A comment on teacher shortages

This post will get me into trouble with so many people who will tell me that I don't understand teaching and the dynamics of school education. So I am going to try to write it more as a series of questions or 'alternative propositions', rather than as dogmatic statements of fact. 

But knowing me, I will forget to do that. So as you read this please read anything I say as a proposition not a conclusion. I am a fan of Socratic dialogue where thesis and antithesis produce synthesis. 

So let's start where I am on the safest ground. Simple economic theory of the labour market would suggest that if you have a shortage of labour to do a specified task you need to pay them more. That is the simple explanation in the context of  neoclassical market theory of value. We could be more general and say "reward them more" recognising non-monetary preferences of people such as respect. 

One could even add a wrinkle of the labour theory of value and note that it is no longer possible to convert a non-education degree into a teaching qualification through a one year Dip Ed, a two year Masters degree is now the requirement. So for someone who studies, say, science because that is what they like but at the end of the degree is trying to figure out what to do with it, the idea of getting the extra qualification to teach is seriously unattractive. You would expect a greater life time income to make up for the extra year of unearned input labour.

Both views of value, however, don't mean you necessarily have to increase pay rates over the teaching lifetime, an alternative is to bring forward the remuneration. That is simply more and larger payments to study - what we know better as scholarships. And these scholarships need to potentially be attractive to people already in the workforce. 

This last point is, of course, the reason why some people propose programs that allow peple skilled in a field to come to teaching by a pathway other than a two year Masters degree. Correctly they identify the challenging construct of putting these people to work as teachers before they have learnt how to teach. This, of course, is the challenge of all disciplines that require a skill rather than just knowledge. When do you first put the scalpel in the hand of a person training in medicine? When do you first allow a lawyer to argue a case before a judge? 

This is where the concept of "apprenticeship" comes in, and the expectation that student teachers will go to classrooms and try out their learning. There are serious questions to be asked about how this aspect of teacher education is carried out, and indeed, of how teachers are observed in the practice of teaching throughout their career. 

A recent contribution by some academics who teach teachers has reacted against proposals to fill shortages by getting trainee teachers to do more teaching. They have argued that the teacher training problem won't be sorted until we treat teaching as a profession not a trade. I want to say something as strong as "this is a thoroughly misguided notion", but will attempt to restrain myself and simply apply some analysis.

Firstly, the distinction between a profession and a trade isn't that in the latter you do an "apprenticeship", the major differences are in the depth of knowledge required to apply the skills and, largely as a consequence, the need for ongoing professional development. A related issue then becomes who should teach the discipline. The old dividing line between universities and the colleges (of advanced education or just teachers colleges) is that the teaching staff in Universities are also expected to be active researchers, the teaching is linked to new knowledge. 

There isn't really a clear dividing line between trades and professions, while we can easily identify plasterer as a trade close to one end of the scale and neurosurgeon as close to the other end, a whole host of skilled jobs sit in the middle. Accountants are a good example where the knowledge doesn't change much and it can be argued that changes to accounting standards are as much driven by the need to keep employing accountants as they are by the greater clarity provided to anybody by the resultant different financial statements. 

The article provided a very misleading view in its discussion of law and medicine, saying:

 In professions such as medicine, you develop specialist knowledge and expertise. Or you specialise as a generalist. But in teaching, teachers are largely required to develop expertise in all teaching methods, assessments and all aspects of student health and wellbeing.

And: 

We would not assume a high-school legal studies teacher, for example, would be able to become a lawyer without undertaking the appropriate tertiary study. So why do we imagine a lawyer can short-cut the education required to become a legal studies teacher?

Firstly we need to draw distinctions between specialist teachers and general teachers. All high school teachers are expected to be specialist teachers, while most primary school teachers are general teachers - though there may be specialists in language, music or other subjects.  And a review of any secondary teacher education curriculum shows that not all teachers develop expertise in "all teaching methods." 

I care most about the single biggest crisis area which is the teaching of mathematics. 1 in 4 year 8 students are being taught by a teacher whose major qualification was in a field other than maths, and 1 in 10 will never be taught by a qualified maths teacher and 75% will be taught at least once by such a teacher. This is a crisis that will snowball as less and less students finish secondary school with a sufficient level of mathematics to be able to progress to teaching the subject. 

So let's look at the lawyer analogy. Would I assume that a mathematician could walk into a classroom and successfully teach? No. But would I expect a maths teacher to be able to do mathematics? Absolutely. And the so-called short cut really means putting the trained mathematician in a classroom as part of (not instead of) their teacher education.

My suspicion is the problem lies elsewhere - it lies in the success of the teaching profession, and especially their educators, in trying to turn teaching into a profession. Certainly it isn't a "trade", but it may well be better described as a "craft". The word "calling" possibly comes closer. Good teachers try to become better teachers every day.

I had a quick look at the curriculum for the Bachelor of Mathematics Education and the Masters of Education (Secondary) at the University of Wollongong. I struggled to understand the principles of the education subjects in the undergraduate degree, such as the statement in the subject Education Foundations: Introduction to Teacher Education that "You will examine the nature of learning and how using research can improve your teaching practice". Does knowledge in education really advance as quickly as, say, the treatment of cancers? Or do we have a self-serving community of education academics that all got brought into the University system from the college system and to justify their existence are churning out volumes of poor quality research? 

I also struggled with how much education subjects crowded out mathematics or other disciplines in the Bachelor's degree but also the absence of a strand aimed at teaching mathematics in the Masters degree. 

In the comments on the original article people have mentioned that in medicine the education is conducted by practicing doctors. Indeed all the qualifications for specialisation are undertaken by the learned colleges, with instruction by both working doctors and academics. The core of the experience is being a registrar supervised by consultants in a hospital setting (or for GPs by a GP in their practice). Law schools do rely on practicing lawyers who also lecture as a way of providing some instruction, and your average lawyer is expected to start in a law firm closely supervised by a partner. Senior barristers (SCs) are required to be accompanied by a junior barrister on every brief as part of developing the barristers.

That isn't the way teacher education works. Teacher education is taking place in Universities, where teachers are trained by academics who theorise on teaching. As part of the course they are "exposed" to the classroom. The quality of the supervision they receive in those classrooms vary - but one would possibly understand "over worked" teachers using this as a form of relief from face-to-face teaching. They could satisfy their consciences on doing so by saying the student teacher needed to establish their own authority in the classroom, or not have the pressure of the master teacher being in the room. 

But does the surgeon let the student make their first incission while the surgeon is making a cup of tea? Does the silk leave the junior barrister to run the case while they prepare for the next case? Does the partner let the new solicitor provide an advice to a client without reviewing it?

So here is my alternative view. The way to both train better teachers and to improve teacher retention is to get teachers more involved in training teachers, and academics less so. For those Ministers who are scratching around for ways to better remunerate good teachers my suggestion is that you pay teachers who take on students and mentoring more. 

While we are at it, also reduce the workload of teachers being required to develop lesson plans and teaching resources. This is the definition of poor productivity having multiple people producing almost exactly the same goods that could have been produced by one and used by many. Proper textbooks provided by the state would be so much more efficient than the model of resources bought and photocopied. 

I know that teachers were horrified when NSW Minister Mitchell suggested this as developing lesson plans was the part of the job they liked. What we need is teachers who like being in the classroom facilitating learning.

But here is the challenge. The only people the Ministers can turn to for advice are the education academics whose answer will be based on the need for more research and more teacher education (not training). Unions have long promoted the greater professionalisation of the trade they represent, on the basis that higher skills entailed higher pay. 

But this is where reality hits. With an economy where 80% of activity happens in the service industry to get the productivity increase across the economy that will help us lift wages we need to lift productivity in the service industries. For decades education, especially school education, contributed to growing productivity by growing the skill levels of our workforce, largely just by greater retention rates. Productivity needs to come by geting better educational outcomes for less resources. 

A focus on teachers getting better at teaching, not lesson planning or administration, is the key to that. Teachers getting better at teaching has to happen at the workplace, not the University. A related proposition is that teacher education should be returned to the college model, and not be conducted by academics who are also researchers. 

