« July 2005 | Main | September 2005 »
August 31, 2005
American nationalism
In his America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, Financial Times columnist Anatol Lieven, warns that the US polity is turning its back on the civic patriotism of the "American creed" of liberty, the rule of law and political egalitarianism in favor of an American radical and vengeful nationalism.
Lieven argues that there have been two kinds of American nationalism:--a civic nationalism, based on universalist principles of the enlightenment and that was expressed in the Declaration of Independence 229 years ago; and a far more aggressive and exclusivist nationalism that harkens back to the Protestant Reformation and the religious wars that it sparked.
This reinforces what I've thought. The former nationalism is of the Enlightenment tradition: it is based on reason, citizenship, liberty, constitutionalism, law, democracy, individualism, and the separation of church and state. The latter nationalism is anti-modern and anti-science, fearful of the outside world, self-righteous, motivated by revenge and resentment and is a part of the counter-Enlightenment.
The latter has come to the fore with the current Bush Republican Administration. Even though it wears the mask of the universalist rhetoric of democracy and freedom, it is characterised by populism, moral absolutism, messianism, a contempt for history and militant chauvinism.
This warrior, authoritarian Republican America has overwhelmed the strong liberal current in Congress. I find deeply this kind of nationalism deeply disturbing, and I recoil from its intolerant,irrational extremism.
Sad to say, you can see the formation of a similar kind of nationalism taking shape in Australia under the Howard Government. Or rather a radical, religious nationalism is being shrewdly exploited by Howard Government strategists and publicists so that a One Nation nationalism becomes a strong motivating force in Australian politics. It is a heady brew that is being stirred.
The strands of this One Nation nationalism are resentment from being a losers from globalizaton, the moral absolutes of Good and Evil; the references to the idea that those who are not with us are against us; the demonization of elites; anti-intellectualism; hostility to rational discourse; an aversion to the scientific method; and giving the liberals a demonic role in undermining the traditional values of family, religion, and nation.
Is not this populist Australian nationalism a turning away from the Australian liberal Enlightenment, with its civic ethos of a respect for the rule of law, constitutionality, democracy, and social (but not economic) equality?
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 3:20 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
August 30, 2005
Israel: how much change is real change?
It is not often that Australian journalists or media mention, let alone, talk about Israeli settlements when they touch on Palestinian/Israeli issues. Rarely is the Israeli settlement expansion discussed in the Australian media; colonialism never.
Yet Ariel Sharon, more than anyone else, is responsible for the map of Israeli settlements, the settler movement vows to continue the war against the disengagement, and that Israel has the right to the Occupied Territories. The disengagement means that the Zionist dream of the Greater Israel breaks before their eyes.
Daily Star, The consequences of Israel building settlements, 29 August
The settlement expansion has been legitimated by a messianic Zionism, its conception of a Greater Israeli and its creation of illegal outposts. The disengagement raises the question: instead of messianic Zionism that fosters the conflict between the state and religion, is it possible to have a Zionism that is not Jewish or even religious?
Rarely are these questions asked by journalists in the Australian media. They are more content to rewrite a politican's media release. However, a couple of Oz bloggers are doing their bit to counter the silence of the corporate media, and its marked failure both to inform and analyse what is actually happening in the conflict between Israeli and Palestinian organizations.
We have Evan Jones over at Alert and Alarmed, who recently highlights the ongoing pro-Israeli bias in the Australian media. He highlights how much the Australian media has tactily accepted the view of the national-Zionist Jews, most of whom oppose the disengagement.
And Antony Loewenstein who is writing a book on the issue. Antony has an article in New Matilda 51, entitled 'The mother of all smokescreens.' There he argues that Israel's 'disengagement' from the Gaza Strip:
"...aims to distract the world's gaze from the true intentions of the ultra-nationalists currently running Israel and, thus far, is proving thoroughly effective. A three-layer barrier of fence and walls on the border with Gaza is nearly completed, and will effectively confirm Palestinian fears that they will be living inside a giant prison."
'Prison' is apt as Israeli retains the right to mount incursions into Gaza, if 'suspected militants' are found, and it maintains control over land, sea and air crossings as well as water and gas reserves.
Will Israel allow Palestinians to move between Gaza and the West Bank when Ariel Sharon is expanding the Israeli presence in the West Bank?
Loewenstein also mentions the way that Jerusalem, the rightful capital of three of the world's monotheistic religions, was being divided and conquered by the Jewish state. Does that indicate that Jerusalem will become Israel's capital?
