I'm fond of quoting (after Ann Moyal) the observation that while the amalgamation of the posts and telegraph offices at federation would occur he had heard no argument in favour of it.
Garran and Quick in their history of the constitution point out the original drafting of the post and telecommunications powers related only to the international aspects (quoted in the Glassen report)
Thanks then to PM&C secretary Terry Moran for a speech to the Eidos Institute on federalism that included;
The South Australian politician Richard Baker, in an 1897 pamphlet advocating the federalist cause, commented that most supporters of union between the colonies cited its ‘patriotic and sentimental advantages’.[1] Aside from these, he enumerated no fewer than 17 other benefits. The first was that it would prevent war between the colonies; the second that it would allow for a common foreign policy. Not only that, it would prevent strife within the colonies. ‘A strong Central Government would ensure domestic tranquillity, and outrages, which have in some cases amounted to almost civil war, would be put down by a strong hand’.
Some of the advantages he cited now seem quaint. ‘Greater economy and efficiency would be insured in the management of the postal and telegraph departments, no doubt ultimately resulting in a penny postage and a sixpenny telegram’, he wrote.
So there we have in an 1897 pamphlet an argument advocating for the national post and telegraph power on the basis of the cross-subsidy and universal service. This was the eighth of Baker's 17 advantages.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Emotions and policy
Writing as they say for :News Corporation" papers on the live cattle export issue, Miranda Devine says;
But despite our emotional response to the cruelty on our TV screens, sensible people know that emotions do not drive prudent policy.
This is, of course, nonsense. We should look at the unnecessary suffering and resolve to act on it. Where our rational rather than emotional response should cut in is in deciding which of the alternatives to relieve the distress is best.
The first observation to make is that not having Australian cattle will at best have a marginal effect on the number of cattle being slaughtered. Secondly, the MLA box used properly is a lot more humane than the methods used elsewhere.
But the best solution remains stunning. That requires expensive equipment that requires slaughtering in volume, not three or four beasts a day. Volume requires refrigeration. It also requires the enlistment of the Muslim community to explain to their fellow Muslims that stunning is Halal, and is less "torture" than what goes on in Indonesia. With refrigeration the slaughtering can be done here or in Indonesia, but it is the volume that counts.
Here's the question. Australia spends a lot on overseas aid. We are often criticised for "aid for trade" projects. But what would the total bill look like to create a meat distribution system in Indonesia that used a modicum of refrigeration - we are only talking refrigeration at a large abattoir and refrigerated trucks to distribute to the un-refrigerated markets.
We absolutely should let our emotions dictate to us that action is required, but we should use reasoning to decide on the action.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But despite our emotional response to the cruelty on our TV screens, sensible people know that emotions do not drive prudent policy.
This is, of course, nonsense. We should look at the unnecessary suffering and resolve to act on it. Where our rational rather than emotional response should cut in is in deciding which of the alternatives to relieve the distress is best.
The first observation to make is that not having Australian cattle will at best have a marginal effect on the number of cattle being slaughtered. Secondly, the MLA box used properly is a lot more humane than the methods used elsewhere.
But the best solution remains stunning. That requires expensive equipment that requires slaughtering in volume, not three or four beasts a day. Volume requires refrigeration. It also requires the enlistment of the Muslim community to explain to their fellow Muslims that stunning is Halal, and is less "torture" than what goes on in Indonesia. With refrigeration the slaughtering can be done here or in Indonesia, but it is the volume that counts.
Here's the question. Australia spends a lot on overseas aid. We are often criticised for "aid for trade" projects. But what would the total bill look like to create a meat distribution system in Indonesia that used a modicum of refrigeration - we are only talking refrigeration at a large abattoir and refrigerated trucks to distribute to the un-refrigerated markets.
We absolutely should let our emotions dictate to us that action is required, but we should use reasoning to decide on the action.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Social Exclusion
This column by Ross Gittins is a maust read.
He gets stuck into those complaining about "tough times" in the middle of a boom and talks about the real issues of social exclusion and contrasts it with measuring outcomes by money income.
...the concept of 'social exclusion' focuses on how relationships, institutions, patterns of behaviour and other factors (including lack of resources) prevent people from participating fully in the life of their community.
Australian research has divided social exclusion into three domains: disengagement, service exclusion and economic exclusion.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
He gets stuck into those complaining about "tough times" in the middle of a boom and talks about the real issues of social exclusion and contrasts it with measuring outcomes by money income.
...the concept of 'social exclusion' focuses on how relationships, institutions, patterns of behaviour and other factors (including lack of resources) prevent people from participating fully in the life of their community.
Australian research has divided social exclusion into three domains: disengagement, service exclusion and economic exclusion.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Averages and "every"
A favourite hate of mine is public policy based on calculation of aggregate social "betterment" without consideration of the distributional impact.
A good example of the bad craft appeared today in the West Australian saying "Australians will each be $8000 richer by the turn of the decade even with a carbon tax, according to figures Treasurer Wayne Swan will release today."
What they mean is "on average" - there may be one person 20 million times $10000 better off and 20 million people $2000 worse off - that is still (basically) an average of $8000.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
A good example of the bad craft appeared today in the West Australian saying "Australians will each be $8000 richer by the turn of the decade even with a carbon tax, according to figures Treasurer Wayne Swan will release today."
What they mean is "on average" - there may be one person 20 million times $10000 better off and 20 million people $2000 worse off - that is still (basically) an average of $8000.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, June 06, 2011
Mandates and wages
I really don't know why I, or the SMH, waste my time on Paul Sheehan.
This morning's diatribe.
He accuses the speakers in the debate against BOF's IR changes to give Government direct control of public service wages of being engaged in denial, of having falsely claimed that BOF "has just engaged in one of the greatest acts of vandalism ever perpetrated against public servants in NSW, even vandalising the democratic process."