Which would I prefer teaching mathematics, a qualified teacher who hasn't studied mathematics beyond school, or a mathematician who is using quality pre-prepared resources and being mentored and supervised by a teacher? The answer is the latter.  

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

Stage 3 Tax Cuts

The so-called Stage 3 Tax Cuts are a conundrum for the Albanese Government. As a reminder the cuts were legislated as part of a package in 2018 (hence Stage 3) and will cut the rate applying to incomes over $45,000 from 32.5 cents in the dollar to 30 cents and will extend that low rate all the way up to $200,000, abolishing an entire rung of the tax ladder paid by the highest earners. For those very high earners, the part of their income that was taxed at 37 cents will be taxed at 30, as will part of the rest that was taxed at 45 cents.

It was politically necessary for Labor to promise to honour the Stage 3 cuts going to the election, and it is a mantra after the election that they will keep their election commitments. However, circumstances change. While we knew about the break-out of inflation just before the election (but well after Labor made the commitment), it has been even more severe than expected at that time.

The RBA has consequently been raising the cash rate aggressively. It has been doing tis earlier than its original timetable of 2024 because the economic conditions changed. As stated in the famous dictum "when the facts change I change my mind, what do you do sir?"*

It is reasonable to wonder why a government would legislate for a tax cut so far in advance. One possible reason is to obtain the stimulatory effect of a tax cut while not facing the immediate fiscal consequence. Recall that growth in Australia in (calendar) 2018 was sluggish at best. With interest rates already low and inflation below the target band, the RBA was urging government to stimulate the economy. 

So much changed with the pandemic's arrival in 2020. Interest rates further cut, stimulatory spending by government on an unprecedented scale and massive change to the structure of economic activity, including the now familiar "supply chain pressures". To this already explosive cocktail President Putin added a war that has sent energy prices soaring. 

From the perspective of the economy the facts have changed, so it would be reasonable to change one's mind on the tax cuts. But is it politically feasible.

The Essential Report today shows that 44% of rspondents are very concerned about inflation, while another 44% are somewhat concerned. In the same survey 42% supported "delaying" the stage 3 tax cuts, and only 25% opposed such a move. It is unclear what "delaying" the tax cuts would mean to voters.** 

What seems to be both essential for the economy and politically feasible is some fine tuning of the stage 3 measure. The first needs to be about more effectively addressing the effects of bracket creep at the bottom of the scale. The second needs to be about not excessively reducing tax for households that will spend extra on discretionary expenditure. 

That would entail a shift upward of the taxfree threshold of $18,200 and the top of the 19% rate from $45,000. The mathematics needs to work backward to calculate the point at which the revised tax free threshold would give a tax payer the same total saving from the reduction of the 32.5% rate to 30% as currently legislated. The most critical change is to not abolish the 37% rate, but its range should be expanded, possibly cutting in at $130,000 and cut out at $200,000. 

These need to be sold as temporary measures to address the immediate needs of targeting the benefits of tax cuts to the households most experiencing 'cost of living pressure.' The longer term tax policy needs to be grounded in yet another review, but this one should be premised on no changes to the tax system until after the next election. 

I wouldn't like to be Jim Chalmers, but no change to Stage 3 seems to be an untenable position. 

* Sometimes attributed to Winston Churchill or John Maynard Keynes, quoteinvestigator attributes it to Paul Samuelson. In doing so they note another case in which Samuelson referred to it as having been said by Keynes, but no other evidence has been found. It is notable that Samuelson's use was on the topic of inflation.

** The results of the Essential Report survey need to be handled with caution. 65% of respondents said that they had heard hardly anything or nothing at all about the proposed Voice to parliament in the last month, so they are possibly not a group most across contemporary political reporting, though this may be generally representative of the population. . Regardless of what they heard 65% supported the proposed voice.  

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

The Voice

I cannot match Prime Minister Albanese's eloquence in his speech at the Garma Festival that released his initial view of the constitutional question and provisions to give effect to the Voice requested by the Uluru Statement from the Heart. But I can respond to his invocation:

All Australians have the chance to own this change, to be proud of it, to be counted and heard on the right side of history.

I want to be counted and heard as being on the right side of history on this matter. However, to be successful the Prime Minister needs to do more than invoke a sense of justice in calling for support for his proposal. For evidence he need look no further than indigenous voices in the Senate that do not yet support the creation of the Voice. They come from two sides; one argues the voice is mere symbolism, while the other argues that treaty is more important than voice.

The first view comes from Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, who in her first speech this week said:

It is the same attitude we hear with platitudes of motherhood statements from our now Prime Minister, who suggests, without any evidence whatsoever, that a voice to parliament bestowed upon us through the virtuous act of symbolic gesture by this government is what is going to empower us. This government has yet to demonstrate how this proposed voice will deliver practical outcomes and unite, rather than drive a wedge further between, Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australia.

This is a reasonable position, how can we believe the Voice will make any tangible difference. However, the Senator's views at times seem confused. 

On the one hand she says "I am an empowered Warlpiri Celtic Australian woman who did not need and has never needed a paternalistic government to bestow my own empowerment upon me" and "I believe in small government, which equates to small bureaucracy, so that Australians may get on with their lives more effectively." 

On the other hand she bemoans two acts this week - the end of the grog bans from the intervention and the end of the cashless welfare card. Both of these are examples of interfering big government telling communities the solutions appropriate to them. Hopefully the opportunity for community based alcohol bans and for optional cashless welfare cards will not be lost. 

Senator Lidia Thorpe has explained her opposition to the Voice because she believes we need to start with truthtelling (that there is an unfinished war) and a treaty (to end that war) -- in this she also explains how she thought the statement was prepared by an insufficiently representative group. She also believes the referendum will fail because of opposition from indigenous people.  

When we get to the wider community there are equally confusing arguments, including:

1. It is a racially discriminatory law.
2. It is just symbolism, it doesn't change anything. We need to focus on the domestic violence and sexual acts on children first. 
3. It is more than symbolism and damages our democracy.
4. There isn't enough detail on what we are voting for.

In this I am reminded far more of the politics of climate change than I am the referendum on the republic. The former was serious stuff, while the latter was mostly symbolic. (Indeed, we should stop talking about the republic referendum in the same breath as the referendum on the Voice).

In his book Power Failure Philip Chubb argues that a reason why the Rudd government failed in implementing climate policy was that it failed to keep reminding the public why it was important. Similarly, it is not enough for Albanese to rely on existing levels of support, he needs to ensure support continues. 

To do that I think he needs to embrace Noel Pearson's "three epic strands in the grand narrative" which Peter Hartcher reminds us Peter Dutton quoted this week. Pearson's succinct statement, made at the conclusion of his speech to the 50th annversary dinner for The Australian newspaper on 15 July 2014 were:

Our nation is in three parts. There is our ancient heritage, written in the continent and the original culture painted on its land and seascapes. There is its British inheritance, the structures of government and society transported from the United Kingdom fixing its foundations in the ancient soil. There is its multicultural achievement: a triumph of immigration that brought together the gifts of peoples and cultures from all over the globe — forming one indissoluble commonwealth.

Hartcher doesn't record whether Dutton also quoted the final sentence Person uttuered:

We stand on the cusp of bringing these three parts of our national story together — our ancient heritage, our British inheritance and our multicultural triumph — with constitutional recognition of indigenous Australians. This reconciliation will make a more complete commonwealth.

The story is, of course, that the Uluru Statement arose out of that process. 

And this statement gives us the important response to the first objection. The proposed Voice isn't based on race but sovereignty. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are being given this recognition because this country belonged to their ancestors. Then the British came, uninvited, as soldiers, convicts and then free settlers. They brought with them diseases that devastated populations, they took the land and resources, and, yes, they killed those who resisted.

Inca Clendinnen's excellent Dancing with Strangers attempts to understand the coming together of the inhabitants of the area around Sydney Harbour and the new arrivals in January 1788. Though she only has the recollections of the British to work from, she describes two distinct cultural shocks. 

The first was the communalism of the locals confronting the British concept of property. The aboriginal people let the British fish in their harbour and rest on their land, but were surprised when the British stopped them acedssing the food in the stores. 