The conclusion? Ever more settlements in the West Bank, Israeli control over Gaza, and the security fence surrounding Jerusalem make an independent Palestinian state virtually impossible. What does that strategy mean? Perpetuating the Israeli occupation and establishing an Israeli apartheid regime?
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 3:57 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 29, 2005
China: new regional dynamics?
Whilst the US has been fighting the war on terror and ensnared in its occupation of Iraq, China has become both a regional power in the Asia Pacific and a rising world power. The center of world affairs is quietly shifting toward Asia.
The unipolar understanding of the world of nations no longer holds as the moment a debt-laden US being the only superpower begins to fade. Republican Washington is back talking about China in terms of it being a strategic competitor, as a power that wants to change Asia's balance of power to its own advantage, and a rising military rival.
The economic strength of China has seen the fear and prejudice associated with China bashing of the economic protectionists start up again in Washington. We can expect more anti-free-trade policies generally, more anti-China policies, and the traditional US geopolitical hostility to China being increasingly framed in terms of a confrontation.
Australia needs to deflect US demands for unquestioning support of its hostile policy on China on the ground that it is not in accord with our separate national interest.
Australia has its own problems with China as an economic partner. China's growing economic might (and India's) calls into question whether free trade is a win-win game for us. Over time, China and India could displace Australian high-tech jobs, as well as Australian wages being forced further down to sustain 'international competitiveness.' Even though Australian consumers get cheaper Chinese-made goods, many Australian citizens could be net losers from the free trade agreement, due to worker's income declining from lower wages.
Thus the realities of globalization. Though a minority of the Australian population might well gain from free trade with China and India, more may well suffer lower living standards.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:10 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 28, 2005
Iraq: close to civil war
Since there is little hope of the occupying United States military being able to defeat the Sunni Arab guerrilla movement, the emphasis shifts to the political process of creating a federal democracy. The hope is that the Iraqi constitution would unite the Iraqi nation, and give the imperial occupying forces the opportunity to exit. The draft constitution would make Iraq into a loose federation while the basis for laws would be strongly Islamic.
It would appear that the Sunni Arabs are deeply opposed to the federalism of the proposed Iraqi constitutionand the way the country's resources are to be shared.
The Sunni Arab tactics of blocking political progress, and the Sunni guerrilla movement's strategy of sabotaging Iraq's oil and electricity infrastructure, are proving to be very successful.
I cannot see the US, UK and Australian Governments putting up with this situation for the next five or more years. There is declining popular support for the war in the US, and the Republcian adminstration is struggling to sustain the present level of casualties flowing from the foreign occupation and a savage guerrilla war.
Is not a divided Iraq close to civil war? Is not the current situation one of the majority Shias and Kurds being against the Sunnis?
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:56 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 27, 2005
limits of empire
The more I read about what is happening, in Iraq the more that I reckon the limits of American empire have been reached. Even the cheerleaders are becoming increasingly critical.
The neo-cons dreamed big with their ideas about American imperium. The dream of a new Pax America, in which American ideals would prevail at the point of a gun, seduced the Howard Government and they signed up on the dotted line to supporting imperial might.
The limits have been reached in the Middle East and in Iraq.
Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy is the Howard Government's position. Yet military options or operations (eg., the assault on Fallujah) are not going to settle the nationalist insurgency, stop the terrorists or prevent the terrorism in Iraq. For all the imperial hubris about mission accomplished and the religious talk about God and Providence being on the side of the US, failure in Iraq is a real possibility.
The imperial dream, that a democratised Middle East would be a part of the American empire, has crashed on the reality of failure in Iraq. Iraq increasingly looks like Vietnam: the point where limits of empire are reached in the form of overstretch.
Not everyone everywhere wants freedom-American style.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:09 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 25, 2005
ditching liberal pluralism
There is a big cultural shift happening, which undermines the liberal pluralism of Australia, and it is being conducted in the name of Australian values. Leunig notices the conservative attack on Islam and Muslim values:
Recently we had the federal Treasurer in a media interview saying that people thinking of coming to Australia who did not like Australian values, and preferred a society that practised sharia law, should go elsewhere.
Okay. Australia is a secular liberal society and its core values are democracy, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, and personal liberty. But a core value of liberal pluralism is the tolerance of citizen's towards different religions in a liberal polity.
