shannonsays.com

Politicians & Free Trade

Interesting idea from Andrew Bolt (yes, he's back) this week.

Following the defection of Victorian Senetor Julian McGauran to the Liberals this week, the Bolta suggests a kind of poltical draft:

At the age of 50, say, or 45, a politician should be expected to finally know his -- or her -- best mind. Let them at that age have the right to go into an annual draft to join a more compatible team, as do footballers when they join another club.

And so the Liberals could trade the multiculturalist Petro Georgiou for Labor's one-Australia Martin Ferguson. Labor could take soft Bruce Baird -- please -- in exchange for the pro-freedom hawk Michael Danby. And wouldn't Malcolm Turnbull, so GQ modern, make Labor an excellent leader in the Hawke mode? Beazley, I'm sure, would make a nice swap, fitting in snugly as John Howard's pro-war Minister for Defence.

As if Beazley could fit snugly anwhere.... And Julia Gillard?  Well, she can go join the Democrats (do they still exist?)

Malcolm Turnbull's Idea of the Week

I am starting to like Malcolm Turnbull.  Well sort of anyway. No doubting that he is an aggressive and arrogant bloke who's extreme wealth (he is a BRW Rich Lister)makes sure his feet never touch the same earth that you and I walk on.  But this arrogance also means that he is not scared to go out on a limb and put forward his ideas.

Last week we had his 274 Tax Reform Ideas.  Which got up a few people, including Federal Treasurer Peter Costello

And this weeks "Idea of the Week" is to give all citizens a permanent email address - that could
look something like [email protected] and would allow the
government, banks and super funds to keep in contact with people forever .  It could initially
be voluntary and aimed at younger, techno-savvy Australians, and would make it easier for the government to communicate with the public, while at the same time slashing the government's mail-out costs.
"Basically governments have enormous difficulties in communicating," Turnbull told Crikey "You talk about the cost of communicating with the public with ministers and they just roll their eyes," he said, although he wouldn't offer up an estimate of how much money his scheme could save the government.
So How serious is Turnbull about the idea? "I'm not suggesting that it's going to
be government policy next week, or even next year, but it is an interesting idea," Turnbull said. "I think that the novelty of the concept is that it's unique and it's permanent."
An interesting idea.  Sure is.  But, like his Tax Ideas, this one is being quickly ridiculed.  According to Irene Graham, Executive Director of internet group Electronic Frontiers Australia, a scheme like Turnbull's could open up sensitive information like bank account info, superannuation and employment stats to anyone that wanted to know.
"Ridiculous, that's the only word to describe it," Graham told Crikey.

On the face of it, this does seem a like a good, if not impractical idea.  Being assigned a permanent email address does not mean people will read mail. Especially once it becomes full of government spam.  And let's not kid ourselves, The Government will need to send paper correspondence either to ensure the person receives it, or just cause they want to.  Much in the same way we all still send letters to people.  Not to mention that fact the not everbody has an email address or access to a computer.

But despite all of that, isn't is kinda refreshing to see someone from one of our mainstream political parties putting some different idea's out and about.  And we need to remember that he isn't putting this forwards as some kind of policy idea, it is just an idea.   

Just like his tax ideas, it is different, and deserves a bit of discussion and debate.

Brendan Nelson's Values

Our Education Minister Brendan Nelson wants to see some "essentially Australian" values introduced into our schools – "understanding, tolerance, inclusion and responsibility, care, compassion, reaching out to others, doing your best, pursuing and protecting the common good, treating all people fairly, enterprise, respectfulness, fidelity, comradeship and endurance." And if people don't want to "accept and embrace" those values, he says, "they ought to clear off."

What to make of this.... Cameron thinks that Nelson is "way out of line"

"That isn't what this country is about. That isn't what democracy is about. The minute that you have one group of people forcing their values or beliefs on another group of people, you don't have a democracy any more - you have a form of fascism."

I don't completely disagree.

But I do reckon that people living here should "accept" our values in the sense of obeying by the laws that embody them – we demand that of all Australians.  Now that doesn't mean that they have to agree with them. Any Australian is entitled to object to any of our values, our laws or our institutions, and they even have the right to try to change them, provided they do so within the confines of the law.

However, forcing our "values"on people, whether they are immigrants or not, would be a futile exercise at best, and potentially dangerous and divisive at worst.  Particularly when Nelson's and his values smell more like something out of the 1950's than contemporary Australia.  But I don't find anything wrong or offensive in asking immigrants to gain a wider understanding of Australian Culture and history.