Strangely I agree with Sheehan that the resort to the "mandate" question is erroneous. The various speakers said BOF had no mandate to introduce the laws, the coalition maintained they had such a mandate because they had been elected to be financially prudent.
The concept of the "mandate" was in my lifetime first advanced by Gough in trying to force the Senate from 1973-74 to pass his reforming legislation, but in reality he used that as a debating technique to heighten public support for the more realistic objective of a Double Dissolution.
We practice representative democracy with frequent elections. All promises are meaningless, we empower elected representatives to vote however they want to. The judgement is meant to come at the next election. (That quite simply is the best and briefest case I can make against four year terms too).
The correct charge to lay at BOF is that of deception, not lack of mandate. Like many class warriors Sheehan likes to imagine public servants as a class vote Labor. Certainly at the last State election many if not most voted Liberal, seduced by the vision of a stable responsible Government committed to improving services.
The second charge laid at BOF is that the law itself is "undemocratic" by removing the arbiter. But he hasn't removed the rights of unions. The reality is he will make the unions stronger because the ONLY way to bargain will be direct industrial action.
The real attack of Sheehan is that capping public sector pay rises was something Labor wanted to do anyway.
Unfortunately none of this debate questions whether the underlying claims, that public servants have received pay rises above productivity improvement and above private sector wages is either true, or if true, has any merit.
The primary source of these claims was a report by Henry Ergas for the Menzies Research
Centre in 2007. This was a campaign by the Liberals to claim that economic prosperity was being wasted by states by increased wages rather than additional infrastructure, a strategy designed to deflect the criticism of the then Howard Government for its failure to so invest.
The three public service sectors Ergas most focussed on were policing, teaching and health. His study actually showed wage movements in line with private sector wages. This is one trick to remember - public sector wages never have above award components while private sectors do - so it is the movement of wages not awards that need to be followed.
The phrase "labour market" is often used but ignores what it means. If you pay these public sector jobs poorly you struggle to hire people, especially people of the calibre you want. All of teachers, health workers and police have highly valuable and mobile skills for which they can be paid more than public sector employment generates.
The second is to ask the question of whether there are massive productivity improvements possible in these three labour intensive areas? What is a productivity improvement in teaching - larger class sizes? In nursing or allied health - more patients per health professional?
In fact productivity improvements are easier to achieve in health support (the clerical jobs) - should that benefit go to the health support workers or the front line professionals.
But finally there is the real democratic question. What would an opinion poll say in response to the questions "Do our teachers/health professionals/police deserve more pay?" The answer to that question would probably be yes - and hence the reticence of BOF to tell the electorate beforehand of his plans.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
This morning's diatribe.
He accuses the speakers in the debate against BOF's IR changes to give Government direct control of public service wages of being engaged in denial, of having falsely claimed that BOF "has just engaged in one of the greatest acts of vandalism ever perpetrated against public servants in NSW, even vandalising the democratic process."
Strangely I agree with Sheehan that the resort to the "mandate" question is erroneous. The various speakers said BOF had no mandate to introduce the laws, the coalition maintained they had such a mandate because they had been elected to be financially prudent.
The concept of the "mandate" was in my lifetime first advanced by Gough in trying to force the Senate from 1973-74 to pass his reforming legislation, but in reality he used that as a debating technique to heighten public support for the more realistic objective of a Double Dissolution.
We practice representative democracy with frequent elections. All promises are meaningless, we empower elected representatives to vote however they want to. The judgement is meant to come at the next election. (That quite simply is the best and briefest case I can make against four year terms too).
The correct charge to lay at BOF is that of deception, not lack of mandate. Like many class warriors Sheehan likes to imagine public servants as a class vote Labor. Certainly at the last State election many if not most voted Liberal, seduced by the vision of a stable responsible Government committed to improving services.
The second charge laid at BOF is that the law itself is "undemocratic" by removing the arbiter. But he hasn't removed the rights of unions. The reality is he will make the unions stronger because the ONLY way to bargain will be direct industrial action.
The real attack of Sheehan is that capping public sector pay rises was something Labor wanted to do anyway.
Unfortunately none of this debate questions whether the underlying claims, that public servants have received pay rises above productivity improvement and above private sector wages is either true, or if true, has any merit.
The primary source of these claims was a report by Henry Ergas for the Menzies Research
Centre in 2007. This was a campaign by the Liberals to claim that economic prosperity was being wasted by states by increased wages rather than additional infrastructure, a strategy designed to deflect the criticism of the then Howard Government for its failure to so invest.
The three public service sectors Ergas most focussed on were policing, teaching and health. His study actually showed wage movements in line with private sector wages. This is one trick to remember - public sector wages never have above award components while private sectors do - so it is the movement of wages not awards that need to be followed.
The phrase "labour market" is often used but ignores what it means. If you pay these public sector jobs poorly you struggle to hire people, especially people of the calibre you want. All of teachers, health workers and police have highly valuable and mobile skills for which they can be paid more than public sector employment generates.
The second is to ask the question of whether there are massive productivity improvements possible in these three labour intensive areas? What is a productivity improvement in teaching - larger class sizes? In nursing or allied health - more patients per health professional?
In fact productivity improvements are easier to achieve in health support (the clerical jobs) - should that benefit go to the health support workers or the front line professionals.
But finally there is the real democratic question. What would an opinion poll say in response to the questions "Do our teachers/health professionals/police deserve more pay?" The answer to that question would probably be yes - and hence the reticence of BOF to tell the electorate beforehand of his plans.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Swan and Vanstone
I'm not sure that Amanda Vanstone agreeing with my assessment of Wayne Swan is a good thing or not.
The one thing I can disagree with is her conclusion;
I believe Wayne Swan doesn't sound comfortable in the job because deep down he knows he is struggling - and he probably knows that his colleagues know. What they may not have realised yet is that he is one of the Coalition's best assets.
