The election draws closer and the prospect of an ALP win grows ever more real. The combination of the Liberal attack on the union affiliation of the ALP and a misinformed media is drawing attention to the question of how business can work with the ALP.
Jennifer Hewett in The Australian has attempted to describe the Labor party front bench as business friendly (Conservative Kev and worldly Wayne will keep the radicals under control 12 Sept, 2007), but in doing so has undersold the ALP frontbench and, presumably unwittingly, spread untruths about at least one of them.
First it should be understood that the Howard Government itself is not really a business friendly Government. In fact it is a big business friendly Government, and in this regard is looking more like the discredited United Australia Party than the “broad church” Liberal Party that Menzies created.
When business approaches Ministers the first thing we seek is understanding, because our interests are seldom well aligned to any philosophical stance. In this regard the ALP front bench is often better equipped than the coalition. Individuals with a predominant experience in industrial advocacy in my experience tend to understand the real business world better than a group of lawyers, even if those lawyers had a practice in commercial law.
In that regard the ALP front bench is more experienced and “business friendly” than the incoming coalition front bench of 1996. And let there be no mistake the ALP fully understands the relationship between a healthy economy and the need to do “good things”. This is a point understood as well by the left as the right of the ALP, no matter how hard the Hewett’s of the world try to draw comfort from the fact that Rudd and Swan are of the right. The only risk to that would be to continue to deny the ALP the opportunity to govern until we again encountered a wave of frustrated neophytes like we did in 1972.
On the specifics, Hewett claimed “[Lindsay] Tanner put many people off while as shadow telecommunications (sic) spokesman”. As the Head of Regulatory Affairs at one of Australia’s leading telcos in that period I can assure everyone that Tanner did, like every Minister and shadow, put Telstra “off”, but the industry as a whole saw a spokesman willing to grapple with issues and advance policy positions in the interests of all Australians. I believe the media industries that he also was dealing with as communications spokesperson shared the same view.
Of course, we are all at times disappointed that a Minister or shadow might not decide to pursue the course we individually promote. But the way you judge the person is whether your views were heard and considered. The only gripe I had with Tanner was when he “went soft” on the structural separation of Telstra on the verge of a House of Representatives inquiry called by then Minister Alston and subsequently abandoned. I believe Telstra on the other hand had been mightily “put off” that Tanner had advanced the option at all.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
APEC Bush and all that
As the time for the US President's arrival draws closer it is time to make a few comments about APEC.
The first is about the extraordinary security measures taking place in Sydney. In 1966 I stood (as a nine year old) on an awning of a Sydney building waving US and Australian flags to welcome LBJ - I still have the badge from that day. In 1991 George Bush Senior visited Australia and I recall a US consultant we were using at the time commenting on how fascinating it was to go watch Bush in Sydney because you could get much closer than you ever could in the US.
Today we have a riot proof fence through northern reaches of the city and multiple clearway routes for the President's arrival. Did the "world change" on 11 Sept 2001 or did we (or they) do something to change it.
One theory would be that global prosperity simply emboldens and provides the tools to the protesting/revolutionary groups. That is what Schumpeter would argue at least. An alternative theory is that the corporatised world, of which the US is the pre-eminent symbol, talks a lot about people, choice and democracy but in its concern for the atmomised ideal Individual has lost site of all the real individuals.
Now on to the second question, much asked on radio, "What are the protesters protesting about at APEC?" One answer is, of course, that they are the "anti-free-trade" crowd - a body that believes the object of free trade is the agrandisement of corporations and their share holders. But APEC isn't really a free trade group as such.
While I can't see any real reason to protest about APEC I can see lots of reasons to protest to many of the "economies" (as they are called in APEC lingo) in the grouping;
Brunei Darussalam - dictatorship (the worlds last sultanate), deforestation
People's Republic of China - human rights, pollution, workplace safety, death penalty
Hong Kong (see PRC)
Indonesia - deforestation, death penalty,endemic corruption
Japan - whaling, agriculture protection, not teaching the trutyh about WWII
Republic of Korea - workers wages and rights
Malaysia - arresting opposition leader, harbouring terrorists
New Zealand - holding the Bledisloe Cup (but that's about it)
Papua New Guinea - corruption
Phillipines - harboring terrorists
Russia - nuclear rearmament
Singapore - death penalty
Chinese Taipei (see PRC)
Thialand - dictatorship
USA - everything but start with Iraq, global warming, corruption, death penalty
I didn't tink of anything for Chile, Mexico or Peru - perhaps reflecting a lack of knowledge of the Americas - or Vietnam. In the case of Vietnam any problems they still have we can probably blame on someone else!
The first is about the extraordinary security measures taking place in Sydney. In 1966 I stood (as a nine year old) on an awning of a Sydney building waving US and Australian flags to welcome LBJ - I still have the badge from that day. In 1991 George Bush Senior visited Australia and I recall a US consultant we were using at the time commenting on how fascinating it was to go watch Bush in Sydney because you could get much closer than you ever could in the US.