Peter Costello, in a media interview, said that: There is no point in coming to Australia and saying I am offended by your laws or I am offended by your Parliamentary system of democracy. If you are going to be offended by those things, then do not come.
The subtext is pretty much saying that, if you don't like those values, then don't come here, as Australia is not for you, isn't it?It comes close to denying value pluralism. Costello does recoil under questioning to affirm free speech. But the subtext remains sitting there.
Brendan Nelson, the Education Minister, goes further in a doorstop, as he makes the subtext quite explicit. He said:
...we don’t mind where people come from; we don't mind what their religion is or what their particular view of the world is. But if you want to be an Australian, if you want to raise your children in Australia, we fully expect those children to be taught and to accept Australian values and beliefs. We want them to understand our history and our culture, the extent to which we believe in mateship and giving another person a hand up and a fair go, and basically if people don’t want to support and accept and adopt and teach Australian values then they should clear off.
Under the guise of advocating tolerance towards different religions, or views of the world, Nelson is advocating a monoculture in a liberal polity. Value pluralism has been explicitly ditched. Only Australian values are tolerated.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:44 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 24, 2005
rhetoric and reality
Alan Moir tends to repeat himself with his representation of Australia's relationship with the US. He accurately depicts the power relationships between the two nation-states, but he does not capture the tensions or nuances in the relationship:
And there are tensions in the triangle between China, America and Australia: between China as a threat to the US as an empire and China as a trading partner for Australia.
These tensions are often overlaid by the conservative rhetoric of the deep anti-American feeling in Australia that is located on 'the left.'Then we are straight into the culture wars of bashing the left.
In his recent speech to the Australian American Leadership Dialogue Forum Treasurer Costello says that:
The history of the world is replete with powerful states and empires–Rome, the Ottomans, Great Britain. These were powers that ruled large areas of the globe, generally by force. There always has been and, in likelihood, always will be great powers---even hegemons. But if the world is to have a hegemon the modern United States is the kind of hegemon we would like to have--democratic, respectful of human rights, with strong and genuine belief in individual liberty.
Costello accepts the reality of political power in the world of nations, and he acknowledges that the US is the top global power. (the issue of the US aS hegemon or empire is still to be resolved). We can also agree with the Treasurer's claim that:
A stable international order which recognises these values is far preferable to one where great powers seek to extinguish these values, or to an unstable international order where these values cannot be guaranteed or enjoyed.
The issue of the rule of law is put to one side in terms of 'recognition.'
What needs to be put into question about Costello's speech is whether the US under the neo-cons around George Bush is an imperial power that is actually respectful of human rights with a strong and genuine belief in individual liberty. Does the conservative practice accord with the liberal rhetoric?
Actions speak louder than words here. Vietnam was an example of not respecting human rights; nor were the frequent interventions in Latin American to overthrow demcratically elected governments, such as Chile. Okay that was the past. Today we have the Abu Ghraib atrocities in Iraq on the road to democracy in Iraq. The actions do not accord with the words.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:41 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 23, 2005
reconnecting
Well, now. I've finally connected up to ADSL-2 and I have wireless connections inside the house for the laptop. Hopefully, things might start to get back to normal after the makeship arrangements of the last two and half weeks.
Reconnecting in the world of public policy is not just all about that monkey business and smoke around Telstra, hotwiring the bush, the Future Fund, lower share price and Telstra's threats of a campaign against regulatory restraints. Saint has a lot more on this.
It is also about telecomunications, urban living, and the usability of information technology in our everyday lives, now that we are on the net and using broadband. Just on, really, as Australia has high broadband prices, low levels of investment, low broadband penetration, poor infrastructure and lots of reselling.
Telstra is holding the development of broadband back. It lags behind its competitors in investing in brodaband, mobile, wireless technologies. It is not an innovative company, which offers equality of access to its copper wire networks and places the emphasis on the new opportunities of the emerging technology markets.
Alas, Canberra does see telecomunicatons as a way to drive economic growth and to obtain productivity gains in the economy. Since it has not prevented telcoes from own cable TY networks, so it has not created competition between two broadband delivery platforms. Since Canberra has not set stringent access requirements to Telstra's copper wire networks Telstra refuses to provide access to its monopoly copper network built with taxpayers money at rates that ensure competitor's profitability.