I'm pretty sure the ALP knows this about Swan - but an effective strategy out of it is hard to find.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The one thing I can disagree with is her conclusion;
I believe Wayne Swan doesn't sound comfortable in the job because deep down he knows he is struggling - and he probably knows that his colleagues know. What they may not have realised yet is that he is one of the Coalition's best assets.
I'm pretty sure the ALP knows this about Swan - but an effective strategy out of it is hard to find.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Friday, June 03, 2011
Where are they now (2) .....
This time not from the Kate askew book - somewhat more recent.
At the yet again eponymous website Solomon Dennis Trujillo III looks like he's launching a campaign to be the first Hispanic President of the USA.
But let's look in more detail abouthis claims for his achievements at Telstra.
Key achievements under Sol’s leadership:
* Privatized a previously government-owned telecommunications ultility.
* Built an integrated media-communications company with CATV, Internet, directories, phone, and satellite.
* Built the world’s largest, fastest, most advanced mobile Internet – a high-speed wireless 3G network.
* Achieved highest user and revenue growth in the industry.
* Grew average revenue per user (ARPU) by approximately 15 percent and data ARPU by more than 200 percent.
* Created Hong Kong’s largest mobile business.
* Changed the company’s focus from products to the customer experience.
By my recollection he arrived late in the privatisation cycle, and even once pitched that the final traunche be delayed. The Government found him a hinderance not a help in privatisation.
He did not build any of the "integrated" elements - all there before he arrived.
I will concede the 3G network point, and the growth points. I think "created" in relation to HK mobile is fanciful as it implies starting from scratch not buying an existing business.
Finally, and most tellingly, aren't we being told by David Thodey that changing "the company’s focus from products to the customer experience" is HIS challenge?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
At the yet again eponymous website Solomon Dennis Trujillo III looks like he's launching a campaign to be the first Hispanic President of the USA.
But let's look in more detail abouthis claims for his achievements at Telstra.
Key achievements under Sol’s leadership:
* Privatized a previously government-owned telecommunications ultility.
* Built an integrated media-communications company with CATV, Internet, directories, phone, and satellite.
* Built the world’s largest, fastest, most advanced mobile Internet – a high-speed wireless 3G network.
* Achieved highest user and revenue growth in the industry.
* Grew average revenue per user (ARPU) by approximately 15 percent and data ARPU by more than 200 percent.
* Created Hong Kong’s largest mobile business.
* Changed the company’s focus from products to the customer experience.
By my recollection he arrived late in the privatisation cycle, and even once pitched that the final traunche be delayed. The Government found him a hinderance not a help in privatisation.
He did not build any of the "integrated" elements - all there before he arrived.
I will concede the 3G network point, and the growth points. I think "created" in relation to HK mobile is fanciful as it implies starting from scratch not buying an existing business.
Finally, and most tellingly, aren't we being told by David Thodey that changing "the company’s focus from products to the customer experience" is HIS challenge?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Where are they now ....
Reading Kate Askew's book Dot.Bomb Australia got me thinking the inevitable question "where are they now" about many of the characters in the book, some of whom I had dealings with.
Today's entry is Don Hagans. His eponymous website lists him as Executive Chairman of LIVIA Legal which lists his wife Jane McKellar as Head of Marketing. Her own LinkedIn profile doesn't mention this role.
Together they still seem to own the farm they bought in Australia.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Today's entry is Don Hagans. His eponymous website lists him as Executive Chairman of LIVIA Legal which lists his wife Jane McKellar as Head of Marketing. Her own LinkedIn profile doesn't mention this role.
Together they still seem to own the farm they bought in Australia.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I hate to do global comparisons but ....
In the context of the National Digital Economy Strategy it is interesting to compare the work done in different places.
In the US the FCC has just released its Seventh broadband progress report. This report finds that "too many Americans remain unable to fully participate in our economy and society because they lack broadband". The FCC is charged by Statute to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market."
The bad news I have for the Americans are that the two goals of removing barriers to investment and promoting competition are actually at odds with each other when the investment has such large economies of scale that it is "sub-additive". That's why Australia's HFC deployment stopped when it did - the US has wider fibre deployment because of cable franchises - a solution proposed in Australia by Kerry Packer and rightly rejected by Paul Keating on the basis of who was proposing it. I noted here the problem with cable franchises as a competitive model.
Meanwhile in Europe they have just published a scoreboard on progress of the Digital Agenda for Europe.
The contrast I want to draw here is between the information rich reports in these two regions when compared with the paucity of data available in Australia.
In management there is an old adage that "what gets measured gets done". In my longer comments on the DE Strategy I will eventually get to this.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
In the US the FCC has just released its Seventh broadband progress report. This report finds that "too many Americans remain unable to fully participate in our economy and society because they lack broadband". The FCC is charged by Statute to "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market."
The bad news I have for the Americans are that the two goals of removing barriers to investment and promoting competition are actually at odds with each other when the investment has such large economies of scale that it is "sub-additive". That's why Australia's HFC deployment stopped when it did - the US has wider fibre deployment because of cable franchises - a solution proposed in Australia by Kerry Packer and rightly rejected by Paul Keating on the basis of who was proposing it. I noted here the problem with cable franchises as a competitive model.
Meanwhile in Europe they have just published a scoreboard on progress of the Digital Agenda for Europe.
The contrast I want to draw here is between the information rich reports in these two regions when compared with the paucity of data available in Australia.
In management there is an old adage that "what gets measured gets done". In my longer comments on the DE Strategy I will eventually get to this.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Malcolm on the Digital Economy Strategy
Malcolm Turnbull is without doubt a skilled debater. One of the great tricks of debating is to define the territory of the debate.
