranking Minister. (but none of them were the Postmaster General).

 

The full list is:

 

Ministry	Dates	Minister	Dates
		Postmaster-General
Barton Ministry (Protectionist)	1.1.1901 – 24.9.1903	Forrest, J	1.1.1901-17.1.1901
		Drake, Senator JG	5.2.1901-10.8.1903
		Fysh, PO	10.8.1903 -24.9.1903
Deakin Ministry (Protectionist)	24.9.1903 – 27.4.1904	Fysh, PO	24.9.1903 – 27.4.1904
Watson Ministry (ALP)	27.4.1904 – 17.8.1904	Mahon, H	27.4.1904 – 17.8.1904
Reid–McLean Ministry (Free Trade – Protectionist Coalition)	18.8.1904 – 5.7.1905	Smith, S (FT)	18.8.1904 – 5.7.1905
Deakin Ministry (Protectionist)	5.7.1905 – 13.11.1908	Chapman, A	5.7.1905-30.7.1907
		Mauger, S	30.7.1907-13.11.1908
Fisher Ministry (ALP)	13.11.1908 – 2.6.1909	Thomas, J	13.11.1908 – 2.6.1909
Deakin Ministry (Protectionist – Free Trade – Tariff Reform Coalition)	2.6.1909 – 29.4.1910	Quick, J (PROT)	2.6.1909 – 29.4.1910
Fisher Ministry (ALP)	29.4.1910 – 24.6.1913	Thomas, J	29.4.1910-14.10.1911
		Frazer, CE	14.10.1911-24.6.1913
Cook Ministry (LIB)	24.6.1913 – 17.9.1914	Wynne, A	24.6.1913 – 17.9.1914
Fisher Ministry (ALP)	17.9.1914 – 27.10.1915	Spence, WG	17.9.1914 – 27.10.1915
Hughes Ministry (ALP)	27.10.1915 – 14.11.1916	Webster, W	27.10.1915 – 14.11.1916
Hughes Ministry (National Labour)	14.11.1916 – 17.2.1917	Webster, W	14.11.1916 – 17.2.1917
Hughes Ministry (Nationalist)	17.2.1917 – 10.1.1918	Webster, W	17.2.1917 – 10.1.1918
Hughes Ministry (Nationalist)	10.1.1918 – 9.2.1923	Webster, W	10.1.1918-3.2.1920
		Wise, GH	4.2.1920 – 21.12.1921
		Poynton, A	21.12.1921 – 5.2.1923
Bruce–Page Ministry (Nationalist – CP Coalition)	9.2.1923 – 22.10.1929	Gibson, WG (CP)	9.2.1923 – 22.10.1929
Scullin Ministry (ALP)	22.10.1929 – 6.1.1932	Lyons, JA	22.10.1929 – 4.2.1931
		Green, AE	4.2.1931-6.1.1932
Lyons Ministry (UAP)	6.1.1932 – 9.11.1934	Fenton, JE	6.1.1932-13.10.1932
		Parkhill, RA	13.10.1932 – 12.10.1934
		McLachlan, Senator AJ	12.10.1934 – 9.11.1934
Lyons Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	9.11.1934 – 7.11.1938	McLachlan, Senator AJ	9.11.1934 – 7.11.1938
Lyons Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	7.11.1938 – 7.4.1939	Cameron, AG (CP)	7.11.1938 – 7.4.1939
Page Ministry (CP–UAP Coalition)	7.4.1939 – 26.4.1939	Cameron, AG (CP)	7.4.1939 – 26.4.1939
Menzies Ministry (UAP)	26.4.1939 – 14.3.1940	Harrison, EJ	26.4.1939 – 14.3.1940
Menzies Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	14.3.1940 – 28.10.1940	Thorby, HVC (CP)	14.3.1940 – 28.10.1940
Menzies Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	28.10.1940 – 29.8.1941	McLeay, Senator G	28.10.1940-26.6.1941
		Collins, TJ (CP)	26.6.1941-29.8.1941
Fadden Ministry (UAP–CP Coalition)	29.8.1941 – 7.10.1941	Collins, TJ (CP)	29.8.1941 – 7.10.1941
Curtin Ministry (ALP)	7.10.1941 – 21.9.1943	Ashley, Senator WP	7.10.1941 – 21.9.1943
Curtin Ministry (ALP)	21.9.1943 – 6.7.1945	Ashley, WP (SENATOR?)	21.9.1943 – 6.7.1945
Forde Ministry (ALP)	6.7.1945 – 13.7.1945	Cameron, Senator D	6.7.1945 – 13.7.1945
Chifley Ministry (ALP)	13.7.1945 – 1.11.1946	Cameron, Senator D	13.7.1945 – 1.11.1946
Chifley Ministry (ALP)	1.11.1946 – 19.12.1949	Cameron, Senator D	1.11.1946 – 19.12.1949
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	19.12.1949 – 11.5.1951	Anthony, HL (CP)	19.12.1949 – 11.5.1951
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	11.5.1951 – 11.1.1956	Anthony, HL (CP)	11.5.1951 – 11.1.1956
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	11.1.1956 – 10.12.1958	Davidson, CW (CP)	11.1.1956 – 10.12.1958
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	10.12.1958 – 18.12.1963	Davidson, CW (CP)	10.12.1958 – 18.12.1963
Menzies Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	18.12.1963 – 26.1.1966	Hulme, AS	18.12.1963 – 26.1.1966
