"Machiavellian manoeuvrings"

There is an article in today's SMH that is a very good read. For those that have been fortunate enough to hear me dribble on about the self serving, spineless, incompetant, convictionless and at times pathetic representatives that sit in Parliaments across the country. Please read this article as it articulates many of my sentiments.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/spin-is-no-match-for-debate-in-a-democracy-20100609-xwq3.html Richard Torbay is the independent member for Northern Tablelands

HOW MUCH SHOULD WE SPEND TO SAVE YOUR JOB?

I believe it was a lesson learnt in the very early stages of Economics in high school, maybe in the first week of classes; Cost vs. Benefit. For those that missed that class, a Cost vs. Benefit analysis (CBA) involves collating the total expected benefits of a decision and the total expected costs and then comparing them to those of other actions or decisions which could be made. This type of analysis is done in banking and all forms of business everyday, either formally or informally. I don’t see how a financial decision of any significance could be made without a CBA being carried out as a minimum.

The BER program has been getting more than its share of criticism by politicians, talkback radio hosts and various sections of the media. The program has had a profound benefit for schools and their communities. The scheme was not an infrastructure scheme, it was a stimulus scheme. “BER is a key element of the Australian Government’s $42 billion Nation Building - Economic Stimulus Plan, which aims to provide economic stimulus by supporting employment through local infrastructure projects.” (http://www.deewr.gov.au/schooling/buildingtheeducationrevolution/Pages/default.aspx)

Considering the program is not a building program and it is a stimulus program, the basis for which the program is judged is by how many jobs it created in the economy and what was the flow on economic benefits. The value for money argument only carries weight if you consider it in the context of stimulus and not the end use of the project. I have done my best to find the total benefits (monetary and non-monetary) of the scheme and the total costs of the scheme (including restriction on future employment opportunites due to government debt) as would be needed in carrying out a CBA but I don't think they exist. Gillard and Rudd can’t tell you the total cost per job they saved and I don’t think that is good enough. They may have made a great financial decision to run with this scheme. But who knows?

My gripe with the now cancelled insulation scheme is slightly different to what has been reported in the media. While the deaths are shocking, the house fires are inexcusable and the rorting criminal, in the context of stimulus none of these things are really relevant. My concern is; why was the scheme ever implemented in the first place? What was the stimulus benefit? I have tried pretty hard to find treasury documents that show that the money spent on installing insulation is going to produce benefit X. I am yet to find one.

Questions which I would expect to be relevant for an insulation scheme are: What is the cost saving in energy bills per year? What are the dollar values of the environmental benefit? But these are only relevant as side points in the context of stimulus. The real questions are: How many jobs were prevented from being lost? What was the flow on benefit to other parts of the economy?

As an electorate we are asked to vote for who we believe is best going to represent our community and who we believe will make the most beneficial decisions. I can’t tell you and I don’t think anyone outside of Treasury can either (and probably not inside of Treasury), if the total cost of the stimulus, including the cost of the loss of life, the cost of the house fires, the cost of the rectification works, the destruction of industries (the insulation and school building industry will now move to recession once the stimulus runs out) will exceed or be less than the total benefit to the community. However the success of the stimulus has nothing to do with all those points. The success of the scheme rests solely on this: if all those jobs saved were allowed to be lost, would the costs of welfare and economic recovery have outweighed the total costs of the stimulus scheme? Was the debt we are in worth saving your job? Did it actually save it?

The Iraqi Information Minister has returned!

In breaking news it has been revealed that the Australian Government has employed a new public relations manager. The new role will be known as the Information Minister, yet strangely enough the role will not be filled by an elected official but will be a hand picked appointee. It was announced this morning that the role will be filled by Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf.

If that name is familiar to you, it should be. Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf came to international attention during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, at that time he was the Iraqi Minister of Information. During the initial invasion, Al-Sahhaf gave daily press conferences. He was renowned for his accuracy of reporting and the ability to get clear, unbiased information out to the world and Iraqi people.

Memorable moments of his career include such quotes as "They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any airport. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a Hollywood movie. You do not believe them." At another time he said "Today I have visited whole Baghdad city, no invaders found. You go and see how we have ousted them from this city. They are crying outside and waiting to receive bullets. They will be killed shortly." this was said as US tanks were rolling down the streets a couple of blocks from his press conference.

Mr Rudd has announced his appointment saying that due to the Australian public's desire for information we have reached a point where a full time information liaison is needed and that Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf is the most qualified for this role. All future questions on policy must be directed to the new Minister, Mr Rudd and his government will no longer be making any form of public announcement.

Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf has hit the ground running stating that all insulation fires were not actually taking place, that the media was using file footage from the Hollywood movie "Backdraft". He has assured the public that we are in a state of emergency, "the advertisements produced by the mining companies are expressing an opinion which is contrary to Mr Rudd, such expression and rational thought is confronting and dangerous and must be stopped." Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf will be making daily announcements on all policy issues until Mr Rudd believes that the public has understood that he knows best and ceases asking questions.

For further information on Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf please see, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Saeed_al-Sahhaf http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/

Monetary policy- is it time to take it off politicians?

Following on from my previous blog on the style of politician/policy that is thriving under our current system, promoted by the 24hr media cycle. I encourage you all to read the following article:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2908995.htm

I believe there is serious merit in the arguments put forward in the article. It is definitely worth discussion.

Does it annoy you?

Politics in Australia annoys me. Most politicians annoy me. The community’s acceptance of the state of politics and the skill level of our politicians annoys me. Here is why:

When elected governments have an issue that they took to the election as a promise we will hear talk of how they have “a mandate for change”, “a mandate for action” which is fair enough given the Collins dictionary defines mandate as “the support or commission given to a government and its policies or an elected representative and his policies through an electoral victory”. Yet when they are breaking a promise, the word mandate and all its meaning vanishes. It is my belief that political parties contesting election should publish all the issues they are seeking a “mandate” on before the election in a clear and simple format, free of spin. That list then needs to be monitored and have the outcomes recorded against each issue stating what has happened, what is planned, why nothing has happened and will anything happen. I’m tired of promises being made, forgotten, distorted and buried.

I’m tired of the 24 hour media cycle, the politics it promotes and the style of politician that thrives under it. It is an incredibly lazy system that we have allowed to develop. The cycle is promoted by the media advisors of the parties in an attempt to keep their party in the headlines, it is sold to us by the media as what we want, when in reality the reason they are on board with the 24 hour cycle is that it lets them do very little work. All a journalist needs to do these days is take the press release, throw in a few lines of padding about things that don’t matter, then add a headline and presto, you have an article. Why search for the full facts? Why do any real analysis? Why ignore the spin and self-promotion that is hidden in all the press releases, the media advisors have given you a “just add water story” so that is all they need to do. This has led to society being inundated with announcements, headlines, promises, facts and figures, all unchecked all with very little analysis and even less substance. This inundation has lead to accountability being a forgotten word. Politicians are no longer held accountable for the truth and consequence of what they say and do, as society is so confused and swamped by what they have actually said. They are only held to account by their party on whether what they have said has resulted in a positive outcome in the polls.

What this means is we are left with a system that is inundated with fame seeking politicians and sitcom sized problems, problems that create headlines, get the politicians in the spotlight and make it appear to the electorate like our elected representatives are earning their keep. This has lead to simple solutions for simple problems and no one watching what is happening to the complex problems. If we want our society to thrive, we need to remove the celebrity of politics, stop allowing politicians to appear in our nightly news bulletins and front page stories as a daily occurrence. Only put them in our papers if what they have done truly warrants the front page, only interview them if they have something of substance to say. We need to stop applauding mediocrity, start applauding them for what they are elected to do, that is, make tough decisions, act on the behalf of their electorate, and work their backsides off for the good of the country and not for the good of the next election. If you want to be a celebrity, go win a Logie, don’t become a politician.

Quick look over there it's Elvis!

Well done to Mr. Rudd and Mr. Swan on producing an election year budget disguised as a budget designed by fiscal conservatives. Those that think the stage managed show that is the federal Labor party has produced a sensible budget, designed as a plan for recovery, a plan to return to surplus, a budget that wasn't designed with the sole intention of laying the foundations to paint themselves as economically trustworthy, fiscal geniuses, should keep their heads buried in the sand so I can kick them up the backside!

Recently Mr. Rudd scrapped the plan to build 260 child care centres (when originally announced his plan got him plenty of positive press), but wait for it here is the best bit, this is actually genius. Our cities are in need of new child care centres in our population dense areas, canceling this plan, will lead to an increase in cost as demand is not met, under this budget Mr. Swan has then increased the cost of child care further by reducing the child care rebate. The effect of this double increase will cause thousands of families to be priced out of child care, it will lead to the cost vs. benefit of mothers/fathers returning to work tipping in the way of cost, which will reduce the amount of people looking for work, which reduces unemployment. Boom! Pure genius, it will reduce demand on child care and reduce unemployment.