Opportunities do exist for innovative telcoes. Usability is crucial for consumers as we do not want to sit at a desk all day being force feed the advertisments of marketeers targeting our consumer behaviour. Could we not have some sort of commitment to free wi-fi in the provincal cities such as Adelaide? That doesn't take much to achieve does it? We do need connection amongst one another through the internet from a variety of small portable devices.
Don't expect Telstra to break new ground. It still continues to act as the 800 pound gorilla in the marketplace.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:29 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 22, 2005
Israel:different perspectives
A different perspective.
It is a thinking differently to this kind of narrative about more Palestinian terrorism after the withdrawal.
Another perspective on the settler movement. The pullout from the Gaza Strip is not the first step toward decolonization is it?
But it makes for a good narrative in the Israeli media
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:55 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 21, 2005
when does the reform start?
In the "Smart State" the Beattie Government has suffered the loss of two Labor strongholds in south-east Queensland, which it blames on the state's deepening health crisis. Rightly so.
Leahy, Beattie stumped
Maybe the days of smiles, hand-wringing promises of penance and the upbeat we are sorting the problems in Sideshow Alley are over. It looks as if is time for the Beattie Government, like the other ALP state governments, to actually start to deliver on better health outcomes. They have the cash in their coffers courtesy of the GST, so they have little excuse anymore with respect to health, roads and schools.
After all the first two waves of economic reform in Australia: the financial deregulation in the 1980s and competition policy in the 1990s are now history. Tis time to show what an ALP government understands by reform, as opposed to just keeping the economy expanding and singing the song written by the Liberal Party (25 per cent cut in business red tape over the next decade; a simpler tax system with a broader base and lower rates to significantly enhance participation, productivity and efficiency; freeing up Australian industry to better compete with the booming economies of China, India and giving greater government attention to infrastructure projects of national importance).
Me thinks the Beattie Government, just like the Rann Government in South Australia, has blown it's health reform creditionals. Neither---and we should also include the NSW Government--appear to have the political courage to begin the reform of the health system, so that greater emphasis is placed on the different kinds of primary health care rather than the public hospitals.
Plan B is really managing the media headlines to keep health off the front page. It is the same as Plan A.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:09 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
August 20, 2005
Queensland backlash
Telstra is a bedrock issue and the Nationals may well have problems with their constituents in regional Queensland about agreeing to the sale of Telstra:
Barnaby Joyce, who was bloodied by Canberra politics last week defines his room for movement:
"I will take it back to Queensland, put it on the table and say, 'fellas, this is the best I can do' ... If at the end of the day they don't want it? Beauty. Unreal. Piece of cake. We'll wander across the chamber and do it. That would be the easier choice."
Joyce rightly understands that the obligation of a federal Senator is to the public who vote for him or her, and not to the party room. After all the survival of the Nationals in Queensland is at stake on this issue, and the Nationals are right to fear their long-term decline into irrelevance.
The talentless Nationals have basically been the loyal rump of Howard's Liberals, and they have got very little out of being in coalition with Howard's Liberal Party in government.
My judgement is that the Liberal strategy is to allow the Nationals take all the political flak on Telstra, and then they will pick up the pieces from the fallout after the next election. The same thing happened with the Democrats and the GST. See the comments on the experience of negotiating with the Howard Government by Andrew Bartlett.
In the meantime the Nationals will continue to demand and extract from the Liberals a price for the continuation of the Coalition. Barnaby Joyce shows how to live off the political fat of the Liberals. Some Liberals are not happy about the price they have to pay.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 10:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 19, 2005
Israel: too soon for celebration?
Palestinians can, and should, celebrate victory of the Gaza Strip. They are justified in seeing the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza Strip as their victory, and as the second Israeli withdrawal after the earlier one from southern Lebanon.
Israel has ceded territory of the Gaza Strip and it has effectively extricated itself from an onerous occupation in which farmland and water had been plundered from the 1.5 million Palestinians.
The disengagement should have happened a decades ago.
Me thinks those who celebrate have forgotten about the deepening Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the cementing of control of occupied East Jerusalem. There would be deep settler resistance to any Israeli disengagement from that part of the occupied territories.
What will happen about the governance of the Gaza Strip post-disengagement? Ze'ev Schiff asks:
Will it be the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas, or the "people's army" (murabitoun) of Hamas, which is better trained?...part. Abbas has proposed to Hamas that it maintain the "truce agreement" until January 2006, when Palestinian Legislative Council elections will be held. Hamas is deeply opposed to the elections, and plans to renew terrorist activity in the West Bank, including firing rockets at Israeli cities.