Holt Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	26.1.1966 – 14.12.1966	Hulme, AS	26.1.1966 – 14.12.1966
Holt Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	14.12.1966 – 19.12.1967	Hulme, AS	14.12.1966 – 19.12.1967
McEwen Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	19.12.1967 – 10.1.1968	Hulme, AS	19.12.1967 – 10.1.1968
Gorton Ministry (LIB-CP Coalition)	10.1.1968 – 28.2.1968	Hulme, AS	10.1.1968 – 28.2.1968
Gorton Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	28.2.1968 – 12.11.1969	Hulme, AS	28.2.1968 – 12.11.1969
Gorton Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	12.11.1969 – 10.3.1971	Hulme, AS	12.11.1969 – 10.3.1971
McMahon Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	10.3.1971 – 5.12.1972	Hulme, AS	10.3.1971 – 5.12.1972
Whitlam Ministry (ALP)	5.12.1972 – 19.12.1972	Barnard, LH	5.12.1972 – 19.12.1972
Whitlam Ministry (ALP)	19.12.1972 – 12.6.1974	Bowen, LF	19.12.1972 – 12.6.1974
Whitlam Ministry (ALP)	12.6.1974 – 11.11.1975	Bishop, Senator R	12.6.1974 – 11.11.1975
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	11.11.1975 – 22.12.1975	Nixon, PJ (NCP)	11.11.1975 – 22.12.1975
		Minister for Post and Telecommunications
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	22.12.1975 – 20.12.1977	Garland, RV	22.12.1975 – 6.2.1976
		Robinson, EL	6.2.1976 - 20.12.1977
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	20.12.1977 – 3.11.1980	Staley, AA	20.12.1977 – 3.11.1980
		Minister for Communications
Fraser Ministry (LIB–NCP Coalition)	3.11.1980 – 7.5.1982	Sinclair, IMcC (NCP)	3.11.1980 – 7.5.1982
Fraser Ministry (LIB–CP Coalition)	7.5.1982 – 11.3.1983	Brown, NA	7.5.1982 – 11.3.1983
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	11.3.1983 – 13.12.1984	Duffy, MJ	11.3.1983 – 13.12.1984
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	13.12.1984 – 24.7.1987	Duffy, MJ	13.12.1984 – 24.7.1987
		Minister for Transport and Communications
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	24.7.1987 – 4.4.1990	Evans, Senator GJ	24.7.1987 – 2.9.1988
		Willis, R	2.9.1988- 4.4.1990
Hawke Ministry (ALP)	4.4.1990 – 20.12.1991	Beazley, KC	4.4.1990 – 9.12.1991
		Kerin, JC	9.12.1991- 20.12.1991
Keating Ministry (ALP)	20.12.1991 – 27.12.1991	Kerin, JC	20.12.1991 – 27.12.1991
Keating Ministry (ALP)	27.12.1991 – 24.3.1993	Richardson, Senator GF	27.12.1991 – 18.5.1992
		Collins, Senator RL	27.5.1992 - 24.3.1993
Keating Ministry (ALP)	24.3.1993 – 11.3.1996	Collins, Senator RL	24.3.1993  - 23.12.1993
		Minister for Communications
		Lee, MJ	23.12.1993 – 30.1.1994
		Minister for Communications and the Arts
		Lee, MJ	30.1.1994 - 11.3.1996
Howard Ministry (LIB–NPA Coalition)	11.3.1996 – 21.10.1998	Alston, Senator RKR	11.3.1996 - 9.10.1997
		Minister for Communications, the Information Economy and the Arts
		Alston, Senator RKR	9.10.1997 - 21.10.1998
		Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts
Howard Ministry (LIB–NPA Coalition)	21.10.1998 – 26.11.2001	Alston, Senator RKR	21.10.1998 – 26.11.2001
Howard Ministry (LIB - NPA* Coalition)	26.11.2001 - 26.10.2004	Alston, Senator RKR	26.11.2001  - 7.10.2003
		Williams, DR	7.10.2003 - 18.7.2004
		Coonan, Senator HL	18.7.2004 - 26.10.2004
Howard Ministry (LIB-NP Coalition)	26.10.2004 - 3.12.2007	Coonan, Senator HL	26.10.2004 - 3.12.2007
		Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy
Rudd Ministry (Labor)	3.12.07 – 24.06.10	Conroy, Senator SM	3.12.07 – 24.06.10
Gillard Ministry (Labor)	24.06.10 – 28.06.10	Conroy, Senator SM	24.06.10 – 28.06.10
Gillard Ministry (Labor)	28.06.10 – 14.9.2010	Conroy, Senator SM	28.06.10 – 14.9.2010
Gillard Ministry (Labor)	14.9.2010 – 28.06.13	Conroy, Senator SM	14.9.2010 – 28.06.13
Rudd Ministry (Labor)	28.06.13 – 1.07.13	Conroy, Senator SM	28.06.13 – 1.07.13
Rudd Ministry (Labor)	1.07.13 -	Albanese, AN  (Deputy Prime Minister)	1.07.13