The second was the astonishment of the locals at the barbarity of the invaders; where the locals used ritual spearing the British flailed men's backs with whips. (This should be contrasted with Senator Nampijinpa Price's description "We have a foundation of a sophisticated but brutal culture, where it was kill or be killed over resources such as water, women and later livestock—food for survival—or from doing the wrong thing like marrying the wrong way or sharing knowledge that's not yours to share". Whether Clendinnen misrepresents the first nation people around Sydney, or the Senator is misinterpretting her own nation's experience, or whether this is an example of cultural difference across first nations I don't know.)

I don't want to reignite the debate over aboriginal history and the extent of "frontier wars", but to deny there were killings is naive. To do so on the basis that the only truth is the records of the colonisers is deceitful. I offer as evidence only a passng reference in the preface to A Tale of South Australia During the Gold Fever. The authorship of this book is credited to Clara Morrison, but its real author was Catherine Helen Spence whose main claim to fame was as a leader of the campaign for female suffrage in the 1890s. The book itself is the story of how a South Australian town survived when all the men went off to the Victorian goldfields. The preface, describing how the men made the journey to the goldfields, said:

Others, again, pursued the shorter but more adventurous roue, across the inhospitable region which separates the two colonies, startling the wild tribes of the interior by their apparition, and leaving occassionally behind them small mounds of earth to mark the place where the strong man had bit the dust. 

We do not need to belabour the extent of this killing, we don't need to debate the technicalities of whether this is self-defence or what degree of force a land owner (the indigenous) are entitled to use against a tresspasser. But it happened. 

As the PM said "we have cast aside the discriminatory fiction of terra nullius" (the High Court did that). What we haven't done is engaged with the consequence of the action taken by those acting in the name of the British Monarch. We can't undo history, but we can acknowledge past wrongs and seek to put it right.

A common response is to argue that past wrongs are over-compensated for by current benefits. This is framed as the benefits brought to the country by Western civilisation, its institutions and its science. This defence, unfortunately, ignores the distribution of those benefits which flow mostly to the colonisers not the dispossessed.  

It is acknowledgement of this entrenched indigenous disadvantage that lies at the heart of  the second objection; the Voice as mere symbolism that it won't change anything. 

There are two parts here. The first is to call out the focus of some on one aspect of indigenous disadvantage, alleged high rates of domestic violence and sex crimes against children. Focussing on this aspect of disadvantage rather than the whole context of health, education, housing has the consequence of placing the focus on first nations people as somehow inherently evil. 

The second part is to recognise that this misses the point of "for what" the Voice is being created. This, perhaps willfully, misrepresents what the Uluru Statement said about the Voice:

We seek constitutional reforms to empower our people and take a rightful place in our own country. When we have power over our destiny our children will flourish. They will walk in two worlds and their culture will be a gift to their country.

We call for the establishment of a First Nations Voice enshrined in the Constitution.

First Nations want things to be better, they want to be empowered to make them better, and they want the constitutional protection that this voice cannot be taken away. Here it is appropriate to talk of ATSIC.

Wikipedia tells us:

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) (1990–2005) was the Australian Government body through which Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were formally involved in the processes of government affecting their lives, established under the Hawke government in 1990. A number of Indigenous programs and organisations fell under the overall umbrella of ATSIC.

The agency was dismantled in 2004 in the aftermath of corruption allegations and litigation involving its chairperson.

The reason why First Nations don't want just a new body is so that it can't just be taken away. The reason we need to not put too much detail in the Constitution is the body may need reform in the future to keep it contemporary and effective. 

The interesting part is that the Uluru Statement itself wasn't very specific about the nature of the Voice. The Indigenous Voice Co-design Process: Final Report to the Australian Government of July 2021 makes interesting reading on this point. It envisions a voice that is composed of local and regional voices building up to the national voice. The intention of these different geographic voices isn't just to be part of a representation structure getting to the national voice, it is for those voices to engage directly with appropriate government and other bodies on matters of local and regional significance. 

This is an important part of the aspiration for the Voice. That said, the three propositions that the PM has proposed to be included in the Constitution are not, to my mind, enough. He has proposed:

1. There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.
2. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.
3. The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to the composition, functions, powers and procedures of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

My first difficulty is the name - the Uluru Statement called it the "First Nations Voice". This has a benefit over the ATSI version in two ways. The first is the breaking of a connection to ATSIC, and the inevitable reference to it as ATSIV. The second is that it reminds us of the great diversity of cultures and experiences that exists in the First Nations. 

The big difficulty I have though  is that anybody in the nation may "make representations to Parliament and the Executive Government". My preference is that the second clause come third and that it be strengthened to say that the Parliament must make laws providing for the right of the Voice to table a document in the Parliament and for a representative of the Voice to address the Parliament on any matter relating to the well-being of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Peoples. 

This provision provides meaning to the concept of "may make representations" and guarantees that representations will be heard. It also tightens the language to focus very specifically on the concept of the well-being of first nations people, because quite frankly everything government does relates (potentially) to any person. 

The third and fourth points can only be addressed by providing more than just the warm inner glow of their being a Voice. If the Co-Design Process had clearly landed on a design then the simplest process would have been for the Government to enact, along with the Act to change the constitution, a Voice Establishment Act that would commence on the constitution amendment being ratified. 

However the Co-Design Process didn't do that and instead called for more work to build the local and regional elements first. This can be the first tasked assigned to a body that could be legislated to come into existence with the passing of the amendment. The body should be designated the Interim First Nations Voice and should be composed of appointed members. It should otherwise look a bit like the proposals for the national voice and be composed initially of two representatives from each State and Territory and be supported by its own Office of the National Voice. 

The principle task of the Interim First Nations Voice would be to work with State and Territory governments to implement the model of local and regional voices, and, once they are established, work with the local and regional voices to finalise the model for the national voice to be provided as a recommendation for enactment by the Parliament. 

To put it simply, the Government could legislate for the process to establish the voice as the element of providing greater clarity.  There needs to be more concrete planned action at the time of the constitutional amendment. 

  

*********************************

If not now, when?

The United States and Guns

The rest of the world looks on in horror every time there is another mass shooting in the United States. Unfortunately, mass shooting is only one aspect of this carnage.

Pew Research reports that in 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. Suicides account for more than half of these deaths (54%). 

"Mass shootings" are not consistently defined but only account for about 2.5% of murder by gun shot. The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people are shot, even if no one was killed (again excluding the shooters). Using this definition, 513 people died in these incidents in 2020.

Given that the massive gun death toll doesn't move the dial, it is unsurprising that another mass shooting in unlikely to lead to gun control reform. Indeed, the theory that the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun probably explains why Republican states ease gun laws after mass shootings.

The issue from where I sit is that no one seems prepared to take on the core issue, which is the 2nd Amenment itself, which reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Unfortunately for the US, the Supreme Court has not seen fit to limit the right to bear arms to the intent of the amendment - that is to limit the right to the Militia. Effective gun control may be possible by leaving the 2nd Amendment largely untouched but change it around to the right of members of the Militia to bear arms shall not e infringed. An amendment could add to the the powers of the Congress the ability to make laws about how the Militia is identified, trained and armed. 

The amendment process itself is laid out in Article V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...

Interestingly this means there are four ways to make amendments:

1. A proposal by Congress with ratification by state legislatures.
2. A proposal by a convention of states with ratification by state conventions.
3. A proposal by a convention of states with ratification by state legislatures.
4. A proposal by Congress with ratification by state conventions.

The first is the method that has been used for all but one of the amendments. The fourth method was used for the 21st Amendment (which repealed the 18th Amendment, ending Prohibition).

The fourth method would be a challenge given the Republican position, but if there ever was a time to introduce a Bill and have it debated that time is between now and the mid-terms. The gun lobby is not as big as people think, and a well structured debate about not disarming militia's nor deny individuals the right to self-defence but the elimination of assault rifles would have to stand a chance.

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

The 2022 Election

As we sit in the idle time between the excitement created by Saturday night and the accompanying electoral hangover of Sunday and the eventual return of the Writs and a return to the business of governing, every pundit has been out giving their explanation of the significance of the vote. Why should I be any different?