The deep conflict within the Palestinaian political institutions is overlaid with Israeli control of Gaza strip. As Raji Sourani says:
Israel remains in control of the land borders (including the only access point from Gaza to the outside world), the sea (preventing fishing, pleasure boating or travel for work or holidays) and the air (ensuring that the airport runway remains bombed-out and inoperable).
The Israeli occupation of Palestine continues in its legal and physical form.
Israeli disengagement does not mean Palestinian self-determination.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:47 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 18, 2005
hotwiring the country
All the focus in Canberra this week has been on Senator Barnaby Joyce and the $3billion fund he was able to negotiate around the T3 sale, whilst Telstra was cut out of the deal. Suprisingly, some of the judgements about what Joyce has achieved with his resistance from within the Coalition ranks are quite harsh:
I guess that Barnaby Joyce probably did the best he could in the circumstances. But they said nothing about Costello's Future Fund being weighted with Telstra shares and little about network separation. There was very little debate about the regulatory regime of the telecommunications market after the privatisation of Telstra.
Yet Telstra will still dominate the market, continue to frustrate competition in the delivery of broadband, drag its heels on upgrading its infrastructure and continue to act as a gorilla in the marketplace. And most of the $3billion ($2 billion of the sale proceeds to establish a fund dedicated to upgrading infrastructure in the bush, as well as $1.1 billion to plug gaps in services, above all, broadband) will be spent outside the cities.
Yet we still have no broadband access in the fringe suburbs of the capital cities---eg., Victor Harbor in Adelaide--due to a failure to upgrade its infrastructure. What is required beyond fair access for competitors to Telstra's network, is a modernizing of the network by competitors. Alternative networks will not be built under the current regulatory regime.
Telstra's recent tactics indicate that it has not changeditys strategy. It tried to leapfrog the Minister of Communications (Senator Coonan) cabinet submission with its "take it or leave counter-plan" for a $5.7 billion broadband rollout in return for greatly relaxed regulation; made a last minute assault before the cabinet decision to scuttle the government's reforms about operational separation between the operational and retail divisions; and made threats to stop investing if it did not get its own way. The sttrategy is to ensure Telstra's dominance is cemented.
Telstra got off lightly. It is difficult to accept that Telstra is really concerned about implementing a strategy to build wall-to-wall broadband in Australia. It's actions indicate that it is more concerned with making a profit, protecting sharholders' interests and throwing off what it sees as onerous regulation.
The big problem is that the $3 billion package is nothing in relation to to the long-term need for investment in the network to deal with the backlog of refurbishment; let alone make a world-class broadband internet service available to the cities, regions and the bush. That problem has not really been addressed by the Howard Government's telecommunications policy, even though it managed to tak a pro-competition stance.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:10 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
August 17, 2005
something lacking
I'm still having terrible problems with dialup. Hopefully we can go onto broadband today. The regulatory regime does need to be changed as the Manuka exchange only supports ADSL at speeds up to 1.5Mb/s. We are in the heart of the capital city and the exchange does not currently support ADSL2+.
I couldn't resist this Pryor cartoon.
Pryor accurately represents my feelings on the issue. The old student Liberal warriors do go on about the principle that students should not be required to join a university "union" or guild; and they tend to say the market should decide about whether universities should be allowed to charge students a mandatory levy for sporting, health, and other facilities. They see the Nelson legislation as merely stopping unions forcing students to pay their own money for services that they don't want or need. User pays should be the new principle.
Personally I was grateful that Flinders University had good free medical services that I could access when I needed them.
Ive always thought that this totemic issue is more about fighting old battles and settling yesterday's scores with the aspiring Labor politicians on the university battlefield.
Since many vibrant clubs on campus are already self-funding would not a better approach be to figure out ways the universities can help give a political education? What is always missing in these discussions is citizenship. But then our political parties are not known for their commitment to democracy are they?
It has always suprised me that we do not have a political cartoon website that is archived by the National Library. Good work is being produced by our cartoonists. The first page I turn to in the Australian Financial Review is the back one to savour the daily Rowe cartoon.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:26 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 16, 2005
cutting deals
It is hard to follow what is going on in Parliament these days without being able to watch the House or the Senate on cable televison. Here we are setting up an office in Kingston and we cannot even get a video feed of the action in Parliament on cable (Transact) in the most trendy suburb of the capital.