Source: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:handbook%2Fnewhandbook%2F2011-10-13%2F0063

 

There are a few additional quirks as follows:

1. Minister for the Media 12.6.1974 – 11.11.1975 (check Administrative Orders for Responsibilities)

Minister for the Media
12.6.1974 to 6.6.1975	McClelland, Senator D
from 6.6.1975 to 11.11.1975	Cass, MH

2. In 1982 the title seems to have undertaken a very minor change from “Communication” to “Communications”
   
3. During the Hawke super-ministry of Transport and Communications there was a period with a junior Minister for Telecommunications

Minister for Telecommunications and Aviation Support
2.9.1988 – 28.3.1989	Punch, GF
6.4.1989 - 4.4.1990	Kelly, RJ

4. During the Howard Ministry, Senator Ian Campbell was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts from 21.10.1998 - 26.11.2001, (I had recollection that Chris Pyne did it later but it does’t appear in the APH list)
5. During the Rudd Ministry from 1.07.13 there were in addition
               Senator Kate Lundy, Minister Assisting for the Digital Economy
               Sharon Bird, Minister for Regional Communications
               Ed Husic, Parliamentary Secretary for Broadband

Data Sets

Just an interesting post from Joshua Gans about open economic data sets. 

As I said the other day - we also need open models when used in papers.

On Abbott

A new story today about old Abbott punches. 

Astute readers of this blog know that the earlier accusations about Barbara Ramjan were referenced by a comment here before they appeared in the press.

The single greatest criticism of Labor in Government is that they have created the condition under which it looks like Tony Abott may well become Prime Minister.

My humble opinion is that he is more morally and intellectually totally unsuited to the position than any of his predecessors - and some of them were quite dodgy. 

For a quick review see Mungo McCallum's The Good, the Bad & the Unlikely.

On cartel parties

I have taken to deleting my Latin postscript on most posts since I currently work for a Labor left Senator.  But I've left it on because of the topic of the day - which in the SMH editorial is that Labor must reform or die.

The problem is that every criticism of Labor in that editorial - narrow base, preselecting professional politicians, factions and fractions - apply equally to the other large political grouping.

This is a systemic condition, not one that applies to just Labor.  Katz describes the emergence of the cartel party.  I have elsewhere described this evolution as a consequence of the speed of communication.  The cartel party has now come to its logical conclusion - parties that as organisations are built only on power and influence, and as political entities merely reflect "the mob."

The "solution" is not some reactionary return to mass movement parties, that won't happen.

But the health of democratic states is for the political process to deliver the next form of organisation ....

Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est

Academic publishing and data

Two pieces in today's SMH on economics raise some interesting questions about how research should be done in the 21st century - on which I think I've written before.

The first is another story on the Reinhart and Rogoff paper that make the prediction that once a debt to GDP ratio hit 90% a country would fall off a cliff.  That turned out to be a conclusion reached only because of an error in a spreadsheet. 

Part of the stoush is about how hard it was for people to test the original paper - no one could replicate the result.  There is a very simple 21st century solution that ALL the data and calculations in support of a paper should be available on the web. 

But it also raises the whole validity of the "peer reviewed research" model.  The paper was peer reviewed - which didn't prohibit the error.  Our good friend Thomas Kuhn and his paradigms would easily explain that - the "small government" conclusion of the paper would have matched the dominant thinking of the relevant journal.

Before the "real sciences" crow, they are not immune to the same errors. Be they fraud like William McBride's or a stuff up. 

But the other question then emergs is about availability of data itself.  The other article reports on this weekends Triple -j Hottest 100 of the last twenty years and cites two researchers who have "analysed voting trends from every Hottest 100."  This got me excited because I have tried a couple of times to get the core voting data set from the ABC, but they won't release it.