In the case of his critique he does just this. He asserts that "Senator Conroy’s National Digital Economy Strategy is simply a thinly-veiled spruiking of the NBN."
He makes this assertion after carefully detailing how none of the individual objectives specified in the plan actually depend on a 100 Mbps connection to 93% of households. What he doesn't do though is demonstrate that the goals can be achieved with existing infrastructure.
The case need not be made for 100 Mbps, just for more than most people have today. That includes more than they have in upload and in download. The upload is the killer - because that's why thinks like two-way videoconferencing don't work. And saying that an application only needs 1.5 Mbps or 10 Mbps ignores the fact we want to enable MULTIPLE applications.
The question is then whether alternatives work. The FTTN strategy sucks because you still eventually have to do FTTP to get to 1 Gbps. And I don't have to make the case for higher future speed requirements - it is others who need to make the case for the exponential growth in demanded speed to stop.
Turnbull ran much of this in what delimiter called a "major speech in Parliament" yesterday. But the reality as tagged by the Member for Ballarat is that the "Matter of Public Importance" was shuffled into the last five minutes before the adjournment. It is unclear whether that was more because Mr Abbott has no interest in the topic or fears Mr Turnbull being given too much space to promote himself.
Turnbull has still not explained how he, as Minister, would have achieved a structurally separated industry. He now needs to add to this an explanation of how an FTTN network could have been constructed without handing control of the industry back to Telstra.
And finally can we get over his monstrous assertions that we are abandoning infrastructure based competition. We never had it. All the ADSL services are on Telstra's copper, Optus never opened its HFC to service providers, Optus stopped building HFC about 8 years ago.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
In the case of his critique he does just this. He asserts that "Senator Conroy’s National Digital Economy Strategy is simply a thinly-veiled spruiking of the NBN."
He makes this assertion after carefully detailing how none of the individual objectives specified in the plan actually depend on a 100 Mbps connection to 93% of households. What he doesn't do though is demonstrate that the goals can be achieved with existing infrastructure.
The case need not be made for 100 Mbps, just for more than most people have today. That includes more than they have in upload and in download. The upload is the killer - because that's why thinks like two-way videoconferencing don't work. And saying that an application only needs 1.5 Mbps or 10 Mbps ignores the fact we want to enable MULTIPLE applications.
The question is then whether alternatives work. The FTTN strategy sucks because you still eventually have to do FTTP to get to 1 Gbps. And I don't have to make the case for higher future speed requirements - it is others who need to make the case for the exponential growth in demanded speed to stop.
Turnbull ran much of this in what delimiter called a "major speech in Parliament" yesterday. But the reality as tagged by the Member for Ballarat is that the "Matter of Public Importance" was shuffled into the last five minutes before the adjournment. It is unclear whether that was more because Mr Abbott has no interest in the topic or fears Mr Turnbull being given too much space to promote himself.
Turnbull has still not explained how he, as Minister, would have achieved a structurally separated industry. He now needs to add to this an explanation of how an FTTN network could have been constructed without handing control of the industry back to Telstra.
And finally can we get over his monstrous assertions that we are abandoning infrastructure based competition. We never had it. All the ADSL services are on Telstra's copper, Optus never opened its HFC to service providers, Optus stopped building HFC about 8 years ago.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
On Democracy
I'll admit to having bought but not yet read Lindsay Tanner's Sideshow. I am however in violent agreement with him on the fact of the dumbing down of politics.
I contend, however, that this is a global phenomenon, not one that is uniquely Australian. I further contend that the culprit is not, primarily, the Media (meaning traditional big media) but is instead social media and communications technology.
I take as a starting point an observation I made as a school boy, that Robespierre instigated the Terror after the French Revolution as an expression of direct democracy - what he was doing was expressing the "will of the people" as discerned by understanding "the mob" that filled Parisian streets (one day I'll re-write and post that essay).
Today's politicians find themselves equally distracted by the mob, that has new forms of organisation.
Take the reaction this week to the 4 Corners report on live cattle exports to Indonesia. I've already mentioned the fact that the Australian designed box is more humane than the traditional method. To ban Australian live exports doesn't mean any cattle will not die inhumanely, only that Australian cattle won't die inhumanely.
But the reaction of politicians has been swift spurred by the intense interest created through Facebook. The call has been merely for an end to the export trade. Reaction has been swifter than it has been to the "greatest moral issue of our time", that is climate change.
What we see is the critical weakness of direct versus representative democracy, the opportunity to plump for all the individual preferences you might make without reconciling across issues. Its extreme is seen in the model of California where direct democracy demands more services and lower taxes.
Unfortunately I'm still short on solutions to the scourge of "the mob". I don't favour a return to "elites" as espoused by some (be that Plato or Pareto). But I sure as heck don't agree with Ordan ANdreevski who wrote in Online Opinion;
Australians are increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the dumbing of democracy. The nation is ready for a transformation of civic and political culture. Australians are poised to embrace a smarter democracy that is fit for purpose.
Australia needs a new, vibrant, well informed and vigorous political culture, practices and performance to upgrade the dynamism of society and economy and increase our image, relevance and ability to attract and persuade others on a world stage. The dumbing down of politics can be curtailed though social innovation and collective impact involving all relevant stakeholders including parliamentarians, the media, research and education institutes, communities, civil society and progressive diasporas.
Unlike Lindsay Tanner, I am optimistic about the future of Australian politics. Australian democracy has the ability to change and improve for the better as new voices, new practices and talent enters the Australian Parliament, the media, research institutes and universities and contribute to national, parliamentary and policy debates and actions.
Indeed this is written in MBAese (The Urban Word of Today).
What is the actual "social innovation and collective impact"? How will "stakeholders" progress it.