Today we have a riot proof fence through northern reaches of the city and multiple clearway routes for the President's arrival. Did the "world change" on 11 Sept 2001 or did we (or they) do something to change it.
One theory would be that global prosperity simply emboldens and provides the tools to the protesting/revolutionary groups. That is what Schumpeter would argue at least. An alternative theory is that the corporatised world, of which the US is the pre-eminent symbol, talks a lot about people, choice and democracy but in its concern for the atmomised ideal Individual has lost site of all the real individuals.
Now on to the second question, much asked on radio, "What are the protesters protesting about at APEC?" One answer is, of course, that they are the "anti-free-trade" crowd - a body that believes the object of free trade is the agrandisement of corporations and their share holders. But APEC isn't really a free trade group as such.
While I can't see any real reason to protest about APEC I can see lots of reasons to protest to many of the "economies" (as they are called in APEC lingo) in the grouping;
Brunei Darussalam - dictatorship (the worlds last sultanate), deforestation
People's Republic of China - human rights, pollution, workplace safety, death penalty
Hong Kong (see PRC)
Indonesia - deforestation, death penalty,endemic corruption
Japan - whaling, agriculture protection, not teaching the trutyh about WWII
Republic of Korea - workers wages and rights
Malaysia - arresting opposition leader, harbouring terrorists
New Zealand - holding the Bledisloe Cup (but that's about it)
Papua New Guinea - corruption
Phillipines - harboring terrorists
Russia - nuclear rearmament
Singapore - death penalty
Chinese Taipei (see PRC)
Thialand - dictatorship
USA - everything but start with Iraq, global warming, corruption, death penalty
I didn't tink of anything for Chile, Mexico or Peru - perhaps reflecting a lack of knowledge of the Americas - or Vietnam. In the case of Vietnam any problems they still have we can probably blame on someone else!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Pauline's Back
Oh my god, not only is Pauline back but she can make a mess of journos - typically Karl on Today.
While evidently Karl apologised the next day for the interview, interviewing Hanson by attacking her is the wrong way to go. She needs to be asked harder questions, not belligerent ones...such as what are the imports that are damaging Australia's farmers? Does she think the price of food (or anything else) should go up.
That's the way to deal with her.
While evidently Karl apologised the next day for the interview, interviewing Hanson by attacking her is the wrong way to go. She needs to be asked harder questions, not belligerent ones...such as what are the imports that are damaging Australia's farmers? Does she think the price of food (or anything else) should go up.
That's the way to deal with her.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
My Day in Court
Today there was a directions hearing in the matter (File number NSD1515/2007) of Telstra taking the Minister for Communications, IT and the Arts to court to have almost all the documents involved in awarding the Broadband Connect funding to OPEL. Telstra's biggest gripe seems to be that the value available for tender was increased through the process and that they didn't get the opportunity to bid for this amount.
Having nothing else more important to do I went and had a squiz. Proceedings started with Justice Graham explaining to the court that he holds Telstra shares and T3 installment receipts, and that he has in the past represented Helen Coonan in an honorary capacity. He left it open to parties to file motions in relation to these declarations.
Counsel appeared for Telstra and the Minister, but also for OPEL who indicated that the documents applied for had a great deal of OPEL confidential information, and that OPEL may want to be heard on the question of relief or, if relief was granted, the terms of the access by Telstra to the documents.
The judge early in the proceedings asked of Telstra's counsel whether there was any likelihood of the application being amended, to which Telstra's counsel replied that the application had been subject to detailled preparation. The judge however still included in the timetable a time by which Telstra can submit an amended application. To the untrained observer it looked like a big hint that the terms of the application had been written too broadly and would fail as a "fishing" expedition.
The next question on timing was whether at hearing there would be evidence introduced or not, and the suggestion for counsel for the Minister that this might involve cross examination. Telstra indicated its only evidence would be the affidavit by Paul Smith filed by Telstra. This affidavit is not currently available to anyone other than the parties (until it is "read" in court) and Telstra also indicated it includes Telstra confidential information. (Note there are eleven Paul Smith's in Telstra - the one who has sworn the affidavit is probably Manger, Business Development & Support, Telstra Country Wide).
For the record, Telstra is applying under Order 15A rule 6 of the Federal Court Rules. These read:
Discovery from prospective respondent
Where:
(a) there is reasonable cause to believe that the applicant has or may have the right to obtain relief in the Court from a person whose description has been ascertained;
(b) after making all reasonable inquiries, the applicant has not sufficient information to enable a decision to be made whether to commence a proceeding in the Court to obtain that relief; and
(c) there is reasonable cause to believe that that person has or is likely to have or has had or is likely to have had possession of any document relating to the question whether the applicant has the right to obtain the relief and that inspection of the document by the applicant would assist in making the decision;
the Court may order that that person shall make discovery to the applicant of any document of the kind described in paragraph (c).