Without diving deep into the numbers breakdown, Mr. Swan has introduced personal income tax cuts, YAY WE LOVE TAX CUTS, but are we really getting tax cuts? The budget papers show that revenue on income tax is forecast to rise from $120 billion this year to $174 billion in four years time, this is mainly due to the growth rate causing bracket creep, and no adjustment to the brackets other than the tax free threshold increase (which will be eaten by bracket creep)

There has been $1billion removed from our foreign aid budget, yet we are still committed to our target of 0.5% of national income committed to foreign aid/development by 2015/16. If we hit that target, the projected budget surplus won't be occurring.

The most interesting part of this budget is the figure which is not there at all. The $42billion National Broadband Network is not in the budget. Mr. Swan said in his speech last night "The Government has made appropriate provision in the Budget for the roll-out of NBN, subject to a final response to the implementation study". In my books that is false accounting, they plan on spending $42billion, but as they see it as an income producing investment, they have left it out of the books. But hold on a second, what happens if the $42billion blows out, what happens if the return on investment targets are not met? what if? what if?

THERE WILL BE NO BUDGET SURPLUS, saying so is misleading, in fact it is fraudulent! Mr. Swan and Mr. Rudd stop marketing yourselves as something you are not, you are not brilliant economic managers, you are not fiscal conservatives. You lie, you deceive, you are brilliant at using smoke and mirrors!

Kristina Keneally- Union Puppet or Dame in Shining Armour?

“I am nobody’s puppet, I am nobody’s protégé, I am nobody’s girl"
Kristina Keneally, December 2009

When Nathan Rees was forced out of the pole position in December last year, his outgoing gift to the NSW Opposition, and warning to the NSW public, was the promise that whoever replaced him would be just another union ‘puppet.’

Over the following four months the new Premier, well coiffed and media savvy, fought hard to shake that image.

She spent the summer travelling around the state, being seen at every flood; fire; school opening; down mines; drought affected areas; effortlessly riding her bike to Parliament, sipping desalination plant water as if it were expensive Sav Blanc.

She tried hard to distance herself from her tainted Government and create what has become known as ‘Brand Keneally.’

And slowly but surely, the rumble around town became more positive, people starting to talk about the ‘hot’ new Premier.

Women wanted to be her, and men, well, wanted to be with her. The tide began to turn from the negative obsession with the Labor Government to one, for long suffering Labor supporters, of almost nervous hope.

Aussies love to back an underdog and Keneally had underdog qualities.

The odds of her surviving the public’s fierce scrutiny were not good. A woman with a much criticized, stubborn American twang that refused to leave her despite years of speech classes, she was pushed into the limelight to try and resurrect a Government everyone had long ago lost hope in.

Considering the rabble that is her Government and the stench left from the corruption that plagued Labor since before the doomed Morris Iemma took over the reins in 2007, even the most die hard Liberal will agree she has done pretty well.

Kristina Keneally has come out looking disturbingly dame-in-shining-armouresque like.

That is, perhaps, until now.

For anyone that actually follows the daily ins and outs of state politics in NSW, Monday May 3rd 2010 should be a day to remember, the day Nathan Rees’s puppet prediction came true.

Or at the risk of being over dramatic, at least the day Kristina dropped the polished guise of being a stand-alone player.

Kristina Keneally was invited by the Newcastle Coal Infrastructure Group (NCIG) to officially open the new $1 billion coal loader. The coal loader will shift up to 30 million tonnes a year and provide jobs to around 800 people for two to three years.

New infrastructure and more jobs is exactly what this broke and struggling state needs. After recently wasting $500 million on the failed CBD Metro project the Premier should be welcoming this huge contribution to the economy with arms wide open.

Yet the opening was snubbed by Kristina Keneally and her entire Cabinet.

Why?

Because the Maritime Union of Australia lobbied her to boycott the opening, citing problems with collective union work agreements.

The questions this raises are;

- Does this spell the beginning of the end of Kristina being able to keep the unions at arms length?
- Was she right in boycotting this event at the behest of the unions and a workplace agreement?
- What power does Government have to intervene in work place agreements?

My prediction?

Unfortunately for Kristina, despite her most valiant efforts, she has already stumbled and will ultimately either be dragged down by union bullies, or else fall at the hands of the mistakes made by her stale and corrupt Government.