I actually think the solution relies on some structural constitutional reform that does a few things;
Properly construct a "Washminster" system. Have a bicameral parliament in which one house is elected by national proportional representation and the Prime Minister and Ministers are exclusively drawn from this house. This house behaves a little like the US electoral college for President but the PR process results in the whole potential Ministry being on the ballot.
The other house continues to be drawn from separate electorates with either one or two members per electorate. But we do a better job of one-vote one-value than we do now by giving each MP the number of votes as they were elected by (in a one-member electorate that is the total of all formal votes cast, in a two-member structure it is their final votes after the elimination of all but the last candidate). Actual votes in the House require computer tabulation (can anyone explain why we still have tellers and headcounts for divisions), things won't be decided "on the voices" but by the button - press Yes or No. Even show the result on a screen. You can't use "pairs" to get around unavoidable absence - but proxies would work fine (simple rule though, a member can have a proxy for only one other member - the Whip can't control all the votes).
This at least provides some logic to the system and addresses the public concern about thinking they "vote" for the PM of their choice under the existing system. You get to vote for the PM you want and the person to represent your local needs. he local rep really stays local by not faxing redistributions every six or so years.
Does this make an improvement?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
I contend, however, that this is a global phenomenon, not one that is uniquely Australian. I further contend that the culprit is not, primarily, the Media (meaning traditional big media) but is instead social media and communications technology.
I take as a starting point an observation I made as a school boy, that Robespierre instigated the Terror after the French Revolution as an expression of direct democracy - what he was doing was expressing the "will of the people" as discerned by understanding "the mob" that filled Parisian streets (one day I'll re-write and post that essay).
Today's politicians find themselves equally distracted by the mob, that has new forms of organisation.
Take the reaction this week to the 4 Corners report on live cattle exports to Indonesia. I've already mentioned the fact that the Australian designed box is more humane than the traditional method. To ban Australian live exports doesn't mean any cattle will not die inhumanely, only that Australian cattle won't die inhumanely.
But the reaction of politicians has been swift spurred by the intense interest created through Facebook. The call has been merely for an end to the export trade. Reaction has been swifter than it has been to the "greatest moral issue of our time", that is climate change.
What we see is the critical weakness of direct versus representative democracy, the opportunity to plump for all the individual preferences you might make without reconciling across issues. Its extreme is seen in the model of California where direct democracy demands more services and lower taxes.
Unfortunately I'm still short on solutions to the scourge of "the mob". I don't favour a return to "elites" as espoused by some (be that Plato or Pareto). But I sure as heck don't agree with Ordan ANdreevski who wrote in Online Opinion;
Australians are increasingly becoming dissatisfied with the dumbing of democracy. The nation is ready for a transformation of civic and political culture. Australians are poised to embrace a smarter democracy that is fit for purpose.
Australia needs a new, vibrant, well informed and vigorous political culture, practices and performance to upgrade the dynamism of society and economy and increase our image, relevance and ability to attract and persuade others on a world stage. The dumbing down of politics can be curtailed though social innovation and collective impact involving all relevant stakeholders including parliamentarians, the media, research and education institutes, communities, civil society and progressive diasporas.
Unlike Lindsay Tanner, I am optimistic about the future of Australian politics. Australian democracy has the ability to change and improve for the better as new voices, new practices and talent enters the Australian Parliament, the media, research institutes and universities and contribute to national, parliamentary and policy debates and actions.
Indeed this is written in MBAese (The Urban Word of Today).
What is the actual "social innovation and collective impact"? How will "stakeholders" progress it.
I actually think the solution relies on some structural constitutional reform that does a few things;
Properly construct a "Washminster" system. Have a bicameral parliament in which one house is elected by national proportional representation and the Prime Minister and Ministers are exclusively drawn from this house. This house behaves a little like the US electoral college for President but the PR process results in the whole potential Ministry being on the ballot.
The other house continues to be drawn from separate electorates with either one or two members per electorate. But we do a better job of one-vote one-value than we do now by giving each MP the number of votes as they were elected by (in a one-member electorate that is the total of all formal votes cast, in a two-member structure it is their final votes after the elimination of all but the last candidate). Actual votes in the House require computer tabulation (can anyone explain why we still have tellers and headcounts for divisions), things won't be decided "on the voices" but by the button - press Yes or No. Even show the result on a screen. You can't use "pairs" to get around unavoidable absence - but proxies would work fine (simple rule though, a member can have a proxy for only one other member - the Whip can't control all the votes).
This at least provides some logic to the system and addresses the public concern about thinking they "vote" for the PM of their choice under the existing system. You get to vote for the PM you want and the person to represent your local needs. he local rep really stays local by not faxing redistributions every six or so years.
Does this make an improvement?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Reconnecting the Customer - draft report
The ACMA this week released its draft report from the Reconnecting the Customer inquiry. They are to be congratulated on a very good report.
In particular the research that identifies the paradox between satisfaction with service but ot service provider draws the important line in the sand punctures the repeated claims by some in industry that the claims of widespread dissatisfaction are wrong.
The extensive treatment given to the information asymmetry problem and the explanation of why competition won’t fix it is another highlight of the report. I'm disappointed that the DigEcon Research submission that made these points didn’t get cited (in fact the draft makes no reference to the submissions on the progress report).
I wouldn’t be me without identifying what I think are a few shortcomings.
The first two relate to the reports recommendations on advertising and “unit pricing”. A code that prohibits something isn’t going to fix the language problem. Similarly there are too many components of a phone bill to really apply unit pricing. An alternative to both of these was made in the discussions of advertising and pricing in the submission I made to the TCP Code.
My second gripe is the failure to recognise that omplaints/customer is an ineffective measure. I outlined why in the second DigEcon submission. The good news is that there are successful techniques to get around this.