It turns out that the researchers don't seem to have had it either.  An earlier article reveals his was only an econometric study on presence, and possibly rank, in the Hottest 100 - not votes.  The conclusions of that study are hardly surprising given the research about influence effects mentioned in another blogpost about the Hottest 100.

The votes is an interesting topic because it would provide a good dataset to test the long-tail thesis which is often used to argue that in the online world we have no reason to fear media concentration.  If the thesis holds the votes have a power-law distribution over the whole set of songs, if not the votes suddenly decline faster at some point. Where that point is is more than just of passing interest.

Lobbying

An interesting study has been published that has analysed the lobbying activity of Enron.  I haven't read it in detail yet, but it is an interesting methodology based on textual analysis of e-mails.  The data is only available because of the collapse of Enron.

The interesting part of the conclusion is that the focus on effort is not on elections, but rule making.

In studying the attention Enron devoted to various political activities through its e-mails, we find very little evidence consistent with the transactional approach to political influence. Election-related e-mails make up only 1% of Enron's political e-mails—and even within that 1%, there is scant evidence that Enron's staffers considered themselves to be buying the support of candidates. Instead, we observe Enron's political attention to be focused primarily on monitoring and formal participation in rule making and other executive-branch proceedings.

This is unsurprising to a professional, but I gather it is to academics.

The second part is the revelation in all its glory of the regulatory information assymetry problem. 

Certainly, Enron had the capacity to make political contributions, and it did so. But perhaps its greater resource was its monopoly on policy-relevant information about electricity, natural gas, and communications markets, information that policy makers could not easily obtain elsewhere.

Interestingly one of the things that happened as a consequence of the greater faith in markets in the last quarter of the last century was that Government decided to outsource a lot of policy research activity. Also "red tape reduction" has been used to limit mandatory reporting. 

Together these increase the power of the industry lobbyist and their "monopoly on policy-relevant informnation."

Unfortunately this is a topic on which no one ever speaks.

On being Prime Minister

In the SMH today Anne Summers relays the distressing state of political reporting.  It is another article about how the reporting is about who is leading in assessments of who people intend to vote for instead of spending any time in reporting on what the politicians stand for to help voters to decide who to vote for.

The articles in the same News Review section by Jacquekine Maley, Peter Hartcher and Lenore Taylor all fell into the category being critiqued by Summers.

But Summers concluding point is that John Howard faced similar poll results six months out from the 1998 and 2004 elections and yet won.

Now conventional wisdom is that John Howard was a "conviction politician" and this is what got him over the line.  However, Howard was also a poll driven politician.  The subtle difference may be that Howard used the polls to nuance how he sold his convictions whereas the perception is that Labor in the modern mold uses polls to tell it what its convictions should be.

Unfortunately when Julia Gillard does talk about her convictions - being the leader of a labour party - Hartcher for the second week in a row dresses this up as class warfare or politics of envy.  This time it is specifically describing Ms Gillard as a sectional rme Minister rather than a Prime Minister for all Australians.

And here really lies the rub.  The Prime Minister really is a conviction politician.  She is a firm believer in the "equality of opportunity" model of modern Labor as cast by Gough Whitlam.  She is talking to everyone when she says that - but the conservatives successfully frame it so that each individual voter thinks the PM is talking about everyone but them. 

There is a way for the PM to communicate the message.  But it would help if the editor of the SMH paid attention to what one of its columnists wrote.

Communications

It is really hard to describe what I do, either now particularly or more generally over the last few years.

Somehow or other it boils down to being something about communications - at least I find I hang out with a lot of communication people now.  That includes both those who are crafted a message and those who are trying to report it.

In a conversation with one such person last night we were discussing a common issue of how people charged with "doing something" - be it informing a community, formulating a policy or organising a workplace - think of "communications" as the piece at the end of the process.  Kind of like that stage in the car production line where the paint is sprayed on.

But really that's like thinking that what the car looks like is determined by the coat of paint, rather than all the elements of styling including the trim.  And the styling itself is part of the design of the performance of the car - be that the old "safe but boxy" of Volvo's of old, the modern SUV, the family sedan or the sleek sports car.

If we think about how we get anything done in this world it is by our ability to influence others.  Communication is the core activity of achieving that.

It probably doesn't help that all those not actively engaged in communications think in terms of the sender-receiver, message-medium model.

To be truly successful communication needs to be an integral part of the design, not just a decoration at the end.

A labour party

Last night in her address to the AWU conference Julia Gillard outlined in a very short statement what it is that the party she leads stands for.

At the relevant point she said;

The watch-words of this year; the watch-words of our Labor cause; the watch-words of this nation’s future: jobs, opportunity, fairness, being stronger, being smarter. Making sure that the next generation enjoys a better life than we do. Getting work pumping through the work troughs and the factories and the offices now. Creating the economy that will give back prosperity to the next generation of Australians and beyond. That is our mission, that is our cause in 2013 and beyond 2013.