My first observation is that the ALP's 2022 campaign only looked like a small target campaign compared to the insanity of the 2019 campaign. A strong narrow focus on issues that mattered -- climate, Uluru, childcare, aged care, medicare, wages -- meanbt that the press gallery and the coalition couldn't find loose ideas  to distract Labor with. Even with the so-called 'stumbles' Labor never missed a beat on its narrative, nothing distracted from it.

This resulted in the rambling Morrison, the Morrison who tried to bully Albanese in debates one and two. The joy was watching Albanese get stronger by the day when dealing with the gallery. Letting a journalist who wants to keep interuptting the answer to their own question keep talking till they have revealed they had no question, only an answer they wanted to give. Today he went one further just telling a journalist that shouting wouldn't get them the call any earlier.

The second is the over-reach of the Teal independents and the Greens who have both started demanding that Labor increase its target for emissions reduction by 2030 to 60% not 43%. Both talk vaguely about the PMs need to reach an agreement with trhem on confidence and supply. But Albanese not only expects to have a majority in the House of Representatives, he announced today that he already has the agreement of the contiuing cross bench for support on confidence and supply.

And while Labor plans to legislate its target, they don't have to. So attempts to insist on 60% in legislation simply will result in Bills being withdrawn. And Albanes has already turned his focus to the great alliances - the bringing people together - that matters. That is internationally with the Quad meeting inconveniently organised by Morrison already, the jobs summit and the face to face meeting with Premiers and Chief Ministers.

I have suggestion on all four of these topics later. But in the midst of this triumphalism, it is important to realise that politics is changing in this country. Both major poltical parties (or groupings) have experienced a steady decline in their primary vote since the Second World War. 

This is not the place to discuss that trend - just to acknowledge it. I have heard some trying to suggest Labor's continuing decline was strategic votng by Labor voters to ensure that Labor finished behin the Teals and thus ensured Liberal defeat. It is a grand theory, and there is potentially evidence in large swings from Labor in Wentworth and Mackellar and poosibly Hughes and Hume. But swings in Fowler were two to three times bigger. Werriwa, Cunningham, Whitlam and Parramatta sizeable. And those swings to the Teals may just have been genuine swings - the progressive middle class finding something even better than Labor as a vehicle for their causes. 

But just as Labor needs to take stok, so must the Greens whose achievement of three new HoR seats (possibly) and Senators from each State leader Adam Bandt described as a 'mandate' for their agenda. We'll see your four seats Adam, and raise it by 72. 

Now to strategies and tactics. 

Climate

Albanese can and should immediately notify the UNFCCC that Australia has a new NDC of a target of  43% by 2030, and an ambition for 60%. That is we guarantee we will get to 43% and are in the process of wotrking on how to over achieve that. He then needs to recreate the machinery necessary for this by either refunding the Climate Change Authority or more radically embrace Stegall's Climate Change Authority. He needs to get the Premiers and Chief Ministers to agree to the inclusion of emissions reduction as an objective of the Australian Energy Market Agreement (it already partially is) and to change energy market governance. Submitting as the Network of Illawarra Consumers of Energy I made a case for new governance arrangements. 

Federation Reform

The biggest compliance cost to business of any size is the need to comply with different State laws and regulations where there is no need for these variations. Decades of faffing around with things like mutual recognition has had no effect, only clear simplification of the ability of the Commonwealth to take over responsility for activities will resolve anything.

National Security

What happened to China since the days when Tony Abbott invited President Xi to address the Parliament is Donald Trump. His aggressive anti-China stance, leading with tariffs but also concerted attempts to block their tech companies' growth, created a reaction in China. We need to restart the conversations tha Keating created with APEC. We need to acknowledge that the well-being of the citizens in South East Asia and the Pacific Island nations is a shared responsibility of the leading economies in the region. After all, the island nations will be facing serious threats under climate change. China can be welcomed as a strategic partner. 

At the same time someone needs to get each of the Government's in Beijing and Taipei to relinquish their idiotic claims that they are the Government of all of China. The partition has existed for over seventy years now. Eliminating wars based on disputed territory should be the UNs number one goal globally. 

Jobs

We have a ridiculous situation of an official unemployment rate of 4% (3.9%) but an underutilisation rate of 10%. 6% of the Australian workforce is in receipt of JobSeeker payments. Yet the business community moans about a lack of 'skilled workers.' But when people want to tell me that cooks and waitstaff are skilled staff we need to bring in from overseas (because we traditionally have) my response is that we need to pay the workers more, and we need to train more. So in every sector where there is a demonstrated shortage of skilled staff provide a training subsidy to employers. 

To the extent that temporary immigrants are a solution the visa processing delays need to be alleviated immediately by adding more staff. But at the same time the visa system needs massive review to simplify it. 

But Labor's biggest idea here is Jobs and Skills Australia. Clearly Albanese is keen to get this and the summit underway, it is one of the reasons he swore in Richard Marles as employment minister today. (Yes I know the entire press gallery believes he wants to be Minister for Defence. Reality is almost no one ever progresses to greatness from that portfolio - if he wants a crack at being Albo's successor he needs to do employment well. It will cretainly have far more profile than Defence. 

Inflation

Inflation can be a good thing for an economy. It provides an environment in which relative prices can change more rapidly. The trick is to ensure inflationary pressures are eased on the goods and services that are genuinely essential and have little discretionary aspect. Inflation can also erode the size of the ational debt in real terms.

Equally the idea of targeting 2-3% was never based in any science. So the Government can afford to set a revised target for the RBA to keep inflation within a 2-5% band. 

Housing

By all means continue with existing programs, but what is really required is old fashioned public housing and it needs to be available in every LGA. This is one of those things he needs to deal with the Premiers on. 

Governance

Apart from cutting the consulting budget and hiring more public servants, Albanese also needs to tell the public service that he expects them to provide advice to his Ministers about risks or vulnerabilities in a policy even though Ministers may not like to hear it. 

That is enough of a list to get on with. 

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

What excites Scott Morrison about a university

PM Scott Morrison went to the Central Coast yesterday to open a new facility of the University of Newcastle. After talking about the dream catcher that one of his daughters hung over their bed, he gave us, in one inspired moment of Prime Ministerial sludge, a commentary on his idea of a university.

But for that to work, you've got to have a community base of infrastructure and services. And what makes all of that work, is an economy that can support that. And what excited me about this as Treasurer, I wasn't the Minister for Health, I was the Treasurer, and a university sits at the heart of pretty much every successful economic regional plan you care to nominate anywhere in the world, let alone in Australia. But not any university that, you know, keeps itself separate from the rest of the community and walks around in gowns and looks down on everybody. And, you know, only looks at things that are remotely interesting to anyone. It's a university that's very practical and understands the opportunities, whether it's in science or medicine or in any other areas or fields of enquiry and research, and is raising up a workforce and a generation of people that can actually transform the region in which they're living. Now that's what the University of Newcastle’s been doing.

The campus has been here for many years. But what captivated me in that original meeting - I don’t know if ever I’ve told you this - was that vision of the University of Newcastle to be really a, a university for the whole Central Coast Hunter region, and to be firing up the enterprises that are across the Central Coast and the Hunter to bring the best possible researchers into these universities in regional areas that make them world leaders.

And I I agree with you, and Christopher would be over the moon that you mentioned him today, but as for the Members of Parliament they’ll all know Christopher Pyne well, he loves a mention. But Christopher was right. And when I look at our regional universities, I get really excited. I get excited about the University of Newcastle. I get excited about the other universities like University of Western Sydney or the University of Wollongong or or Griffith or all of these, Deakin and so on, because what I find in those universities, and forgive me, Lucy, if this is a bit off topic, is I see a dynamism, I see an innovation, I see an engagement with industry and the community, and I see a connection to the services. And this is what I want for universities in Australia. I don't want them to be remote. I want them to be part of the community in which they sit. And not just, and I mean, the the economy of that community.

To break this down, he claims:

A university sits at the heart of pretty much every successful economic regional plan you care to nominate anywhere in the world. Not a university that keeps itself separate from the rest of the community and walks around in gowns and looks down on everybody. Not a university that only looks at things that are [only] remotely interesting to anyone.