A lay reading of this is certainly that Telstra will need to more closely refine the scope of the documents to which access is sought. That would include outlining a little more clearly what the action they think they might be bringing might be (while I have some notes on this from today's proceedings thet didn't make sense in the end).
There is a whole sequence of orders - but the bottom line is that the hearing itself starts on 13 September and 3 days have been set aside for it. Oh what fun!
Having nothing else more important to do I went and had a squiz. Proceedings started with Justice Graham explaining to the court that he holds Telstra shares and T3 installment receipts, and that he has in the past represented Helen Coonan in an honorary capacity. He left it open to parties to file motions in relation to these declarations.
Counsel appeared for Telstra and the Minister, but also for OPEL who indicated that the documents applied for had a great deal of OPEL confidential information, and that OPEL may want to be heard on the question of relief or, if relief was granted, the terms of the access by Telstra to the documents.
The judge early in the proceedings asked of Telstra's counsel whether there was any likelihood of the application being amended, to which Telstra's counsel replied that the application had been subject to detailled preparation. The judge however still included in the timetable a time by which Telstra can submit an amended application. To the untrained observer it looked like a big hint that the terms of the application had been written too broadly and would fail as a "fishing" expedition.
The next question on timing was whether at hearing there would be evidence introduced or not, and the suggestion for counsel for the Minister that this might involve cross examination. Telstra indicated its only evidence would be the affidavit by Paul Smith filed by Telstra. This affidavit is not currently available to anyone other than the parties (until it is "read" in court) and Telstra also indicated it includes Telstra confidential information. (Note there are eleven Paul Smith's in Telstra - the one who has sworn the affidavit is probably Manger, Business Development & Support, Telstra Country Wide).
For the record, Telstra is applying under Order 15A rule 6 of the Federal Court Rules. These read:
Discovery from prospective respondent
Where:
(a) there is reasonable cause to believe that the applicant has or may have the right to obtain relief in the Court from a person whose description has been ascertained;
(b) after making all reasonable inquiries, the applicant has not sufficient information to enable a decision to be made whether to commence a proceeding in the Court to obtain that relief; and
(c) there is reasonable cause to believe that that person has or is likely to have or has had or is likely to have had possession of any document relating to the question whether the applicant has the right to obtain the relief and that inspection of the document by the applicant would assist in making the decision;
the Court may order that that person shall make discovery to the applicant of any document of the kind described in paragraph (c).
A lay reading of this is certainly that Telstra will need to more closely refine the scope of the documents to which access is sought. That would include outlining a little more clearly what the action they think they might be bringing might be (while I have some notes on this from today's proceedings thet didn't make sense in the end).
There is a whole sequence of orders - but the bottom line is that the hearing itself starts on 13 September and 3 days have been set aside for it. Oh what fun!
Monday, July 30, 2007
The Arts of Islam/Australian of the Year
My wife, Marg, and I nipped in to the Art Gallery of NSW today for the Arts of Islam exhibition. It was an interesting exhibition, nothing particularly stunning.
However, one important observation we made is the extent to which the exhibition demonstrated the multi-cultural facets of the arts. Not surprisingly really, since even Mohammed himself started out as a trader, and the subsequent Islamic empires reach into the sub-continent and Europe.
Marg made the observation that really all civilisations have been "multi-cultural", at least the ones under which there has been progress. Contrast the French uniculture under Louis XIV with the blossoming England in the period 1650 to 1750. (There is a book review I want to write here on a book called "The Last Revolution" - I'll get to it!).
When we sat down for lunch I collected some of those free postcards they distribute at places like that. One was an ad calling for nominations for Australian of the Year. I asked Marg if she could think of anyone worth nominating. While she was thinking I started "But I can't think of anyone who has done something for..." and paused, and Marg completed it by saying "humanity", which is exactly what I'd been thinking.
I'm sure there are lots of Australians worthy of this recognition for their work in delivering on human rights - they just don't seem to make the news. The only name I can come up with is Major Michael Mori - but he's an American!
Suggestions anyone!
However, one important observation we made is the extent to which the exhibition demonstrated the multi-cultural facets of the arts. Not surprisingly really, since even Mohammed himself started out as a trader, and the subsequent Islamic empires reach into the sub-continent and Europe.
Marg made the observation that really all civilisations have been "multi-cultural", at least the ones under which there has been progress. Contrast the French uniculture under Louis XIV with the blossoming England in the period 1650 to 1750. (There is a book review I want to write here on a book called "The Last Revolution" - I'll get to it!).
When we sat down for lunch I collected some of those free postcards they distribute at places like that. One was an ad calling for nominations for Australian of the Year. I asked Marg if she could think of anyone worth nominating. While she was thinking I started "But I can't think of anyone who has done something for..." and paused, and Marg completed it by saying "humanity", which is exactly what I'd been thinking.