The cable has yet to be laid and the ABC's new digital channel does not offer the parliamentary video feed. Maybe, Foxtel's satellite service is geared to regional markets, and they offer a live parliamentary feed through the digital Sky channel.
So I am in the same position as in Adelaide. The best that we can get on television is question time on the ABC. Or we can get is a blurry video feed on my computer screen. So I am reliant on the packaqing provided by the newspapers, radio and TV, just like everyone else.
I did manage to catch the cheeky Telstra $5 billion investment plan, in which Telstra invests $3.6 billion on the fixed-line phone network and broadband, (rather than mobiles) provided the federal government also puts in $2.6 billion,institutes a light regulatory regime and blocks operational separation.
Last night I caught a media moment of Barnaby Joyce saying he'd pretty much got the money he was after for telecommunications in the bush and he was willing to cut a deal, once he'd checked in with the Queensland Nationals. He implied that he was okay with the package that Helen Coonan was taking to cabinet today.
Joyce deserves credit for what is currently on the cabinet table. But he is cheap. He's happy with $3 billion--combination of a $2 billion trust fund and a $1 billion upfront investment---out of around $32 billion.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:47 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 15, 2005
scaremongering
I've been off-line since Thursday as I've spent the last few days cruising the Eden Valley in South Australia checking out the riesling and other wines.
So I haven't been listening to the news at all, nor watching TV, listening to the radio or reading newspapers.
Whilst flying into Canberra this morning I glanced at The Australian, as this newspaper is reputed to be the best political newspaper in Australia. I could not help but notice this article by John Stone, a former Treasury Secretary and National Party senator. Stone is arguing the case of assimmilation. This addresses:
"...Australia's rapidly growing Muslim problem. But [Australia] clearly still wants to avoid the real issues: the need to abandon outright our official multiculturalism policies and the need to sharply reduce, to the point of virtually halting, further inflow of people whose culture (Islam) is such that there can be no realistic hope of them ever integrating into Australian society."
Why should they integrate?
What is the problem of living in an increasingly Muslim-influenced Australia? Isn't it a question of Muslim's obeying the public laws of the nation-state?
Not for John Stone:
In short, we must fundamentally rethink our immigration policies and our official policies of multiculturalism (that is, non-assimilation). Our future immigration policy should focus on whether those concerned are capable of assimilating into an Australian culture shaped by, and part of, a Judeo-Christian Western civilisation.
Why so? I'm an Australian citizen and my values are not those of the a Judeo-Christian Western civilisation. I, along with a lot of other Australians, am a child of the Enlightenment, which stands in opposition to the Judeo-Christian tradition.
The question that needs to be asked of John Sttone is: why should Australia's culture be defined in religious rather than secular terms?
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:37 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 11, 2005
Tony Abbott on health reform
Health is one of those public policy issues that sits in the political background and then hits the media headlines with high costs, budget blowouts, long hospital queues, poor services, bad administration and death. Behind the media headlines the Howard Government has undertaken some useful reforms of the health system. Tony Abbott, the current Minister of Health and Ageing, describes these reforms this way:
"...the Howard Government has rescued the private health insurance system, lifting coverage from 30 per cent to 43 per cent of the population and taking pressure off the public system. The Government has introduced a new Medicare safety net, based on the fee charged, to protect people with high out-of-pocket costs who are not covered by private insurance. The Government has boosted bulk-billing from 66 per cent to 73 per cent of GP consultations; increased medical student numbers by 30 per cent; introduced much longer medical consultations for the chronically ill; and given allied health professionals access to Medicare for the first time."
It's a good description of what has happened. The Minister then says that the conservative principle is not "states' rights" but "if it ain't broke don't fix it" - or more of a concern with right outcomes than right theories. He rightly says that there are no panaceas for addressing the current flaws in the health system:
"..the trouble with reform talk is the underlying assumption that there is some comparatively straightforward change, usually a philosophical one, that, once implemented, will make the problem swiftly and painlessly disappear. Market-oriented reformers assume that price signals will solve all problems.Admirers of Britain's National Health Service think that planning and co-ordination are the universal remedy. There's much to be said for more price signals (even in health) as well as for good planning, but neither is a panacea if only because what's a solution to an economist is usually a problem to a consumer."
Alas, the minister then contradicts himself.