Putting that argument aside, it's interesting that value debate has entered the Australian political arena.  We are used to it happening in the United States, where their whole political system and decision making is centered around sphere of values, but it never really happens like that in Australia.  Mark Latham tried to focus on values during last years Federal Election (remember the "Ladder of Opportunity") but was steamrolled John Howard's economic agenda.

I wonder what our values would have been if Latham had been elected?

"Business as Usual"?

 "We have just got to react calmly and continue with our business as much as possible as normal."

That was Tony Blair in response to the recent attacks in London.

But from what I have been reading it seems that it is anything but "business as usual" in London, and it is far from "business as usual" or calm here in Australia.

In the last week we have been inundated with ideas and plans on how our Governments and authorities intend to respond, including increased number of CCTV cameras in our capital cities, random bag searches on public transport, a National ID card,  questioning students who borrow "terrorism books" from libraries, and we'll probably even hold a national security convention.

That doesn't send a message that it is "business as usual" does it?

It really says that we should suspect everyone, (and everyone should suspect us) as being a potential terrorist, until they can prove otherwise.

Now I understand that people are nervous, and that we expect our politicians and leaders to implement measures that protect our well being and safety.  But it appears to me that in the space of a week our politicians have latched onto this nervousness and fear and are talking about a stack of measures almost just for the sake of doing something... anything. 

But many of these so-called "security measures" have the potential to do nothing more than further eroding the levels of trust we have in one another.  And they are particularly dangerous here in Melbourne, where we have such a diverse mix of cultures and ethnicity's.

We'll end up looking at each other with sideways glances and increased suspicion, hardly a healthy way of living together, and hardly business as usual.
 

The Queen & a "B-Grade" Hollywood Movie

Given the interest in here Australia in the British royal family – and by definition our own as well – it is a bit surpriosing that a fascinating piece in The Los Angeles Times (via Crikey) on the cost of running the monarchy was hardly mentioned in the Australian media.

The members of Australians for a Constitutional Monarchy will be happy to know that keeping the queen of Australia costs the British public 61 pence per taxpayer per year – or $86 million. This is what it costs to produce a B-grade Hollywood movie and the comparison will not be lost on many people.

But whilst cries of "it doesn't cost us a cent" will be heard amongst these misguided folks – they  conveniently forget that keeping up the eight viceroys, whose names are largely unknown, representing the foreign, non-resident, unelected head of state, costs the Australian taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars each year.

While we insist on keeping the outdated, irrelevant colonial system of government, the cost will rise sharply every year, overtaking what the hapless British pay for the largely ignored and ridiculed soap opera known as the House of Windsor.

Beazley's Own Goal

If you needed proof that:
a)  Kim Beazley Mk II is the same old irrelevant and inept buffoon that Kim Beazley Mk1 was, and
b)  That the ALP opposes permanent tax cuts for Australians

Then you certainly got it over the last two days.

Here's what I mean.  Kim is supposed to be the leader of a party that has been representing the interests of working men and women, our lowest paid, our worst off, for over a century.  But it has lost its way and it has lost its traditional support base and four elections in a row.  So what does Kim do?  He comes out, all bullish like, and says he will block tax cuts for these very same people.

Given that the tax cuts are skewed more towards higher income earners, he might think that it is noble to fight the good fight and all, some sort of symbolic gesture or something, but all Kim is doing is shooting blanks, wasting everyones time and prooving his irrelevancy.  Why?  Because in seven weeks and one day, can be overruled if the government convenes the new Senate early and shoves its legislation through.  His fight is hoplessly futile and terrible politics.

So it is a bizzare and potentially isolating stance to take.  Even his own party are shaking their heads in disbelief.  Thumbing his nose at $12 shows a dangerous misreading of the public mood. Any form of tax cut is appreciated in middle Australia, something that Mr Howard appears to understand.

Tonight's Budget Reply address should be interesting.  No policies, no ideas, and completely out of touch.  That's our Kim.

The Three Amigos: Howard, Bush & Blair

Tony Blair limped home to a third consecutive election victory this week.  So after what was a torrid campaign, we might ask did he lie, did he mislead, and did he take Britain to war in Iraq under false pretenses and without legal sanction?

And who cares?  Does it matter?  Even if he did, it didn't stop him or his Government being re-elected.  Sure his political reputation might have suffered a little, but he's no different  from John Howard and George W, the other two amigos's who took their countries to war in Iraq.  The other two leaders who were criticised over their involvement in Iraq.  The other two leaders who were re-elected by their people all the same.

So what's the message here? 

It seems that if you are managing healthy economy that allows most people to prosper, buggar all else matters.  Politically, you can do what you like.  All three men seem to know through gut feel, prosperity beats principle every day of the week in a modern democracy.