I come here to this union’s gathering as a Labor leader. I’m not the leader of a party called the progressive party. I’m not the leader of a party called the moderate party. I’m not the leader of a party even called the socialist democratic party. I’m a leader of the party called the Labor Party deliberately because that is what we come from. That is what we believe in and that is who we are.

I gather there has already been on-line commentary suggesting that the PM said the party wasn't a "progressive" party. Clearly that is not the case. 

What she did was distinguished the party from just any old progressive party by tieing it very clearly to the interests of labour versus capital.  Useful for those who want to consider deeply the question of "what the ALP stands for."

Observation on politics, and on the observation of politics

An interesting piece by Deborah Snow in this morning's SMH outlines the tawdry career of Ian McDonald.  It notes a speech by John Faulkner that goes as far to suggest the McDonald had long been a "plant" in the left. 

The better and real story is the question of how people arrive in politics.  At the first entry to politics a decision ismade about what course to follow.  For some like Malcolm Turnbull and Tony Abbott that even amounted to a genuine choice of party - as there were aspects of both that appealed to them.

For others it comes down to where in a chameleon like space you can position yourself to get into a position of influence.  If in the 60s and 70s you wanted a position of power on a left dominated campus the easiest choice was to clothe yourself in the language of the radical left.  It is not a hard language to learn, and its strength has never been its consistency.

This appears to be the path chosen by Ian McDonald.  From there it was a path of patronage against a backdrop of a NSW left that was divided between so-called hard and soft left - where in the end it was your loyalty rather than your beliefs that mattered.

Rodney Cavalier has long emphasised how the union block votes, made bigger through the union consolidations, are the biggest pieces in this game.  Their role in the rise of Ian McDonald is laid out in the article.

Do not think ill of the individual union leaders involved (thoughI am starting to suspect that Arthur Gietzelt's purported role as an unreformed communist inside the ALP has yet more chapters to unfold), this is the system.

It is nice to see discussion in the party talking about the end of block voting and factional tieing in the Parliamentary party, but the issues in NSW did not come from the Parliamentary party.

Anhow, the observation I make here is that the McDonald's of this world - and they appear in all sides of politics - emerge from an environment in which one's choice of politics can be determined by where you can get ahead, not by what you believe.

The juxstoposition of this is in another SMH item by Peter Hartcher.  Hartcher tries to run a line about Gillard Government strategy, saying;

In short, Labor is seeking an old-fashioned, populist, left-wing fight based on envy and resentment. The usual shorthand is "class warfare".

This is where you get to when those who observe politics only perceive it as a contest for power not a choice of approach.  The divide between the two major camps has always been about the difference between the capitalists and the workers.  The fusion that became the very first Liberal Party at the start of the twentieth-century started its life as the "anti-socialist" party, and right the way through to the seventies that side of politics was distinguished by how much of a centralised planned state they were prepared to accomodate to keep socialism at bay. 

Through the 80s and 90s that rhetoric did change as the weaknesses of that approach to a planned economy were revealed.  The "left" more broadly has struggled to reframe its agenda in the wake of that change.  The dominant ideology - despite even the catastrophe of the free-market inspired Global Financial Crisis - is now of free markets not planned economies.  The grand story of the history of the left iks not "envy and resentment", it is about equity and fairness.

To suggest that the approach of Gillard's team is different to Rudd is extraordinary in the extreme.  It was Rudd who penned essays for The Monthly railing against free market ideology.

And the lesson of Hawke and Keating is not that Labor should shun its historic role, but that Labor needs to understand the changing workplace and exactly who are "the workers."  The "sole-employer, self-employed small-business voter" of which Paul Keating spoke is not a capitalist, they are just workers in different employment relations.

The true genius of John Howard was his ability to defy"public choice theory" - that is the need to appeal to the self-interest of the median voter.  The Howard "aspirationals" are people who would like to imagine they are something other than they are, they are the same people of whom Keating spoke.  But they vote Liberal not because it is in their interests, but because it is in the interests of the people they aspire to be.  What they don't understand is that the policies they then vote for are the policies that make it harder for them to achieve their ambitions.

Labor's challenge is not to walk away from the historic role of the left, its challenge is to explain how its commitment to equity and fairness best represents all those in society affected by the established power relationships.

Finally as a last observation on observations it is a great pity that in her column Lenore Taylor didn't note that Tony Abbott's street walk in Eden-Monaro was a relaunch of a policy from October 2012.  I wonder which was of more interest to people in a mostly rural electorate, CCTV cameras on city streets or the announcement a week earlier of faster speeds forv the NBN fixed wireless and satellite services?