He reckons that:
The only big reform worth considering is giving one level of government, inevitably the federal government, responsibility for the entire health system. It won't resolve the eternal conundrum of how to provide better services while keeping costs down. It probably won't save the $2 billion a year predicted by some modellers but it will, at least, mean that there are clearer lines of responsibility and less incentives to make decisions on the basis of who pays rather than what's best.
However, he realizes that this kind of centralism, which deguts federalism, is not politically realistic. What is suprising is the Minister's lack of awareness about the way that he has dumped his conservative principles, and been seduced by big reform and sided with big theory. He has forgotten his Hayek and fallen to the fatal conceit of the socialists.
What is even more suprising is what the Minister does not say: that the importance of primary health care is to help reduce public hospital costs and the increasing costs of PBS. That approach to health care, with its diverse GP and wellness pathways, can give us right outcomes without worrying about right theories.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:29 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 10, 2005
more sound than fury?
The day the Howard Government has control over the Senate arrived yesterday. Celebrations all around whilst the talk is about Coalition unity
The legislation to ban universities charging a compulsory fee for student amenities and services, ranging from sporting facilities to dental treatment will shortly come before the Senate.
There are divisions over voluntary student unionism in the Coalition ranks about the principle that students should not be required to join a university "union" or guild; and whether universities should be allowed to charge students a mandatory levy for sporting, health, and other facilities.
I'm not sure where the rebel senators stand on these two issues. Barnaby Joyce's concern is about how university sporting facilities will be funded if compulsory student union fees are abolished.Does that mean compromise on voluntary student unions as is likely to happen with the sale of Telstra?
Pryor
I noticed that the rebel senators said nothing in the new Senate yesterday when the Howard Government reduced the number of hostile questions it fields each day, and it gave itself more time for the soft queries (Dorothy Dixers) from its own side.
Why should they? They are part of one happy family even though the Liberal and National Party MPs are scrapping publicly, as they should.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:44 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
August 9, 2005
reconnecting
I drove down to Canberra yesterday morning. The country--the southern highlands and southern tablelands---was so dry. From what I could see there was little water flowing in the creeks, and some trees were dying.
I've spent the rest of the day buying office furniture, and eating out in Kingston, which looked very sleepy this morning when I went looking for a place to have breakfast. I've managed to get a desk into an empty office space and I've been able to connect a borrowed portable computer to dialup.
I've just not had the time to connect in with what is happening in Parliament as of yet, or what happened in the various party room meetings yesterday. I presume the Nationals will try to temper Coalition plans to abolish compulsory student unionism.
And I did read in Monday's Australian Financial Review that the Howard Government is happy with the Nationals demands for a $2 billion bush telco fund as the price for passing the government's legislation; provided the fund's investment earnings of around a $100 million a year is used.
There seems to be little concern with national broadband policy, competition, Telstra separation. And there seems to be little concern with connecting the Telstra fund with fostering innovation and sustained competition in telecommunications to ensure the takeup of faster data services.
From what I can gather the Nationals are more concerned to extract more funding before they support the full sale of Telstra, than devising a regulatory regime that can foster competition in regional Australia. Those who lose out are the smaller or lower-end consumers, as they are not being offered comeptive services for their
telecommunication needs.
However, Senator Barnaby Joyce, who claims to have delivered the Senate majority for the Coalition, and for other Nationals, is threatening to cross the floor if the proposed fund does not ensure that rural services are offered at the same price and quality in the city.
So how will Australians living in the bush be assured of high-speed data and internet services and how will they keep up with their city cousins? And what sort of infrastructure platform or platforms will be needed for the delivery of high-speed telecommunication services for regional Australia?
What does that mean for Coalition unity?
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 11:58 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 7, 2005
a little tale strangely told
I don't have that much time in Sydney to weblog as I am caught up in meetings, have little time to read newspapers, and have little access to a computer.
But this caught my eye.
It's rather nifty isn't it.
I leave Sydney early tomorrow and drive down to Canberra to start setting up an office.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 5:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 5, 2005
IR legislation
I was able to read the Australian Financial Review properly this morning as I flew to Sydney. Its editorial talked about the 'siren calls of the anti-refomers' who oppose getting healthy working men and women into the workforce and and reducing their reliance on welfare paid for by taxpayers.
Intrigued I kept turning the pages of the AFR.
Then I came across an interesting article under government business, entitled 'Women band together over IR concerns'. Their concerns are that women may end with less income security, work stability and career opportunity; increased casualization of the workforce, that part-time work could more closely resemble casual work and that the changes to the unfair could affect woman negatively.