It's a university that's very practical and understands the opportunities, and is raising up a workforce and a generation of people that can transform the region in which they're living.

And when I look at our regional universities, I get really excited. I get excited about the University of Newcastle, the University of Western Sydney, the University of Wollongong, Griffith ,Deakin and so on, because what I find in those universities, I see a dynamism, I see an innovation, I see an engagement with industry and the community, and I see a connection to the services. 

And this is what I want for universities in Australia. I don't want them to be remote. I want them to be part of the community in which they sit. And not just, and I mean, the the economy of that community.

That the PM seems to have decided to have no prepared remarks, and has thus delivered tortured and barely meaningful language, might be his way of trying to be 'authentic' on this occassion. Instead it comes across as someone not really caring at all about the event. The thrust of the overall remarks is that the new facility exists because the people of the Central Coast had the wisdom to elect a Liberal member.

But the comments about universities are quite telling. Firstly the PM draws this distinction between practical, locally connected universities and some other kind of university which keeps itself separate from the rest of the community. In the context, he is pretty much describing the G8 universities - Australia's equivalent to the UK's sandstone universities (mostly). The PM himself is a graduate of one of these (UNSW). I wonder at his University experience - I seriously doubt any academics walked around in gowns in his days as a student, let alone today. 

And it is this overreach on the question of gowns that makes the rest of the blather about these universities (looking down on everybody and only looking at things that are only remotely interesting) just appear incongruous.

We are left asking the question of whether the PM really believes these 'other' universities really exist, or whether it is a rhetorical device used to ensure that those who dislike all universities don't dislike this particular funding opportunity. 

And there are people who seem to 'dislike all universities.' These are the people wo talk of 'the march of the left through our institutions' and see universities as breading grounds of left-wing ideologies and socialist activists.  

I am personally a great fan of regional universities, for a host of reasons. I would prefer to see a shift in the undergraduate population away from the G8 to the regional. But my reasoning is demographic, it is one way of taking some population out of the capital cities, and maybe encouraging more people to live permanently outside these cities.  Or, in the case of city fringe universities like Western Sydney University, to create economic activity away from the historic city centre.

TIf the PM is genuine in the last part of his remarks, that he has some kind of genuine aspiration for universities to be part of the community in which they sit, what policy framework can he point to that is trying to develop this connection? A grant made to a University that sits in a Labor held electorate to open a facility in a nearby marginal coalition held electorate looks more like pork than policy. 

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

Climate Change, National Security and the ADF

One way to view the role of government is that it delivers four fundamental securities; national, personal, economic and social. National security is the foremost protection, defending the citizenry from interference with their rights by another nation. Personal security is the analogue of this and includes defending citizens from infringement by other citizens. Economic security aims to provide a continual increase in material wellbeing of the citizenry, while social security aims to provide for citizens unable to provide for themselves. 

In many ways politics is defined by the different views on how each of these should be viewed.

Events over recent weeks provide a platform for examining some of these issues. The Russian invasion of Ukraine commencing on 24 Fenruary raises important questions about national and economic security. The flood events in South East Queensland and Eastern NSW starting on 28 February raise important issues about personal and social security. This post is going to focus on the inter-relationships between the four securities.

The far away events in Eastern Europe are already having a dramatic impact on Australia. As outlined in an excellent article by my friend Claire Connelly in The Saturday Paper today, the application of economic sanctions against Russia, including on oil and gas exports, is driving up global prices. Claire makes the point that the impact would be less if we had already transitioned to more renewable fuel resources. 

Others have questioned the wisdom of Western Europe of becoming so reliant on Russian energy exports. This line of thinking misses the point that beyond the traditional fields of military force and diplomacy as means of providing national security, the world since 1945 has grown increasingly reliant on economic integration as a means of preserving peace. The West's response to Russia of imposing economic sanctions is slower acting, but ultimately far more effective than military intervention. The cost to Western Europe of some necessary economic adjustment is far less than the cost if a military conflict escalated to cover more territory than Ukraine.

Ultimately Putin's strategy is based on the belief that once he has secured Ukraine, the West will move on. But that won't be the case. Even Chamberlain only agreed to the German accession of the Sudetenland because he wanted to delay the ultimate war, not because he thought he could avoid it. Putin has been too clear that his ambition doesn't end with Ukraine.

The second lesson from this is that traditional defence forces are less important than they once were. A related lesson has been the demonstration of how unmanned weapons make some manned weapons obselete. Ever since John Monash first developed a battle plan that made tanks effective for the battle of Hamel, the tank has been the essential core of land warfare. The Ukrainians have thus far demonstrated how exposed they are to drone strike. It won't be long before the reverse will be shown - that drone cover will be more effective for supporting advancing infactry than tanks or armed personnel carriers.

The floods have again exposed the fragility of any nation in the face of extreme weather events. These events are expected to become more frequent and more severe as the climate continues to change as a result of greenhouse gasses. The floods first impact has been on personal security - with 22 deaths and much loss of property already resulting. And it throws many of these citizens back onto relying on the social security system, especially the need for housing.

A core part of commentary has been about how quickly the Australian Defence Force can be delpoyed in these circumstances, and on how much support it is reasonable to expect from them. Former General Peter Cosgrave today weighed into the debate and suggested that we shouldn't rely on the ADF, but should create a paid part-time civil defence force based on the model of the defence force reserve. 

There are two fundamental flaws in the Cosgrave solution. The first is the simple labour economics question of what group of people are going to be making a time re-allocation to engage in this paid part-time civil defence force. The two primary groups would be volunteer effort shifting to paid work - SES volunteers becoming part-time civl defence employees. That would add cost but not resources. The second group would be ADF part-timers moving to the relatively more safe occupation of civil-defence part-timers. 

The second and more significant flaw is to not understand the nature of national security. For Australia, there is already a 'war' of kinds being played out in the Pacific and South East Asia between China and the West on who provides support and assistance to these countries, including the security challenges they face. The first is the ongoing challenge of economic security, or development, in building a strong and sustainable economy to deliver material wellbeing. The second is the growing challende of adapting to climate change. 

One of the ways Australia has historically helped these nations is the use of our defence forces in various 'relief' efforts. Apart from being conducted remotely from our nation, these tasks are little different to the tasks we need in the face of such emergencies. These include clean-up operations, temporary housing, essential supplies including clean water, and potentially temporary health faclities. Added to these are simple engineering works of fabricating temporary roads, wharfs and bridges, and reestablishing communications.

These tasks are, however, also tasks that need to be performed in support of military defence activities. Unfortunately, the focus of military planners has been excessively on weapons platforms and special forces. The perception has been that tasks for which infantry manpower are required can be rapidly fabricated and added to force strength on an as needed basis.

The Ukranian war and our own natural disasters reflect the error in that thinking. Infantry supported by 'light' intelligent weapons are essential in a ground war; they can combat the weapons and tactics of the 20th century. Natural disasters increasing in intensity and frequency require greater manpower support that utilises skills we need to deploy in assistance through our region.

Personally I have long argued that being an open trading economy has been Australia's best defence strategy. None of the countries with whom we trade would be prepared to sit back and watch another country attempt to secure these resources by force. Central to that has been our sale of energy resources, that is coal and gas.

The importance of energy resources dictated the conduct of World War II. When Germany eventually declared war on Russia, the German's primary objective was Russian oil fields in the south. That dictated the structure of the campaign, but also laid the groundwork for is failure as the German advance was spread over two great a front. In the Pacific the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was designed to knock out the US fleet so that it couldn't slow the rapid advance the Japanes needed to make on Indonesian oil wells. 

The focus on energy resources in Australia has moved to discussions about the security of our own oil requirements. While a more rapid move to electric or fuel-cell vehicles will make sense there are also many developments in biofuels, such as the microbial conversion of fatty acids into propane (which provides LPG for gas converted cars). 

But the more important element is what happens to our trading relationships as countries no longer want our coal and gas. This is why Australia, as part of its national and economic security, needs to focus on being able to export its abundant energy capabilities, both as energy and energy intensive products.