Hottest vs Warmest 100 and the effects of social media

The Australia Day ritual of listening to Triple J's Hottest 100 countdown was this year enhanced by seeing how accurate the Warmest 100 team had been.   For the whole background on how a few geeks used the votes of a small sample published on social media to compile a prediction list the article in The Vine is a good read.

The answer was,  very accurate, but not surprisingly so.  The folks involved published a cool table of their accuracy, which a journo kindly graphed. The simple highlights are that 92 of the songs in the Warmest 100 were in the Hottest 100, they got 8 songs in their correct positions inclusding the top 3 and they correctly predicted the top 10 but not in order.

That this isn't surprising is due to statistical analysis by an Australian economist currently working in the USA. 

The correlation is not surprising, though economist turned politician Andrew Leigh did suggest on Twitter  a possible additional variable "#Warmest100=sharers. #Hottest100=everyone. So extroverts prefer Frank Ocean, The xx, Passion Pit, Grimes..."

There is, however, also another angle to this and that is not so much whether the published choices are an accurate sample, but whether they actually affected the result.  A paper published in 2006 titled Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market studied the effect of social connection on music.  Quoting from the abstract;

Hit songs, books, and movies are many times more successful than average, suggesting that “the best” alternatives are qualitatively different from “the rest”; yet experts routinely fail to predict which products will succeed. We investigated this paradox experimentally, by creating an artificial “music market” in which 14,341 participants downloaded previously unknown songs either with or without knowledge of previous participants' choices. Increasing the strength of social influence increased both inequality and unpredictability of success. Success was also only partly determined by quality: The best songs rarely did poorly, and the worst rarely did well, but any other result was possible.

In brief, the research suggests that the practice of voters sharing their votes online will shape the final result. If that is the case then it is no wonder that the Warmest list was such a good predictor.

The distinction

I am currently writing a longer form piece about what it means to be on the left.  One of the definitions that goes around to distinguish the "left" and the "right" is the former's belief in "equality."  More nuanced versions point out that the right also promotes some kind of equality.

Perhaps a better version of the distinction was provided yestyerday by Amanda Vanstone writing in the SMH.  In an homage to the value of instead of whineing one should simply take the initiative to enjoy oneself, she tells us that we certainly shouldn't look to politicians.

As a piece of definition of the views of the right she says "After all if the government keeps wanting to make it harder for those with more, what's the point in busting your gut to get kicked in the guts?"  This from a person who was of the so-called Liberal left.  This is the real right in operation, portraying Government merely as a means to take ones possessions.  It is Bad King John writ large.

The separate political error is in the next sentence where she writes " If the government can't control its spending and has failed miserably to save for a rainy day you might well feel a bit dorkish playing Mr or Mrs Scrooge with your own finances." The only trouble being that the Government IS controlling its spending, Government expenditure as a proportion of GDP continues to be lower under this Government than under Howard.

Finally, in Vanstone's call to not look to politicians for inspiration she writes;

Do not look to the Parliament as an example of what is good in Australia. Australia is much better than a quick look at our question time would have you believe. Australia is richer, stronger, better, more productive, more innovative - I could go on - than our Parliament. We are made of better stuff.
This is disappointing from a former Senator, who should no better than the average citizen, that question time is not indicative of the contribution of politicians.  That comes far more in their formulation of policy, the decisions they collectively make about legislation and government finance.  And while it is convenient to believe in the image of monoloithic parties that are mere voting blocks at the behest of their leaders or factional chiefs, the reality is vastly different.  Look no further than the discussions on irregular boat arrivals and how the coalition responded, or the way the ALP addressed the UN Plastine vote.

Our politicians are much better than journalists, former politicians, and even current politicians frequently argue.

Judge Mr Brough

For the recod, this is what the Rares J said of the role of Mal Brough.

Let's just look at excerpts from the conclusion first

197 For the reasons above, I am satisfied that these proceedings are an abuse of the process of the Court. The originating application was used by Mr Ashby for the predominant purpose of causing significant public, reputational and political damage to Mr Slipper......

199 Even though I have not found that the combination was as wide as Mr Slipper alleged in his points of claim, the evidence established that there was a combination involving Mr Ashby, Ms Doane and Mr Brough of that kind. Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough. Mr Ashby and Ms Doane set out to use the proceedings as part of their means to enhance or promote their prospects of advancement or preferment by the LNP, including by using Mr Brough to assist them in doing so. And the evidence also established that the proceedings were an abuse of the process of the Court for the reasons I have given. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the exceptional situation that enlivens the Court’s power to dismiss (or stay) proceedings as an abuse has been proved to the heavy standard required: Williams 174 CLR at 529. The duty and power of the Court to protect its own processes require that I give effect to the findings I have made by dismissing the proceedings under r 26.01. **********