Victorian Budget Notes

(Apologies for the lack of posting over the last couple of days.  I have been in Canberra on a work conference.  If you have never been to Canberra, but lived through the 70's the two are probably much the same.)

But whilst I was away the biggest spending Victorian budget in history was handed down by Steve Brackswards and John Bumble. And they have done a u-turn from spending our money on public servants towards cranking up capital investment.  (Big new buildings and stuff are handy around election time...)

To understand Victoria's budget and balance sheet you need to go back to what Treasurer John Brumby inherited from Jeff Kennett 1998-99, when total budget sector employee costs were only $7.4 billion. The Kennett government slashed the public sector workforce from 260,000 to about 160,000 in an exercise that largely remains unprecedented anywhere in the civilised world over the past 50 years.

When elected the Bracks government set about restoring some of the slashed services and billions of extra dollars were poured into police, teachers, nurses and the like. This explains the 67% surge in employee costs to $11.8 billion over the six years to 2004-05. That's an extra $4.7 billion a year hit on a budget that was in surplus to the tune of $1.5 billion in 1998-99.

However, there was a major shift in the rhetoric yesterday with no more talk about extra nurses and teachers – they've already more than got their whack. Nup, now we're going on a $10 billion infrastructure spending gorge over the next four years to improve the facilities that all these newly employed public servants work in. New schools, cop shops and hospitals will be popping up all over the place.

But the only problem is that Victoria is going back into debt to fund it.  I have no problems with debt, and I think that chasing massive surpluses when debt is cheap is a bit silly.  But debt isn't so cheap anymore, and it is getting more expensive.  So why the Bracks and Treasurer Brumby would launch us into debt is anyones guess.  They can't manage a surplus, so fagged if I know how they figure they can keep a grip on a balance sheet that is in the red.

Remember, the Bracks government inherited the strongest finances of any incoming state government over the past 30 years, with the exception of Queensland.  And Queensland  retains a balance sheet about $20 billion stronger than Victoria.

Our money has been slowly eroded by big spending programs and the best evidence of the squandered inheritance being its admission there was no room left in the budget to fund the Mitcham-to-Frankston freeway, despite the $600 million Canberra was prepared to kick in.

It's all a bit scary when you think about it.  The Victorian ALP Government haven't proven themselves to be great financial managers (although they have done a reasonable job) any economic downturn would send our budget soaring towards a $1 billion deficit in no time at all....

Parliamentary Boofheads: Our Taxes at Work

With so many important social issues about at the moment, it's comforting to know that our politicians are engaging in constructive debates during Parliament sessions:

This from Meredith Burgmann, president of the Legislative Council of NSW:

"On 6 April 2005 I was asked to rule whether the term "boofhead" should be ruled out of order. I am generally in favour of the tradition of robust debate in this Chamber and believe that members of the House should not be too precious about their public lives. Having examined a precedent and considered the issue deeply, I find that the term "boofhead" has been used in past debates in this Chamber. Having regard to the rulings of previous Presidents, I rule that the term "boofhead" may be considered unparliamentary only if the member so addressed finds the term offensive.

I am informed that the Hon. Ian Macdonald does not regard the term as offensive. Accordingly, I rule that the term "boofhead" is not unparliamentary. However, I warn members that I have discovered that the following terms are unparliamentary and, therefore, out of order: scabs and rats, treacherous turncoat, thug boy, nong, and duplicitous Labor lap dog, which I rule to be out of order."

(thanks to Andrew at IA.  You can now get his book on Amazon)

Did the Greens influence the Papal Vote?

Unless you live in another Galaxy, you'll know that we now have a new Pope.  Probably not a new, more liberal Catholic Church, but a new Pope all the same. In annoiting Ratzinger, the vatican has voted for some continuity of John Paul's policies.  This signals an endorsement of the church's most conservative teachings and views.  Couple his views with his snow-white hair, piercing blue eyes and soft German accent (I think he looks a bit sinister), he'll be a bundle of funs that's for sure.

I wonder if those silly, irrelevent wombats over at the Australian Greens had anything to do with Ratzinger's transformation into Pope Benedict XVI? 

Following reports that George Pell, the Arch bishop of Sydney, had emerged as a dark horse to become the next Pope, Greens MP Lee Rhiannon fired off a note  to the Vatican urging the Catholic Church to deny the ultra conservative leader a promotion to head the church…

Who the hell she thinks she is has got me stuffed.  Silly old duck isn't even a Catholic.

I await the the letter from the new Pope urging the Greens to dump Lee Rhiannon...