I'm sure there are lots of Australians worthy of this recognition for their work in delivering on human rights - they just don't seem to make the news. The only name I can come up with is Major Michael Mori - but he's an American!
Suggestions anyone!
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Only one week to go
I felt a little sad at about 11:15 this morning, when as I was trudging off Brush Farm Park I realised that there is only one week left of regular season netball.
I'd just finished umpiring the little "modified" netball game that I do in winter. For those of you who don't know modified netball is a junior version with a few rule changers - e.g. defending from four feet not three and not standing out of play at a penalty, oh and shorter goal posts.
I decided to learn to be an umpire when my own kids were of that age (8,9) but in those days they played full rules. I was disappointed for them some weeks when their coaches had to double as umpires - so I decided to learn so that when they got to coach it would never happen to them.
So I learnt, but the club I played for was really good and made me go out and umpire! And after a couple of seasons I earnt my ERNA umpires badge. I mostly umpired C grade matches and was OK.
But then my daughters started to get umpiring qualifications and eventually my older daughter was the club's umpires convenor and I got moved to the modifieds, as she explained to the other convenors, she put her oldest and slowest on the modifieds.
Anyway, I still enjoy it a lot and it is the only local level community activity I do these days. There is a segue here to something political but I'll leave that for another post.
I'd just finished umpiring the little "modified" netball game that I do in winter. For those of you who don't know modified netball is a junior version with a few rule changers - e.g. defending from four feet not three and not standing out of play at a penalty, oh and shorter goal posts.
I decided to learn to be an umpire when my own kids were of that age (8,9) but in those days they played full rules. I was disappointed for them some weeks when their coaches had to double as umpires - so I decided to learn so that when they got to coach it would never happen to them.
So I learnt, but the club I played for was really good and made me go out and umpire! And after a couple of seasons I earnt my ERNA umpires badge. I mostly umpired C grade matches and was OK.
But then my daughters started to get umpiring qualifications and eventually my older daughter was the club's umpires convenor and I got moved to the modifieds, as she explained to the other convenors, she put her oldest and slowest on the modifieds.
Anyway, I still enjoy it a lot and it is the only local level community activity I do these days. There is a segue here to something political but I'll leave that for another post.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Ozpolitics on the net
I've been doing a bit of looking around at Australian politics on the net. I only have two politicians blogs in my blog roll - and I haven't had anyon yet tell me of better ones.
But one of the sites I have found is Oz Politics which is both a blog and as well a web site with a wealth of info. One of the interesting features is the test where the user gets given a series of questions from which an inference is drawn about the respondants position on three dimensions and an assessment of what party best suits you. I encourage you to do it if you haven't already, and if you have or do post a comment about it here.
You can see my results here. Nice to know I belong to the right party! However it is an intriguing result that a lot of ALP respondants are "assigned" to the Dems and Greens by the test - confirming my view that the modern ALP really is a conservative party.
It is a pity therefore that Oz Politics doesn't devote any space to these other parties in its guide section.
But one of the sites I have found is Oz Politics which is both a blog and as well a web site with a wealth of info. One of the interesting features is the test where the user gets given a series of questions from which an inference is drawn about the respondants position on three dimensions and an assessment of what party best suits you. I encourage you to do it if you haven't already, and if you have or do post a comment about it here.
You can see my results here. Nice to know I belong to the right party! However it is an intriguing result that a lot of ALP respondants are "assigned" to the Dems and Greens by the test - confirming my view that the modern ALP really is a conservative party.
It is a pity therefore that Oz Politics doesn't devote any space to these other parties in its guide section.
Bracks Retires
So Steve Bracks has retired/resigned as Premier of Victoria joining Gallop (WA on health grounds), Bacon (Tas on health grounds), and Carr. It was interesting to note that Steve Bracks' colleagues didn't want him to resign, as well we know Bob Carr's didn't. We also know that Gallop and Bacon's colleagues didn't either, though perhaps they accepted it a little more willingly.
So while John Howard has clung to Kirribilli House - I mean the Prime Ministership - four Premiers have departed voluntarily. And if any of them had used the standard "I will remain Premier so long as my colleagues want me to and it is in the best interests of the Labor Party" they would still be there.
Which just makes you think it is the wrong standard.
So while John Howard has clung to Kirribilli House - I mean the Prime Ministership - four Premiers have departed voluntarily. And if any of them had used the standard "I will remain Premier so long as my colleagues want me to and it is in the best interests of the Labor Party" they would still be there.
Which just makes you think it is the wrong standard.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
E-mail Joke
Courtesy of Jon Loosli
A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was:
"Would you please give your honest opinion about the solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was, not surprisingly, a huge failure because:
In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
In the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
A worldwide survey was conducted by the UN. The only question asked was:
"Would you please give your honest opinion about the solutions to the food shortage in the rest of the world?"