Nine years of the Abbott-Turnbull-Morrison government have been taking us in eaxactly the wrong direction. We have antagonised our Pacific neghbours over the response to climate change. We have failed to address our own energy security and the question of replacing our largest export industries. Our defence capability has focussed on ever bigger announcements about platforms (tanks, submarines) of limited usefulness, and failed to acknowledge the importance of a strong disaster response capability both for ourselves and our neighbours. 

Despite these failings, the LNP still believes its strengths are national security and economic management. If people need more convincing on the fallacy of that proposition, just remind them that it was Curtin who fought WWII and it was Whitlam, Hawke and Keating who created the strong open trading economy. 

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

The Sorry State of the NEM

The National Electricity Market, or NEM, is the name given to the interconnected electricity grids of Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania and the ACT. It grew out of the micro-economic reform agenda of the Hawke government (though its initiation predated the Hilmer report). 

Progressively since the NEM began Energy Ministers meeting under a string of different names progressively added elements to the national framework. Economic regulation of distribution networks was added in 2006, and retail as the National Electricty Consumer Framework, or NECF, progressively from 2012-16. Victoria famously hasn't adopted the NECF and opinions differ among consumer advocates of whether this has really generated significant additional benefit to consumers.

Unfortunately, the disintegration of cooperation between the States and the Commonwealth over climate action has fractured other aspects of the collaborative approach. Not least of these are differential approaches to policy on Renewable Energy Zones. 

The latest difference is also climate related. Recent increases in damage caused by weather events - bushfires and storms - has resulted in a great deal of interest in how distribution networks (DNSPs) should respond to the expected increase in Major Event Days. In NSW the three DNSPs have joined with the single DNSPs that cover the ACT, Tasmania and Northern Territory to engage with consumers on how they should adapt their operations. 

The risk with this approach is that the networks will utilise the 'fear factor' to obtain consumer support for massive investment in making the network more resitant to damage, but do little to help communities if power is interrupted.

In Victoria the Government, grandstanding as the Victorian Energy Minister is want to do, has announced a review by 'an expert panel.' That the panel is composed of an experienced consumer advocate, a consultant in regulatory reform, and a further consultant whose main claim to fame was author for Energy Networks Australia of the Electricity Network Transformation Roadmap that has almost never been referred to after its completion. Missing from the panel is anyone actually expert in the design and operation of distribution networks. 

My primary regulatory experience comes from the Australian telco sector where 'self regulation' is at least a goal, and has progressively been achieved. In electricity, as Fiona Simon observed in her book Metaregulation in Practice, one of the failures of self-regulation in electricity was the constant need of Ministers to be seen doing something.

Developing distribution networks to manage the increased likelihood of extreme weather events causing mass disruption needs to be an agreement between consumers and networks. That agreement, or negotiation, needs to be about more than just making networks more robust. It needs to consider how distributed resources could enable islanded networks to continue to provide power for essential services. It needs to consider what changes could be made that would facilitate restoration works.* Indeed it needs to consider every alternative so that the right balance can be struck between price and service quality (a catch all term that includes voltage maintenance, reliability and safety).

The NSW network process is far from ideal, but it is at least starting in the right place. Bespoke processes driven by State Governments are the antithesis of the system we are trying to establish. 
*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

A new era for NBN Co pricing

Australia's National Broadband Network is not currently what it was planned to be. I was for many years up to my eyeballs in the policy issues. I was part of the discussions that initiated Labor thinking that structural reform of the industry should be achieved when a new access network was built (a proposition advanced at a Competitive Carriers Coalition and AAPT seminar in 2004). I was part of the group devising an alternative to Telstra's proposition for an access holiday for a new network. I was bizarrely part of attempts by a wireless operator to pitch fixed wireless as an alternative technology in parts f metropolitan areas (proof that as an employee I can pitch thgings I don't believe in...my employer at the time stuffed it up royally by trying to go to Rudd directly bypassing Conroy under the mistaken belief that Rudd was a leader and a decision maker).

I watched in horror as NBN Co started negotiating on its acceess terms with retailers in a private consultation in which only the retailers participated.  I watched in horror as NBN Co would not include quality of service in those discussions.

Later I was recruited into Stephen Conroy's office as special adviser and speech writer. I again watched in horror as NBN Co struggled to develop its access undertaking in a consultative manner, and equally in horror as  telco regulatory managers expressed the view that they wanted the ACCC to be in the centre as a price setter rather than price approver (I am looking at you Optus). I wound up in a shouting match with Bill Shorten's office and John McTiernan in (Gillard's) PMO over the response to the Penrith asbestos incident and Shorten's repeat of a demand that Telstra remediate its entire network to remove all copper. The roll-out timetable could not recover from the six months of suspension of operations that this approach resulted in. 

I then watched as NBN Co management released a deeply flawed strategic review that pleased its new shareholding ministers but ignored the documented improvements already made to the fibre roll-out. I think I cried when the coalition adopted the Multi-Technology Mix (or Malcolm Turnbull's Mess) and thereby trashed the revenue model (see footnote 1).

We are where we are. NBN Co's pricing model has largely been shelved as repeated special offers have applied discounts - mostly to the CVC component. NBN Co is apparently looking at 'soft caps' on  excess usage charges and the ACCC has jumped on this saying it welcomes NBN Co's announcement that a 'new approach' to the regulation of its access pricing is needed (see footnote 2). In a most extraordinary statement the ACCC Chair makes a play to be at the centre of the pricing arrangements, saying: 

Until now, access pricing has largely been developed by NBN Co, so the prospect of bringing this work squarely within the remit of a special access undertaking with effective ACCC oversight is a very significant change. This is the start of a long reform process that would effectively put NBN pricing under the ACCC’s regulatory umbrella, and would improve access pricing for NBN Co customers.

It is extraordinary because NBN Co pricing already is under the ACCC's regulatory umbrella - it is just that the umbrella specifies a maximum price, not the exact price. 

The more frustrating part is the telcos complaining about a margin squeeze. They make the point that consumers are used to declining telco costs and that an increasing NBN Co ARPU is inconsistent with that. However, the pricing behaviour is such that telcos have been reducing retail prices at a faster rate since the NBN came into being than they did in the period of competition with an integrated Telstra after 1991. The chart below shows the real telecommunications price index from CPI data and trend lines for three separate periods (see footnote 3). 

NBN Co needs to change its approach entirely. They need to be working with retailers to identify how they can design premium products that retailers can command premium prices for. This is hard given the MTM but not impossible. Now that almost every copper pair is actually being used for an NBN service a service qualification can be performed, and strategies to provide improvements developed so that retailers can confidently offer guaranteed higher speeds. Getting on with remediating the network to at least fibre to the kerb will also help.

NBN Co needs to consider all options for restructuring prices - including if need be the original 14 POI model - noting that recovering its costs at a WACC of the risk free rate plus 3% (or whatever the arbitrary amount chosen is) is a requirement. 

Multi-lateral price design isn't impossible - it is essential. 

*****

Footnote 1: It is hilarious in hindsight to re-read one justification for reducing the revenue forecasts (i.e. appetite for higher speed tears and the planned multicast service) that the NBN Co plan had overestimated Australian interest in streaming services. 

Footnote 2: The ACCC Chair Rod Sims is normally quite adament that an 'access price' only relates to the price an integrated firm charges for access to a bottleneck facility that is provided to firms with which the regulated firm competes in downstream markets. Technically as a structurally separated entity NBN Co is just charging a price - it isn't an access price. I understand the difficulty that the law is still drafted referring to access undertakings etc.

Footnote 3: This data is for the aggregate of services and it might be thought that mobile services are bringing this down. But telcos made the same complaint before the introduction of 4G in mobiles - that the high capital cost of spectrum and equipment would be hard to recover from consumers. The simple reality is that CEO's and CFO's like bigger profit margins and will do anything to find them. The regulatory team has long been the go to group. 

Tangentially related footnote: In the context this week of the Health Minister announcing the continuation of the tele-health arrangements for another six months and that the Government and stakeholders would now work to make it a permanent model. Pathetically tele-health is mostly nothing more than telephone conversations. 