Ms Doane’s and Mr Brough’s roles

131 Mr Ashby and Ms Doane had decided to work together on a “journey” from no later than their exchanges of texts on 28 March 2012: [56]. Mr Ashby had told Mr McArdle two days before that he had decided to press ahead with what the two had discussed on 2 February 2012: [55]. Mr Ashby’s text messages with his friends Martin, Mr Nagle and Ms Hubbard in early February 2012 revealed that what he was proposing as his course of action at that stage would “empower someone else definitely”. He asked Ms Hubbard whether by acting to empower that person he would be rewarded or condemned. He told Martin that what he was contemplating involved “national decisions”: [34]. The messages suggest that Mr Ashby was proposing using the record of his text messages with Mr Slipper for a political attack that would be the impetus for national decisions.

132 Mr Ashby and Ms Doane had decided by 29 March 2012 that Mr Ashby would make allegations of sexual harassment in legal proceedings against Mr Slipper and would assist Mr Brough and Mr Lewis to damage Mr Slipper in the public eye and political arena with any information they could find including using the requested diary entries together with any proceedings. Mr Ashby referred to seeing or using lawyers in his texts from about this time. Accordingly, I have inferred that he, Ms Doane and Mr Brough intended that Mr Ashby would bring proceedings against Mr Slipper alleging at least sexual harassment. Over the six previous months Mr Ashby had described Mr Brough to Mr Slipper in the most foul terms. He had also been considerably unflattering about Mr Lewis when discussing him with Mr Slipper. Yet, by 29 March 2012, Mr Ashby had confided in Mr Slipper’s political foe, Mr Brough, about being sexually harassed by Mr Slipper and sought Mr Brough’s help in obtaining a lawyer. Moreover, within a day or so Mr Ashby and Ms Doane were providing Mr Brough and Mr Lewis with copies of Mr Slipper’s diaries.

133 Once they had decided on their course of action, Mr Ashby and Ms Doane did not go straight to see a lawyer to air any concerns about any legal wrongs that either may have suffered. Instead, Mr Ashby or Ms Doane contacted Mr Brough and they began working with him and Mr Lewis. That was an act of disloyalty that they both knew was antithetic to their continuing to work for Mr Slipper. But they did continue. They asked Mr Brough to help them find a lawyer. They used their positions on his staff surreptitiously to copy and provide extracts from Mr Slipper’s diaries for periods in 2009 and 2010 at the requests of both Mr Brough and Mr Lewis. There is no evidence that Mr Ashby ever provided any of Mr Slipper’s diary entries concerning the 2012 Cabcharge allegations to anyone. Mr Ashby met Mr Lewis on 4 April 2012 and Mr Ashby so enthused Mr Lewis that the latter wrote “We will get him!!” just before flying to Sydney.

134 Objectively, the conduct of Mr Ashby in relation to Ms Doane, Mr Brough and Mr Lewis prior to the meeting with Mr Russell QC is consistent with Mr Ashby working towards a politically damaging attack on Mr Slipper. That conclusion is reinforced by the absence of any indication in the text messages recorded on Mr Ashby’s phone that indicate that he had expressed any concern, let alone distress, about any sexually harassing behaviour by Mr Slipper.

135 Mr Ashby asserted to Mr Harmer that his justification for his disloyalty as an employee in providing copies of Mr Slipper’s 2009 and 2010 diaries was that he wished to place the material in the public domain. That was, his assertion went, because he “believed that the conduct was morally and legally wrong and he felt aggrieved that he had been placed in the situation of becoming, as he understood it, exposed to (and potentially implicated in) what he regarded as the wrongful conduct of a public official”: [116] above. The words I have emphasised were ambiguous. If they referred to Mr Slipper’s conduct on the days covered by the 2009 and 2010 diary entries he surreptitiously sent to Mr Brough and Mr Lewis, there is no evidence to support Mr Ashby’s description or that he had any knowledge of particular conduct of Mr Slipper that was morally or legally wrong prior to him or Ms Doane sending the diary extracts to Mr Brough and Mr Lewis.

136 Notably, Mr Lewis had emailed Mr Brough on 29 March 2012 saying that he (Mr Lewis) “would be fascinated to see what his diary said for these dates, they involve some large outlays, and the destinations were … er .… unusual!!”: [58]. The fascination expressed by Mr Lewis did not warrant Mr Ashby acting at that time on the basis that the diary entries he and Ms Doane surreptitiously copied and sent showed any legal or moral wrongdoing by Mr Slipper. Rather, Mr Ashby’s and Ms Doane’s conduct at that point indicated that he and she were anxious to supply information to Mr Brough and Mr Lewis so that they could use it to assemble an attack on Mr Slipper, if they could find sufficient material to do so, using the diary entries and other evidence. Mr Lewis was raising questions – not answers. The diary entries by themselves, or even with Mr Lewis’ questions, did not reveal any legal or moral wrongdoing by Mr Slipper in relation to the occasions covered by the diary entries, even if they revealed a line of inquiry.