The survey was, not surprisingly, a huge failure because:
In Africa they didn't know what "food" meant.
In Eastern Europe they didn't know what "honest" meant.
In Western Europe they didn't know what "shortage" meant.
In China they didn't know what "opinion" meant.
In the Middle East they didn't know what "solution" meant.
In South America they didn't know what "please" meant.
In the USA they didn't know what "the rest of the world" meant.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
When is a Political Party not "the opposition"
Yesterday's Crikey reported that while the Liberal Party recently expelled Michael Danby for campaigning for the Christian Democrat Party, two leading Liberals, Tony Abbott and Greg Smith, will be addressing the party's conference.
Now the party itself says "As we look to the future, CDP is seeking to become a strong grass-roots Political Party. This weekend will motivate and inspire you to go back and serve God in your local community through CDP. We will be looking to conference together about the forthcoming Federal Election, and strategise on how to elect our first CDP NSW Senator, Paul Green, into the Australian Parliament." I wonder if any other Liberals are planning to address the party conference of political parties who are trying to knock Marise Payne out of a Senate seat!
Of course we know that Abbott and Smith are leading members of the LiberaL party - the one with no small l. Interesting to see their strategy once the right was unsuccesful in gaining the third spot on the Senate ticket.
It is interesting to note that while the Liberal and National Parties are in coalition I am not aware of any front bencher from one party ever addressing a conference of the other.
Howard's LiberaLs - curiouser and curiouser.
Now the party itself says "As we look to the future, CDP is seeking to become a strong grass-roots Political Party. This weekend will motivate and inspire you to go back and serve God in your local community through CDP. We will be looking to conference together about the forthcoming Federal Election, and strategise on how to elect our first CDP NSW Senator, Paul Green, into the Australian Parliament." I wonder if any other Liberals are planning to address the party conference of political parties who are trying to knock Marise Payne out of a Senate seat!
Of course we know that Abbott and Smith are leading members of the LiberaL party - the one with no small l. Interesting to see their strategy once the right was unsuccesful in gaining the third spot on the Senate ticket.
It is interesting to note that while the Liberal and National Parties are in coalition I am not aware of any front bencher from one party ever addressing a conference of the other.
Howard's LiberaLs - curiouser and curiouser.
Monday, July 16, 2007
What constitutes a glass jaw?
Crikey today lists a series of media appearances by the PM for which transcripts do not appear on the PMs website.
Now there is nothing saying he should - but it is a bit rough when in the desperate attemps to find something to criticise Rudd for his supposed "glass jaw" in relation to negative media is one of them.
Now there is nothing saying he should - but it is a bit rough when in the desperate attemps to find something to criticise Rudd for his supposed "glass jaw" in relation to negative media is one of them.
There is no small "l" in Howard's LiberaL Party
Sad news yesterday that my former colleague Paul Fletcher had lost the pre-selection battle for Cook 82-70.
While I think the Liberal party will suffer because (from personal experience) Paul would make a fantastic MP, the geater loss is the extent of the takeover of the Liberal party by the right.
The winner, Michael Towke, won using what is now a well worn Liberal party technique - the branch stack. But it was the modern "stack with twist". Moderates thought the stack was designed to support the incumbent and were surprised at the end by the nomination of Towke and the fact these votes would support him.
This is now familiar ground and follows what happened in Epping and Hawkesbury at the State election; and what happened with Alex Hawke getting pre-selected in Mitchell.
Howard doesn't know which way to turn. This is the party he has created - or rather this is the end stage of John Howard destroying the party Menzies created. The parallels between the Liberal Party today and the UAP of the 1940s are quite large.
It is not how Howard wanted to be remembered.
While I think the Liberal party will suffer because (from personal experience) Paul would make a fantastic MP, the geater loss is the extent of the takeover of the Liberal party by the right.
The winner, Michael Towke, won using what is now a well worn Liberal party technique - the branch stack. But it was the modern "stack with twist". Moderates thought the stack was designed to support the incumbent and were surprised at the end by the nomination of Towke and the fact these votes would support him.
This is now familiar ground and follows what happened in Epping and Hawkesbury at the State election; and what happened with Alex Hawke getting pre-selected in Mitchell.
Howard doesn't know which way to turn. This is the party he has created - or rather this is the end stage of John Howard destroying the party Menzies created. The parallels between the Liberal Party today and the UAP of the 1940s are quite large.
It is not how Howard wanted to be remembered.
Monday, July 09, 2007
Strange Bridge Hand
One of my hobbies is playing Bridge. This hand I got to play in Bridge Baron 14, hands were
N | S 9 8 |H A J 9 7 3 |D K 10 8 3 2 |C 6
E | S K 4 3 |H 10 8 5 4 |D Q 6 4 |C K 8 4
S | S A 6 2 |H K Q 6 2 |D A J 7 |C 7 3 2
W | S Q J 10 7 5 |H - |D 9 5 |C A Q J 10 9 5
Dealer North N/S Vulnerable
Bidding
N E S W
P P 1D 3C
3D 3NT Dl P
P P
South leads D7 - and can take 12 tricks for 2000 in penalties - enjoy.