Tele-health was one of the applications identified for the NBN and featured prominently in the ALP's National Digital Economy Strategy. The Coalition Policy on the Digital Economy in 2013 said:

Many of the aspirations contained in the updated NDES are outside the scope of this policy because they fall under other portfolios (for example expanding the Medicare Benefits Schedule to include remotely delivered services or changing the taxation of employee shares), are largely the responsibility of the States and Territories (for example the National Plan to Fight Cybercrime), or are both (for example adding ICT to the National Curriculum in schools). 

The woefully inadequate state of tele-health is in dicative of the failure of the coalition under all of Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison to take both Broadband and the Digital Economy seriously. 

  *********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

Politicians and accusations

Unfortunately for Christian Porter my views on his statement today are tainted by the circumstances around Tony Abbott and the accusation that he threw a punch at Barabara Ramjan. Abbott's first comment was that it did not sound like him, but he followed it up with a categorical denial.

We know that Ramjan was successful in a defamation action against News Corp. An affidavit was provided by a third party witness to the event. That is, the event did happen and was witnessed.

Now it is highly unlikely that anyone witnessed the event in question in the Porter matter. We do have the statements of Jo Dyer on the ABC last night which are no more than heresay. But it does appear that there were near contemporaneous discussion of the alleged victim's claims. With her passing these are the closest that can be found to 'evidence.' We have another friend reporting a consistency in the telling of the events by the aleged victim. 

There have also been suggestions in the media of detailed diaries and other evidence kept by the alleged victime.  

Yet the NSW Police seem to have terminated their investigation simply on the basis that the passing of the complainant meant that there was no chance of a prosecution. Yet they don't seem to have even spoken to the alleged perpetrator. All those lovely episodes of crime dramas where skillful interogation is used to test a person's recollection are apparently not just fiction, they are fantasy.

The grilling by the media was not forensic, and I genuinely feel for the Minister who is clearly stressed by the events (though not dead like the alleged victim). There are all sorts of other explanations, including that the victim has recalled the wrong perpetrator. But it does beggar belief that when the Minister heard the whispers in November, and that those whispers seemed to have been pretty significant, he did nothing. I understand the alleged victim has already died in June, yet the Minister seems to have had no interest in sorting out the matter. He should have known that once the whispers started they would snowball.

The real villain though still seems to be the Prime Minister, whose stonewalling only made matters worse for the Minister. There never was a scenario where this allegation went away without the Minister having to speak...so the PM should have brought that about. The PM didn't even read the letters. When he sought the assurance of the Minister about the matter the Minister was provided with none of the details.

The Minister can't recollect when he and the alleged victim wewre together, what happened on the night of a dinner and dancing after which the incident was supposed to have occurred. He can recall, however, the matter of being taught how to iron a shirt. This suggests to me the presence of alcohol affecting recollections - and this could be the alleged victim's just as much as the Minister's.

There is no basis for Porter to be standing down as AG. There should not have been such a protracted period creating pressure on him. But unfortunately, the matter is probably not over. And the PM only has himself and his office to blame (and I suggest his mate whose bins he brings in occassionally). 

To be clear, I am making no accusation against Porter. I genuinely feel sorry for him. I am also making no accusation that the NSW Police investigation has been politically interfered with. I am just gob-smacked about how badly the PM and PMO have managed the matter (which includes the fact that while Porter showed great grace to reflect on the events relating to claims against Bill Shorten, others in the party seem to be trying to revive them as a counterfoil).

Finally, the one lesson we keep learning is that victims of sexual abuse need to be supported to report the crime immediately. 

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

Online Safety meets Classification

The Federal Government has introduced a new Online Safety Bill, that is evoking memories of Stpehen Conroy's ill-fated attempts at introducing a mandatory internet filter. While some might see the Bill as milder because it only introduces a take-down regime rather than a mandatory filter, that is false comfort because it extends far beyond the intent of Labor's scheme. 

First some history. As Minister Senator Conroy was only proposing an internet filter on content that could not be distributed in any other form in Australia. Material that is rated RC (Refused Classification) by the Classification Board is this material. Conroy did not intend that it extended to anything other than that. He was not attempting to impose a higher standard for online content than for other content.

However, the National Classification Code has a very clear gap between what they describe as RC and what they describe as X 18+. There was a particular deficiency in relation to computer games where the guidelines did not include an X 18+ category. The consequence was that an internet filter would capture a much greater range of content than the ALP policy proposed.

The ALP referred the matter to the Australian Law Reform Commission and the report was tabled in 2012. In a section of the report headed 'The need for fundamental reform' the ALRC observed:

2.69 The ALRC considers the major principles that have informed media classification in Australia—such as balancing the rights of adults to make informed media choices with the protection of children—to continue to be relevant. However, the framework that underpins these principles is in need of reform. 

2.70 In the context of media convergence, there is a need to develop a framework that focuses upon media content rather than delivery platforms, and which can be adaptive to innovations in media platforms, services and content. Failure to do so is likely to disadvantage Australian digital content industries in a highly competitive global media environment. 

2.71 The current classification framework is highly fragmented, with different guidelines and regulatory arrangements for different media platforms, and unclear lines of administrative responsibility. The relationship between the Commonwealth, states and territories in particular requires significant reorganisation, and there is a case for a new Act governing all media content classification, as well as revised regulatory arrangements. 

2.72 The costs and regulatory burden of the current classification framework align poorly to community standards and expectations. There is too much top-down regulation of some media content and platforms, while regulatory requirements are unclear in relation to other media. 

The ALRC identified the classification gap above, and recommended that the classification scheme have a clearly defined category of Prohibited Content. It also proposed a fundamental reform of classification procedures. 

Unfortunately, at that time the Classification Act was legislation administered by the Attorney-General. The AG's office in response to the ALRC report prepared a proposal for the States and Territories to adopt the title of Prohibited for RC without making any of the other changes. It took some work to explain the AGs that this was not the intent of the ALRC report.

However,  the Classification Act is now included in the administered legislation of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications. That means the same Minister introducing the Online Safety Bill is the Minister who could and should be acting on the ALRC recommendations.

So that is the first issue with the Bill. The second, and just as troublesome, is that the Bill also proposes that all X18 + and R18 + material should be subject to take down notices unless they are subject to a restricted access system. Horrifyingly, restricted access systems are defined under s108 of the Bill, where we learn that the e-Safety Commissioner can 'declare that a specified access-control system is a restricted access system in relation to material for the purposes of this Act.' 

Similarly the Bill is extremely vague in terms of exactly what is or isn't covered because in relation to all kinds of content it adds that where the content has not been classified it is subject to restriction if it would 'be likely that the Classification Board' would give it the classification. Effectively this empowers the e-Safety Commissioner to become a secondary Classification Board.

The Government needs to rethink this legislation. This is more restrictive than anything the ALP contemplated and goes well beyond what ordinary citizens expect. 

The idea of have restricted access systems for content is also not objectionable, but it needs to be implemented in such a way that any user can access the content through their arrangements with their service provider. If I want to see an R 18+ film I just have to demonstrate to the theatre owner that I am over 18, I don't need to buy a ticket to the cinema and then separately demonstrate to the content maker that I am over 18.

Of course, ideally, global comms Ministers could have got together with the Internet Community and added a classification field to the DNS. That would have then logically created the ability for clear access controlo to websites based on the category of their content (and to be clear, even with user generated content on sites like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, ultimately the content on any domain is controlled by the owner of the domain). 

It is inexcusable that after nearly eight years in Government, the best that the LNP can come up with is an approach that ignores the recommendations of the ALRC and is potentially more restrictive than anything that Stephen Conrioy's giant internet filter was going to cover.

*********************************

Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

News organisations and digital platforms

Does anyone remember the days when the music industry used to complain about the internet and the 'illegal' downloading of songs? Do we remember the movie and television production companies and their attempts to make Internet Service Providers (ISPs) responsible for blocking access to video sharing sites?

In both cases the response of the internet community was 'don't blame us - adjust your business model.' I wasn't always as convinced about the purity of the motives of the ISPs but their message was right. 