I have further issues with the way the ACMA represents how it regulates, the role of self-regulation and co-regulation and whether it has sufficient powers. But I don't want to detract from what is, overall, a very good report.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
In particular the research that identifies the paradox between satisfaction with service but ot service provider draws the important line in the sand punctures the repeated claims by some in industry that the claims of widespread dissatisfaction are wrong.
The extensive treatment given to the information asymmetry problem and the explanation of why competition won’t fix it is another highlight of the report. I'm disappointed that the DigEcon Research submission that made these points didn’t get cited (in fact the draft makes no reference to the submissions on the progress report).
I wouldn’t be me without identifying what I think are a few shortcomings.
The first two relate to the reports recommendations on advertising and “unit pricing”. A code that prohibits something isn’t going to fix the language problem. Similarly there are too many components of a phone bill to really apply unit pricing. An alternative to both of these was made in the discussions of advertising and pricing in the submission I made to the TCP Code.
My second gripe is the failure to recognise that omplaints/customer is an ineffective measure. I outlined why in the second DigEcon submission. The good news is that there are successful techniques to get around this.
I have further issues with the way the ACMA represents how it regulates, the role of self-regulation and co-regulation and whether it has sufficient powers. But I don't want to detract from what is, overall, a very good report.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Ideas and Innovation
In the tail of the Government's National Digital Economy Strategy launch comes an ad for an Economist conference Information: Making sense of the deluge.
This is part of their series on the Ideas Economy. The conference is described as;
The world now contains unimaginably vast amounts of digital information, which is growing exponentially. The era of big data presents incredible opportunities—smarter cities, stronger companies, faster medicine—but just as many challenges. Storage is scarce, systems overloaded and governments and businesses know too much.
Managed well, data can be used to unlock new sources of economic value, provide fresh insights into science and hold governments to account. Managed poorly, it can cause great harm.
Ideas Economy: Information will tackle these issues and more. It will examine the data revolution from a range of perspectives, seeking solutions to big problems. The event will bring together theorists, strategists, and innovators who understand how to harness data to create value and advance individual, corporate, and social good.
There are two aspects of this conference that I particularly like.
The first is focussing on the Digital Economy as a problem not a promise....there are choices to be made here, not just a nirvana to be reached by peddling faster (I plan to write more on this shortly).
The second is that the conference looks like it is structured to have speakers and discussants - that is, there is real engagement with the ideas not just a blurting forth of positions. The Communications Alliance Broadband and Beyond series could benefit from this approach.
Anyhow, I'd like to know if ANY Australian is proposing to attend the conference in the US. If not, is anyone in my wider circle able to provide feedback.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
This is part of their series on the Ideas Economy. The conference is described as;
The world now contains unimaginably vast amounts of digital information, which is growing exponentially. The era of big data presents incredible opportunities—smarter cities, stronger companies, faster medicine—but just as many challenges. Storage is scarce, systems overloaded and governments and businesses know too much.
Managed well, data can be used to unlock new sources of economic value, provide fresh insights into science and hold governments to account. Managed poorly, it can cause great harm.
Ideas Economy: Information will tackle these issues and more. It will examine the data revolution from a range of perspectives, seeking solutions to big problems. The event will bring together theorists, strategists, and innovators who understand how to harness data to create value and advance individual, corporate, and social good.
There are two aspects of this conference that I particularly like.
The first is focussing on the Digital Economy as a problem not a promise....there are choices to be made here, not just a nirvana to be reached by peddling faster (I plan to write more on this shortly).
The second is that the conference looks like it is structured to have speakers and discussants - that is, there is real engagement with the ideas not just a blurting forth of positions. The Communications Alliance Broadband and Beyond series could benefit from this approach.
Anyhow, I'd like to know if ANY Australian is proposing to attend the conference in the US. If not, is anyone in my wider circle able to provide feedback.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Wednesday, June 01, 2011
Stupid stupid story
The 7pm Project just did a story on people "waking up" during surgery.
Their vox pop was a person who says she was aware during her cataract surgery, and that she just saw lights.
Well, she clearly didn't listen beforehand. My anaesthetist for both my cataract surgeries told me that I wasn't going to be fully asleep, might be aware and would see lights.
In my first I indeed did so, and even commented that it was like a 1960s light show. No pain no nothing much.
Having them draw on my eyeball to put the lens in right way up was spookier than the light show.
Mind you nowhere near as bad as Today Tonight, trying to claim the ACMA Reconnecting the Customer report as if it was their research, a whole segment that just said that Foster might be behind the slimming spray (the only evidence for which was denials) and then did a whole sement talking about a new "star" that was just cross-promotion of Australia's Got Talent.
We deserve better.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Their vox pop was a person who says she was aware during her cataract surgery, and that she just saw lights.
Well, she clearly didn't listen beforehand. My anaesthetist for both my cataract surgeries told me that I wasn't going to be fully asleep, might be aware and would see lights.
In my first I indeed did so, and even commented that it was like a 1960s light show. No pain no nothing much.
Having them draw on my eyeball to put the lens in right way up was spookier than the light show.
Mind you nowhere near as bad as Today Tonight, trying to claim the ACMA Reconnecting the Customer report as if it was their research, a whole segment that just said that Foster might be behind the slimming spray (the only evidence for which was denials) and then did a whole sement talking about a new "star" that was just cross-promotion of Australia's Got Talent.
We deserve better.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Big week ...
Wow - if you count a week from Thursday to Wednesday, just try the announcement of the timetable for 700 MHz and 2.5 Ghz auctions, the Digital Economy Strategy, the ACMA's Reconnecting the Customer draft report, the release of the draft structural separation instruments and the NBN Co contract with Ericsson for LTE (TD LTE at that!)
And I've got a rotten cold and not enough energy to write about any of it.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
And I've got a rotten cold and not enough energy to write about any of it.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Anyone seen a hole ....
This clip is not the best I've seen tonight of the verbal reprimand delivered by Senator Wong to Senator Bushby today.