N | S 9 8 |H A J 9 7 3 |D K 10 8 3 2 |C 6
E | S K 4 3 |H 10 8 5 4 |D Q 6 4 |C K 8 4
S | S A 6 2 |H K Q 6 2 |D A J 7 |C 7 3 2
W | S Q J 10 7 5 |H - |D 9 5 |C A Q J 10 9 5
Dealer North N/S Vulnerable
Bidding
N E S W
P P 1D 3C
3D 3NT Dl P
P P
South leads D7 - and can take 12 tricks for 2000 in penalties - enjoy.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Make Poverty History - ZeroSeven
I was given the opportunity today to represent Senator Lyn Allison at the Make Poverty History Roadtrip today. While there seemed to be some confusion with the RSVP I was allowed in.
The first observation is just how heart-warming it was to see so many young idealistic kids prepared to campaign for somthing as esoteric as Make Poverty Hitory. I just hope they have all enrolled to vote!
It was also fascinating to see the reception they gave to Kevin Rudd when he came on stage. He was his convincing yet - but making his commitment of foreign aid of 0.5% of GNI by 2015 was short of what the crowd wants.
Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja put the Democrat position well. We need to commit to the 0.7% - and sooner not later.
The first observation is just how heart-warming it was to see so many young idealistic kids prepared to campaign for somthing as esoteric as Make Poverty Hitory. I just hope they have all enrolled to vote!
It was also fascinating to see the reception they gave to Kevin Rudd when he came on stage. He was his convincing yet - but making his commitment of foreign aid of 0.5% of GNI by 2015 was short of what the crowd wants.
Senator Natasha Stott-Despoja put the Democrat position well. We need to commit to the 0.7% - and sooner not later.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Howard's Inaction
Saturday's SMH had two items, by Alan Ramsey and Michael Duffy, both of which point out that the Howard government had been alerted to the sexual abuse ad violence prblem years before.
What made it noteworhy that these writers are typically bastions of the left and right respectively, but on this point they agree - the Howard government move looks like a cynical stunt of the first order.
In today's Crikey Christian Kerr puts the blame on the PM's excessive reliance on Mark Textor. Textor's success over a number of elections has given him an aura of infalibility. But remember Cosby Textor were not successful in either the UK or New Zealand. It is startng to look like he migh be about to experience that in Australia.
What made it noteworhy that these writers are typically bastions of the left and right respectively, but on this point they agree - the Howard government move looks like a cynical stunt of the first order.
In today's Crikey Christian Kerr puts the blame on the PM's excessive reliance on Mark Textor. Textor's success over a number of elections has given him an aura of infalibility. But remember Cosby Textor were not successful in either the UK or New Zealand. It is startng to look like he migh be about to experience that in Australia.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
That Country Club
The brewing story of the week has been the appropriateness of the function John Howard hosted at Kirribilli House during the recent Liberal Federal Council.
The event was drinks on the lawn to which were invited all the conference delegates and the business observers. The focus has been on whether the business observers paying their $8,000+ were engaged in a fundraiser.
It is important to note that the Liberal Party did NOT promote the reception as being at Kirribilli House in any of the pre-event publicity. In fact there was blessed little pre-event publicity - I had to ask three times for the forms to be able to register and fork out my dough.
When you come to the function how much of a bait was it to have to queue for buisses from the Westin Hotel at 5pm for a 40 minute trip through peak hour traffic to get the opportunity to have drinks and canapes from 6pm to 7pm and then wind your way back on busses for the dinner back at the Westin. Many of the business observers, while appreciating the opportunity to see the "big house", were really questioning the use of their time sitting on busses for drinks that could have been held in the city.
So maybe the issue is not the imppropriety as such, but the simple lack of judgement. Perhaps it should have been reserved for the good folk of the Party and simply let us professional "hangers on" go home!
The event was drinks on the lawn to which were invited all the conference delegates and the business observers. The focus has been on whether the business observers paying their $8,000+ were engaged in a fundraiser.
It is important to note that the Liberal Party did NOT promote the reception as being at Kirribilli House in any of the pre-event publicity. In fact there was blessed little pre-event publicity - I had to ask three times for the forms to be able to register and fork out my dough.
When you come to the function how much of a bait was it to have to queue for buisses from the Westin Hotel at 5pm for a 40 minute trip through peak hour traffic to get the opportunity to have drinks and canapes from 6pm to 7pm and then wind your way back on busses for the dinner back at the Westin. Many of the business observers, while appreciating the opportunity to see the "big house", were really questioning the use of their time sitting on busses for drinks that could have been held in the city.