Since then we've seen the growth of both legitimate music digital sales (especially iTunes) and music streaming services (Amazon Music, Spotify, Pandora). The music industry is now making more money from legitimate streaming than they used to from physical media sales. The chart below are statistics from the Recording Industry Association of America. This is a website that is littered with discussions of the cost of 'piracy' right up till about 2014. 

Movie and television content has gone the same way with numerous services offering both download and streaming content - some becoming so successful that they are commissioning content (eg Netflix and Amazon Prime) without the need for a mandate by anyone to feed evenue back into the creative industries.

Now we are hearing an issue about news media and the internet and somehow or other the digital platforms are getting a free ride on the back of media companies. Having tried to make sense of the ACCC's Digital Media Inquiry report on this (Chapter 5). There seem to be a number of business models all being wrapped up under one heading.

Let's deal with the first - what we can simply call a 'news referral service.' This is where either the search engine functionality has matched a news item to the googled term. I always find I get more news sites for a search than I do for the original content. But none of this gives me the story - it might give me the lede which I might be satisfied with but not the story. For almost anything from the print media I then hit a paywall. And the two major print publishers in Australia (Nine and News) only have a business model where to read the story I have to buy a subscription or go and buy the physical paper. There is no option provided to just buy a copy of the story or that day's paper...both of which would be a revenue stream and a targeted advertising opportunity. 

The idea that these payments (we used to call them micropayments) would be hard to collect is nonsense...just look mat how Apple's iTunes does it with a charge issued a few days after a purchase that enables them to bill you for everything you bought in the last week. Clever business models would choose the price points so they don't discourage subscriptions, and that identify consumers who would be better off with a subscription. 

Other models are actual 'news aggregation' services. Now I certainly have a preference for Australian news and would think a domestic news aggregation service makes sense. Rather than relying on one of the 'digital platforms' - here primarily Google and Apple - to provide that functionality there is absolutely nothing (except potentially the ACCC) preventing the Australian publishers getting together and building their own service. Given that the news organisations recently dissolved Australian Associated Press - the long running content partnership - it might be asking too much to see them collaborate on a distribution model. 

Instead of putting pressure on the news businesses to improve their digital strategies the ACCC and Government are continuing the long running strategy of protecting these businesses. 

Note: Many years ago, c1995-6, I was the Account Director for the media portfolio at Telstra. At the time we had just announced the On Australia JV with Microsoft which was to be a walled garden online service - not unlike the failed Viatel but using more modern comms technologies. The IT head at Fairfax asked me to talk to him about it because they needed to do something 'online.' 

The folks from Telstra Multimedia I took to talk to him said don't use On Australia, look at Mosaic - one of the first web browsers that spawned Netscape Navigator and was purchased by Microsoft as the foundation of Internet Explorer. Fairfax didn't take our advice and instead bought some online service that was used by Librarians. They came so close to getting the decision right....

 

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL

Thank goodness we didn't have the pandemic in 2014

Failed Leiberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott has given us (another) reason to be grateful that the COVID pandemic struck in 2020 not 2014. Of course, being as far into the 21st century has already been a good thing because of the wider prevelance of smart phones making QR code use and contact tracing easier. But in Mr Aboott's contribution to a book to be released in March with the awful title Cancel Culture and the Left’s Long March (awful as it unthinkingly siomplt links two new right slogans neither of which has any substantive meaning), which was published in The Oz on Saturday, he tells us we have been all wrong in managing the pandemic.

Mr Abbott observes that the National Pandemic Plan while he was Health Minister did not include 'advice to close state borders, shut workplaces and cancel mass gatherings in a moderate pandemic.' He then goes on to argue that these measures were unneccessary in the current pandemic, and that acting otherwise has been a betrayal of 'conservative values.'

It is interesting that a theme of Mr Abbott's writing from his campaign speech for preselection through writing Battlelines to this contribution, he steadfastly claims that we should 'stop knocking our country' or that we should have a 'renewed emphasis on the active virtues and robust attitudes that have made Australia a country to be proud of.' Yet all he does in all of these is criticise Australia by criticising everyone who doesn't agree with him.

On the core issue of COVID Mr Abbott falls into the camp that claims the global response has been an over-reaction. He says 'When the Italian hospital system seemed to be collapsing under the strain of COVID cases, a degree of public panic was understandable. But nine months later, with the virus much better understood and much less likely to kill...it's still being treated like the grim reaper.' As to death rates Mr Abbott observes 'To what extent should everyone be locked down in order to protect a vulnerable minority.'

This is a complete failure to understand the virus - or viruses in general. Firstly, it wasn't public panic, it was professional assessment of the capacity of the health system to cope. The goal was slowing the spread sufficient to get health resources in place. We discovered that using standard pandemic controls - correctly identified by Abbott as dating from the Spanish flu - we identified that our borders made it possible to go beyond slowing the spread to eradication. 

As we are discovering the health impacts are not only death (which is concentrated in, but not restricted to, the elderly) but longer term impacts including breathing difficulties and no doubt more yet to be identified.

But the other reason for wanting to suppress the virus is that every time it is transferred increaes the possibility of dangerous mutations. We are already seeing mutations that make the virus more infectious, but mutations could also make it more dangerous. 

Mr Abbott's real concern appears to be that Government is doing anything at all - based on what he identifies as 'conservative' principles. He writes:

For all governments at all times, the challenge is to get the balance right betweeen keeping people safe and keeping people free....The pandemic has presented all governments with invidious choices, but especially conservative ones that are normally intent on minimising official intrusion into people's daily lives.

This is consistent with his other writings, but really confuses being 'conservative' with being 'liberal.' A true conservative is someone who just thinks we don't need change - the original Tories supporting the monarchy and aristocracy against the dangerous liberal ideas of the merchant classes and the socialist ideas of the working classes. The victory of the liberal democratic order changes all that so - yes - a conservative can be someone who is intent on promoting liberty. But in doing so, these conservatives are living contradictions - they are supporting the unthinking retention of the victories of previous progressives.

Mr Abbott's explanation for why we pursued strategies that weren't included in his pandemic plans is that there are 'seismic cultural shifts now underway in the West, writing:

We are materially rich but spiritually poor, and generally more fearful. More self-confident governments would not have placed so much faith in unelected and unaccountable experts....Societies that retained more 'faith in the world to come' would have been less alarmed by a virus like those that have readily been seen off before.

It is hard to tell if the reference to the 'world to come' is that we should welcome death as our pathway to heaven, or, in contradiction to being a conservative Mr Abbott believes in a unidirectional arrow of progress. 

It is Mr Abbott's attitude to the advice of experts that is most telling. To not place faith in experts is to suggest their advice should be ignored, that Governments did whatever they suggested and bugger the consequences. But Governments have been doing exactly what Mr Abbott claims they should do, getting 'the balance right betwen keeping people safe and keeping people free.' To that could be added keeping people prosperous - i.e, caring for the economy. And on this Governments also took advice from experts.

He tries to inject a degree of political bias, suggesting that Labor Premiers have been 'revelling in slamming shut their borders, restricting their businesses and giving orders to the public.' But despite his protestations the Liberal Premiers have been no different. Steve Marshall ordered an immediate lockdown for a week after a quarantine leak, NSW slammed shut its borders with Victoria (and - one might add - in a way that didn't deal well with the border towns). 

Mr Abbott's criticism is therefore of all Australia leaders, all of whom are enjoying widespread public support. His criticism is founded in decision making not being 'conservative' enough. He writes:

Always, it's the job of a thoughtful conservative to question and to doubt; to insist that new measures be justified and proportionate, especially when change goes counter to considered positions that conservative political movements have been supporting for decades. 

And there is the rub. The response to the pandemic was wrong because it took actions that limited 'freedoms' of some kind. Nevermind the jurisprudence around concepts of freedom such as  the judgement of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v. United States, where he wrote:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. ... The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree.

 

Restrictions on movement to protect public health is not a restriction of freedom - either legally or ethically. It is not the action of anything other than a liberal democratic state exercising its responsibility to keep people safe. To suggest otherwise is delusional - a word often used about Mr Abbott.

*********************************
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans JWL