But it catches a part of Bushby's response - he's the one beside Senator Brandis at the end who looks like he'd like the earth to open up and swallow him.
The only thing more stupid than Bushby was Tony Abbott who four hours later when asked about it could only repeat his silence. Looks like if he can't say "great big tax" Mr Abbott has nothing to say.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
But it catches a part of Bushby's response - he's the one beside Senator Brandis at the end who looks like he'd like the earth to open up and swallow him.
The only thing more stupid than Bushby was Tony Abbott who four hours later when asked about it could only repeat his silence. Looks like if he can't say "great big tax" Mr Abbott has nothing to say.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Cattle
The images on 4 Corners last night were very confronting, but it is hard not to feel for the cattle industry.
Live cattle are exported to Indonesia both because the Indonesians insist on Halal butchery, and because the Indonesians cannot accept frozen or refrigerated meat as they have no refrigeration.
The show showed conditions in reverse order. What used to be the only way to slaughter cattle in Indonesia was what was shown last. Cattle being tied and beaten till they would lie in such a way as to be able to have their throats cut. What looks like the very cruel Australian Meat and Livestock box is in fact humane compared to this, if done properly.
What is more interesting is that the whole idea of Halal butchery, the death by one clean stroke, is that the animal is not meant to be tortured before death. But I guess the technique was designed with goats and sheep, not Australian beef cattle.
How do you justify a stunner for an abbatoir that kills four beasts a day?
In all the discussions of frzen or refrigerated meat the option of "cryo-packed" meat seems to be ignored. While we keep this refrigerated it actually doesn't need to be - meat in a sealed bag devoid of oxygen does not go "off".
The Muslims of Indonesia will trust Australian Halal slaughter. Can we just find a way to package it?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Live cattle are exported to Indonesia both because the Indonesians insist on Halal butchery, and because the Indonesians cannot accept frozen or refrigerated meat as they have no refrigeration.
The show showed conditions in reverse order. What used to be the only way to slaughter cattle in Indonesia was what was shown last. Cattle being tied and beaten till they would lie in such a way as to be able to have their throats cut. What looks like the very cruel Australian Meat and Livestock box is in fact humane compared to this, if done properly.
What is more interesting is that the whole idea of Halal butchery, the death by one clean stroke, is that the animal is not meant to be tortured before death. But I guess the technique was designed with goats and sheep, not Australian beef cattle.
How do you justify a stunner for an abbatoir that kills four beasts a day?
In all the discussions of frzen or refrigerated meat the option of "cryo-packed" meat seems to be ignored. While we keep this refrigerated it actually doesn't need to be - meat in a sealed bag devoid of oxygen does not go "off".
The Muslims of Indonesia will trust Australian Halal slaughter. Can we just find a way to package it?
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Conroy's DE strategy
Senator Conroy released his much awaited National Digital Economy Strategy today.
The first interesting fact is the strategy #au20 is available on the nbn.gov.au website. On the belief that all acts are political I read this as the NBN is a Government strength so talking about the NBN is good.
There are three ways to talk about the strategy itself. The first is whether it is about the right thing, the second is how good it is as a strategy, and the third is the level of genuine commitment to it.
But it is bridge night - so you will just have to wait.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The first interesting fact is the strategy #au20 is available on the nbn.gov.au website. On the belief that all acts are political I read this as the NBN is a Government strength so talking about the NBN is good.
There are three ways to talk about the strategy itself. The first is whether it is about the right thing, the second is how good it is as a strategy, and the third is the level of genuine commitment to it.
But it is bridge night - so you will just have to wait.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Monday, May 30, 2011
Media Watch, iSelect and Charlie Brown
I ended my series of posts about the iSelect PR with one talking about an article in The Economist that flagged the specific issue of PR agents paying bloggers and experts to "spruke" their product.
Tonight the ABC's Media Watch picked up specifically on the Charlie Brown angle.
Adding up the unthinking reprinting of the release, the reporting of research not released and clearly unreliable and the dodgy promotion by a blogger/tech editor and you have in one piece everything wrong with PR and a lot of what passes as journalism.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Tonight the ABC's Media Watch picked up specifically on the Charlie Brown angle.
Adding up the unthinking reprinting of the release, the reporting of research not released and clearly unreliable and the dodgy promotion by a blogger/tech editor and you have in one piece everything wrong with PR and a lot of what passes as journalism.
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
The excitement builds ...
I was I think justifiably critical of the way the Budget papers dealt with Australia's future. After discussing an economy in transition the most it could find to say was a throw-away line on the NBN.
As a number of papers in a special issue of the Telecommunications Journal of Australia have noted the NBN needs to be accompanied by other strategy elements.
Tomorrow we get to hear the details. As advised via Twitter;
Remember – Min. Conroy #CeBitAUS address webcast live from via http://bit.ly/mvITcH tomorrow morning 9am 31 May #nbn #digitaleconomy (see note below)
As a foretaste of what we should hope to hear, The Economist this week ran a special on Australia. It had a excellent summary of the numbers. This was added to with a little admonition, drawing on comparisons with California, about the opportunity we face;
Australians must now decide what sort of country they want their children to live in. They can enjoy their prosperity, squander what they do not consume and wait to see what the future brings; or they can actively set about creating the sort of society that other nations envy and want to emulate. California, for many people still the state of the future, may hold some lessons. Its history also includes a gold rush, an energy boom and the development of a thriving farm sector. It went on to reap the economic benefits of an excellent higher-education system and the knowledge industries this spawned. If Australia is to fulfil its promise, it too will have to unlock the full potential of its citizens’ brain power.