So maybe the issue is not the imppropriety as such, but the simple lack of judgement. Perhaps it should have been reserved for the good folk of the Party and simply let us professional "hangers on" go home!
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Button Up Burgess!
That was the heading of an excellent item by Stuart Corner on his iTWire newsletter site. The item starts "Telstra motor mouth, Phil Burgess, really has gone too far in his xenophobic rantings against Singapore, whose national carrier just happens to own Telstra's main rival."
The xenophobic pitch of Telstra really has gone beyond the pale, but the beauty of this post is that Burgess has had a crack at Singapore because it "executes people". Corner rightly points out that Burgess comes from a country that "executes people" and has just recently invested heavily in a country that "executes people".
What we can learn from this is that polling Telstra has done on Singapore tells them that Australians associate negative comments about Singapore with the execution of Van Nguyen in December 2005. Pretty pathetic really.
For those interested there was a related couple of comments to Crikey by Andrew Maiden from Telstra with a response from me.
You just have to say - Telstra is getting desperate when they call Investec "dodgy African bankers".
The xenophobic pitch of Telstra really has gone beyond the pale, but the beauty of this post is that Burgess has had a crack at Singapore because it "executes people". Corner rightly points out that Burgess comes from a country that "executes people" and has just recently invested heavily in a country that "executes people".
What we can learn from this is that polling Telstra has done on Singapore tells them that Australians associate negative comments about Singapore with the execution of Van Nguyen in December 2005. Pretty pathetic really.
For those interested there was a related couple of comments to Crikey by Andrew Maiden from Telstra with a response from me.
You just have to say - Telstra is getting desperate when they call Investec "dodgy African bankers".
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics - Part 2
On a completely different front - the Menzies Research Centre launched StateWatch yesterday, based on research by Henry Ergas.
The way the paper accompanying the launch, and the presentation, ran the claim was that the State Governments have received a "windfall" in GST revenue as this tax has grown at 7%p.a., that the States have been profligate in spending this as it has almost all been consumed in recurrent expenditure. The recurrent expenditure growth has been primarily consumed in paying higher wages. The higher wages haven't been matched by productivity improvements as we would expect in the private sector.
Which is all a bit strange really. Firstly 7% growth in the GST is not great really - it is a function of inflation and GDP growth.
More importantly, elsewhere the Government likes to claim credit for a 19% real wages growth since 1996. The State Governments as employers have to compete in the same labour market as anyone else and therefore have to follow this growth (unless the claim is the State Governments have led it, in which it is not a Federal Government achievement). So they had no choice where to spend it - the real claim is there hasn't been an improvement in productivity.
But even here we have extremely dodgy statistics. Firstly the measure for hospitals is hospital beds, whereas productivity improvement in hospitals is getting people through them faster...and this does continue to improve. I don't know how you can apply technology or work practices to teach more pupils with less teachers - and anyway reducing class sizes is what taxpayers want. Finally police forces are equally highly labour force driven.
So, nice try - but no cigar!
The way the paper accompanying the launch, and the presentation, ran the claim was that the State Governments have received a "windfall" in GST revenue as this tax has grown at 7%p.a., that the States have been profligate in spending this as it has almost all been consumed in recurrent expenditure. The recurrent expenditure growth has been primarily consumed in paying higher wages. The higher wages haven't been matched by productivity improvements as we would expect in the private sector.
Which is all a bit strange really. Firstly 7% growth in the GST is not great really - it is a function of inflation and GDP growth.
More importantly, elsewhere the Government likes to claim credit for a 19% real wages growth since 1996. The State Governments as employers have to compete in the same labour market as anyone else and therefore have to follow this growth (unless the claim is the State Governments have led it, in which it is not a Federal Government achievement). So they had no choice where to spend it - the real claim is there hasn't been an improvement in productivity.
But even here we have extremely dodgy statistics. Firstly the measure for hospitals is hospital beds, whereas productivity improvement in hospitals is getting people through them faster...and this does continue to improve. I don't know how you can apply technology or work practices to teach more pupils with less teachers - and anyway reducing class sizes is what taxpayers want. Finally police forces are equally highly labour force driven.
So, nice try - but no cigar!
Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics - Part 1
There has been much public debate about broadband over recent weeks and the Canberra Times ran a story which Helen Coonan latched onto to expose Labor's "Furphy" in the debate.
The central claim being that Labor was overstating the potential economic benefits of broadband by relying on a 2001 study, the bulk of the forecast benefits of which would already be achieved. A few days later we had a flurry of activity when Market Clarity questioned the validity of the broadband league table published by the OECD.