137 If the reference to “the conduct”, in Mr Ashby’s self-serving assertion to Mr Harmer, related to the subject matter of the Cabcharge allegations, Mr Ashby never asked Mr Slipper about the arrangements he had with the Sydney driver. Mr Ashby was ready, willing and able to assert himself and to protect his own position when he perceived Mr Slipper to compromise that, as the texts of 1 and 26 February 2012 demonstrated. I do not accept that Mr Ashby ever believed that Mr Slipper had acted in a legally or morally wrong way so as to compromise Mr Ashby in relation to his use of Cabcharge vouchers.

138 I am also satisfied that Mr Ashby and Ms Doane by about 29 March 2012 were in a combination with Mr Brough to cause Mr Slipper as much political and public damage as they could inflict on him. They believed and hoped that Mr Lewis would publish unfavourable stories about Mr Slipper concerning whatever they could help Mr Lewis find in relation to Mr Slipper’s use of his travel entitlements in the areas of Mr Lewis’ curiosity. That is why each of Mr Ashby, Ms Doane and Mr Brough were anxious to provide Mr Lewis with the diary entries he sought. It is not clear whether Mr Brough had passed on to Mr Lewis Mr Ashby’s foreshadowed complaint of sexual harassment in late March 2012. They also believed that Mr Lewis, and the media generally, would report on any legal proceeding against Mr Slipper in which Mr Ashby alleged sexual harassment. At this time, Mr Ashby and Ms Doane saw Mr Brough as their means of obtaining favour from the LNP in seeking new employment. It was obvious that once what Mr Ashby was then planning became public, he and Ms Doane could no longer work as members of Mr Slipper’s personal staff. The relationship of trust and confidence (if it still subsisted) between Mr Slipper and the two staff members would have been destroyed by their acts of calculated disloyalty.

139 The timing of Mr Ashby’s and Ms Doane’s actions immediately after 24 March 2012 is also significant. They believed that new job opportunities would open up to them after the LNP won government in Queensland on the weekend of 24-25 March 2012. If Mr Ashby could discredit Mr Slipper politically by helping Mr Brough and using Mr Lewis, he perceived that would gain favour for him and Ms Doane in the eyes of the LNP. Mr Russell QC may have disabused Mr Ashby of that perception on 6 April 2012. However, both Mr Ashby and Ms Doane acted on that basis before 6 April 2012 and she, at least, continued to do so later.

140 I also infer that Mr Ashby and Ms Doane perceived that once the dust had settled after Mr Ashby’s proceedings against Mr Slipper, they would have, what they perceived to be, the “black mark” of having worked for Mr Slipper removed and that this would open the way for the LNP or persons with whom Mr Brough and his allies appeared to have had influence, such as Mr Palmer, to give them favourable consideration for employment once again. Thus, on 30 March 2012, Ms Doane had emailed Mr Ashby about a future with “focussed careers with people we can be proud to affiliate our names”: [59], [66]. After the meeting with Mr Russell QC, Ms Doane continued to press Mr Brough for help in pursuing her opportunities. Thus, on 10 April 2012 she emailed him with her resume for consideration by Mr Palmer.

141 Mr Brough was unlikely to have been offering to assist Ms Doane and Mr Ashby in seeing Mr Russell QC for advice or looking for new careers out of pure altruism. Realistically, his preparedness to act for them was created and fed by their willingness to act against Mr Slipper’s interests and assisting Mr Brough’s and the LNP’s interests in destabilising Mr Slipper’s position as Speaker and damaging him in the eyes of his electorate. Mr Ashby wrote that he totally agreed with Ms Doane’s observation in texts on 30 March 2012 that what they were doing, seeking to bring the sexual harassment case would “tip the govt to Mal’s and the LNP’s advantage”. They also thought that meeting with Mr Russell QC would also be “[d]efinitely a good move for us” by aiding them in removing “the black mark from being” with Mr Slipper: [66]. By this time Ms Doane’s animus against Mr Slipper was pronounced, as her text expressing loathing of 3 April 2012 showed: [67]. Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est

Toxic Metrics

I had a delightful lunch today with an old and dear friend. He lives in the US and is hence is exposed even more to the culture of capitalism than we are in Oz. He introduced me to a new term, "toxic metric". A toxic metric put simply is a metric introduced as a way of measuring progress to something we really care about, but once introduced the metric becomes the target even as it starts to diverge from the actual goal. NAPLAN svhool progress testing is demonstrating this tendency in society. In business it is the call holding time statistic in call centres. Feel free to add to the list - and to promote the term.