Australia cannot, of course, do exactly what California did (eg, create an aerospace industry and send the bill to the Pentagon). Nor would it want to: thanks to its addiction to ballot initiatives, Californian politics is a mess. But it could do more to develop the sort of open, dynamic and creative society that California has epitomised, drawing waves of energetic immigrants not just from other parts of America but from all over the world. Such societies, the ones in which young and enterprising people want to live, cannot be conjured up overnight by a single agent, least of all by government. They are created by the alchemy of artists, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, civic institutions and governments coming together in the right combination at the right moment. And for Australia, economically strong as never before, this is surely such a moment.
That really does sum up the challenge - and much of that can be rolled into the rubric of "the Digital Economy" if by that term we mean an entire economy transformed by the digital revolution, not a subset of it (as the current Government definition has it).
The challenge for Government is real. Even those with an excessive faith in markets see a requirement for Government action - if only to further de-regulate. The economist puts it differently saying;
...government should not seek to direct the chemistry, it should create the conditions for it. That means ensuring that the economy remains open, flexible and resilient, capable ...
And while critical of the relative torpor of our Government, they also understand it, writing;
Some politicians win power and do not know what to do with it. Others come to office determined to change everything and end up doing nothing. A respectable case can be made, in certain places at certain times, for concentrating on good management and making only a few big changes, but making them well. In Australia, this case rests not just on the thoroughness of the 1983-2003 reforms but on the fact that the economy has recently passed a stress test that all other rich countries’ economies to some degree failed. The global financial crisis did not pass Australia by, but neither did it drive it into recession.
The special has a cute 3 minute video that concludes with the same line as one of the articles;
The tyranny of distance, so long Australia’s enduring curse, has been turned on its head. It is now the Antipodean advantage of adjacency.
I wonder if "the Antipodean advantage of adjacency" will catch on ... Googling however only turned up regurgitations and this piece which says;
The behavioural economics/finance guy in me has to ask the question whether the Economist magazine did indeed set out to do a hatchet job on Australia but found the story so compelling they ended up pulping their initial intent. Seems like it has to be a chance, doesn’t it?
Anyhow, let's see how the Australian Government handles it when it does address those issues about being an "open, dynamic and creative society? We can but hope.
Note: Interestingly the mini-link in the DBCDE tweet takes you to the Government's NBN site (www.nbn.gov.au) which even has an Australian Government logo (in the mode mandated by John Howard - coat of arms, Australian Government {over} National Broadband Network)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
As a number of papers in a special issue of the Telecommunications Journal of Australia have noted the NBN needs to be accompanied by other strategy elements.
Tomorrow we get to hear the details. As advised via Twitter;
Remember – Min. Conroy #CeBitAUS address webcast live from via http://bit.ly/mvITcH tomorrow morning 9am 31 May #nbn #digitaleconomy (see note below)
As a foretaste of what we should hope to hear, The Economist this week ran a special on Australia. It had a excellent summary of the numbers. This was added to with a little admonition, drawing on comparisons with California, about the opportunity we face;
Australians must now decide what sort of country they want their children to live in. They can enjoy their prosperity, squander what they do not consume and wait to see what the future brings; or they can actively set about creating the sort of society that other nations envy and want to emulate. California, for many people still the state of the future, may hold some lessons. Its history also includes a gold rush, an energy boom and the development of a thriving farm sector. It went on to reap the economic benefits of an excellent higher-education system and the knowledge industries this spawned. If Australia is to fulfil its promise, it too will have to unlock the full potential of its citizens’ brain power.
Australia cannot, of course, do exactly what California did (eg, create an aerospace industry and send the bill to the Pentagon). Nor would it want to: thanks to its addiction to ballot initiatives, Californian politics is a mess. But it could do more to develop the sort of open, dynamic and creative society that California has epitomised, drawing waves of energetic immigrants not just from other parts of America but from all over the world. Such societies, the ones in which young and enterprising people want to live, cannot be conjured up overnight by a single agent, least of all by government. They are created by the alchemy of artists, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, civic institutions and governments coming together in the right combination at the right moment. And for Australia, economically strong as never before, this is surely such a moment.
That really does sum up the challenge - and much of that can be rolled into the rubric of "the Digital Economy" if by that term we mean an entire economy transformed by the digital revolution, not a subset of it (as the current Government definition has it).
The challenge for Government is real. Even those with an excessive faith in markets see a requirement for Government action - if only to further de-regulate. The economist puts it differently saying;
...government should not seek to direct the chemistry, it should create the conditions for it. That means ensuring that the economy remains open, flexible and resilient, capable ...
And while critical of the relative torpor of our Government, they also understand it, writing;
Some politicians win power and do not know what to do with it. Others come to office determined to change everything and end up doing nothing. A respectable case can be made, in certain places at certain times, for concentrating on good management and making only a few big changes, but making them well. In Australia, this case rests not just on the thoroughness of the 1983-2003 reforms but on the fact that the economy has recently passed a stress test that all other rich countries’ economies to some degree failed. The global financial crisis did not pass Australia by, but neither did it drive it into recession.
The special has a cute 3 minute video that concludes with the same line as one of the articles;
The tyranny of distance, so long Australia’s enduring curse, has been turned on its head. It is now the Antipodean advantage of adjacency.
I wonder if "the Antipodean advantage of adjacency" will catch on ... Googling however only turned up regurgitations and this piece which says;
The behavioural economics/finance guy in me has to ask the question whether the Economist magazine did indeed set out to do a hatchet job on Australia but found the story so compelling they ended up pulping their initial intent. Seems like it has to be a chance, doesn’t it?
Anyhow, let's see how the Australian Government handles it when it does address those issues about being an "open, dynamic and creative society? We can but hope.
Note: Interestingly the mini-link in the DBCDE tweet takes you to the Government's NBN site (www.nbn.gov.au) which even has an Australian Government logo (in the mode mandated by John Howard - coat of arms, Australian Government {over} National Broadband Network)
Novae Meridianae Demetae Dexter delenda est
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)