All this reflects how far away we are from the kind of debate that Telstra's Phil Burgess tells us is what he has been trying to encourage. In a speech to the Australia British Chamber of Commerce this week he talked admiringly of William Wilberforce and went on to explain his relevance to fact based public policy. While Phil then tried to provide a speech based on facts, unfortunately I think many of them fell into the categories above. My favourite remains the idea that high speed broadband will make mammography more widely available - cause it appears to me the investment limitter there isn't the specialist staff it is the cost of the bloody machine - but maybe I'm wrong. Hopefully Dr Phil's speech will make it unto Telstra's nowwewaretalking site (see links).
A small aside. The word "furphy" comes from a brand of water cart. These were used by Australian troops in WWI and it was at the cart that people would pick up and spread rumours. Furphy had a slogan on the end of the tanks on the carts that went "Good better best, we will never rest, till our good is better, and our better best" which was also the last brand campaign run by Telecom Australia before the merger with OTC and becoming Telstra!
I do seem to keep using that title though.
The central claim being that Labor was overstating the potential economic benefits of broadband by relying on a 2001 study, the bulk of the forecast benefits of which would already be achieved. A few days later we had a flurry of activity when Market Clarity questioned the validity of the broadband league table published by the OECD.
All this reflects how far away we are from the kind of debate that Telstra's Phil Burgess tells us is what he has been trying to encourage. In a speech to the Australia British Chamber of Commerce this week he talked admiringly of William Wilberforce and went on to explain his relevance to fact based public policy. While Phil then tried to provide a speech based on facts, unfortunately I think many of them fell into the categories above. My favourite remains the idea that high speed broadband will make mammography more widely available - cause it appears to me the investment limitter there isn't the specialist staff it is the cost of the bloody machine - but maybe I'm wrong. Hopefully Dr Phil's speech will make it unto Telstra's nowwewaretalking site (see links).
A small aside. The word "furphy" comes from a brand of water cart. These were used by Australian troops in WWI and it was at the cart that people would pick up and spread rumours. Furphy had a slogan on the end of the tanks on the carts that went "Good better best, we will never rest, till our good is better, and our better best" which was also the last brand campaign run by Telecom Australia before the merger with OTC and becoming Telstra!
I do seem to keep using that title though.
Monday, April 30, 2007
Climate Change and the Precautionary Principle
With apologies to Crikey I want to quote in full one comment from last Friday's edition.
Cameron Bray writes: Re. "Liar: Howard backs Bracks into a corner" (yesterday, item 8). There has been some talk about the precautionary principle at play in working out what to do about climate change -- on the basis consequences of doing something and being wrong about climate change are way less than doing nothing and being right. Taking this one step further, Australia is vulnerable if other countries decide to pursue the precautionary principle, regardless of what we do. John Howard's endless wittering about how he won't risk jobs to address climate change is dependent on other countries pursuing his blithe “she'll be right” approach as well. If the international community decides to take it seriously then some of our key industries may be in big trouble. To grab a few examples: There is already some evidence of a global downturn in long distance tourism. If other countries decide to tackle air travel as a way of reducing CO2, then the Australian tourist industry is stuffed, no matter if warmer water destroys the reef or not. As for the coal industry, if the rest of the world decides to pursue drastic change in power generation towards greener options, then our fat dirty brown coal mines will have no markets. And as for the logging industry, if international agreements pursue serious carbon sequestering and make agreements on the purchase of old-growth timber or products that industry is cactus too. So the Howard government’s approach is a double-ostrich stupidity; not only does the climate not have to change, but the structure of trade and markets have to remain as they are now as well.
What Bray is - rightly - saying is that Howard's line about any action being designed not to harm the Australian economy is just that, a line. It is inaction that will harm the Australian economy.
Cameron Bray writes: Re. "Liar: Howard backs Bracks into a corner" (yesterday, item 8). There has been some talk about the precautionary principle at play in working out what to do about climate change -- on the basis consequences of doing something and being wrong about climate change are way less than doing nothing and being right. Taking this one step further, Australia is vulnerable if other countries decide to pursue the precautionary principle, regardless of what we do. John Howard's endless wittering about how he won't risk jobs to address climate change is dependent on other countries pursuing his blithe “she'll be right” approach as well. If the international community decides to take it seriously then some of our key industries may be in big trouble. To grab a few examples: There is already some evidence of a global downturn in long distance tourism. If other countries decide to tackle air travel as a way of reducing CO2, then the Australian tourist industry is stuffed, no matter if warmer water destroys the reef or not. As for the coal industry, if the rest of the world decides to pursue drastic change in power generation towards greener options, then our fat dirty brown coal mines will have no markets. And as for the logging industry, if international agreements pursue serious carbon sequestering and make agreements on the purchase of old-growth timber or products that industry is cactus too. So the Howard government’s approach is a double-ostrich stupidity; not only does the climate not have to change, but the structure of trade and markets have to remain as they are now as well.
What Bray is - rightly - saying is that Howard's line about any action being designed not to harm the Australian economy is just that, a line. It is inaction that will harm the Australian economy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)