They are talking about the working poor are they not slackers living on welfare.
I'm not sure how creatigtn more working poor Australians that boosts the productivity of the economy, increases Australia's annual rate of growth to 4% and increases per capita income by 25%.
That is what the Business Council of Australia is arguing in its Locking in or Losing Prosperity: Australia's Choice.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:14 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 4, 2005
no respect for the law
It would appear from various accounts in the media that the Americans have little intention of giving David Hicks, who held at Guantanamo Bay for almost four years, a fair trial. Three former US military prosecutors have expressed their concerns over the trial process for Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks, two of them saying it is flawed and that any outcome is inevitably rigged.
Nor does the Howard Government care that an Australian citizen is being judged by an American military justice system. Hicks has been detained for 4 years without charge and he has been subject to punishment without proper access to independent legal advice. It is unclear what law Hicks has been broken, or even what he has been charged with.
Unlike Britain, which insisted that British prisoners be repatriated, the Australian Government supports the way the US is treating Australian citizens.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 3:47 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
August 3, 2005
Queensland Health
There is something quite rotten inside the Queensland Health bureaucracy. With the Jayant Patel saga Queensland Health's most senior staff have pleaded ignorance over knowledge of his credentials and incompetence until the scandal erupted. No one is responsible for the evil.
The Dr Berg case, (Dr Vincent Berg was a psychiatry registrar at Townsville hospital with bogus credentials) has shown how a concerted effort to raise grave concerns with the then minister and her top bureaucrats was doomed to fail and was swept under the carpet.
By all accounts Queensland Health is still not fully co-operating with Mr Morris and his staff running the Commission of Inquiry.
Should not the finger also be pointed at the Beattie Government? Despite the media impression of the government as vigorous, dynamic, and getting things done, it looks increasingly incompetent.
Is it not the state government responsible for a dysfunctional and gridlocked health department? Has it not fostered a political culture in which public hospitals are chronically under funded and a bureaucracy that is more focused on balancing budgets and being a business rather than delivering better clinical outcomes?
Oh, where's the AMA in all of this?
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 12:00 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack
August 2, 2005
Australia as a low wage economy?
Not so long ago Australia fancied itself as the smart and clever country that would be the stepping stone to Asian for foreign multinationals. They would set up their regional HQ in Australia and establish their manufacturing plants in Asia. Australia would become the high tech country. That was the ALP's modernizing dream.
No more. The Industrial Relations legislation of the Howard Government, which is due to pass through federal parliament this year, means a low wage Australian economy. The fall in incomes due to the lower wages of low income households will be compensated with increased government transfers in the form of tax relief and increased family benefits.
Why this pathway? Well Australia has been bypassed. The multinationals are setting up in China. As this article by George Zhibin Gu in Asia Times Online makes clear China's is beginning to make the shift from a low value-added, investment-driven economy to a high value-added, efficiency-driven one:
The latest trend is for foreign multinationals to set up research and development centers within China; IBM, Sony, Philips, Microsoft, Siemens, Intel and LG have set up more than 600 R&D centers in the country. These centers are not only responsible for producing products localized to cater to Chinese demand, but in many cases, next-generation products for the global markets. Countless businesses from the developing world have also rushed into China, developing the business chains even further....As long as China continues to be politically stable with fast-growing consumption as well as a friendly business environment, foreign investors and multinationals will continue to treat China as a priority.
So more and more deregulation of the labour market makes sense given the geo-economic reality of Australia becoming the quarry for China.It means a radical economic agenda that shifts Australia's economy to a low value added one.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 7:02 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
August 1, 2005
yep
As Canberra becomes increasingly concerned about Telstra's opposition to subsidising rural and regional phone services and government regulation, the Queensland Nationals are flexing their muscles. They are drawing lines in the sand, talking tough about their five pillar policy and fingering their political guns.
By all accounts the Nationals see themselves as the effective opposition in the Senate over policy issues such as Telstra, banning compulsory student union, an ethanol mandate, and stem cell research. They stand for something these days beyond pork barelling and self-interest. They are back in business.
We will wait and see what they deliver.
Did you notice that there is not much talk about competition and telecomunications by the Nationals. Why not design the market so that consumers in regional Australia can have a range of services offered by a range of competitors?
Update: 2 August 2005
In In a speech to a Telstra Country Wide Advisory Board dinner, So Trujillo attacked federal competition laws as anti-competition:
They are rules that belong to the last century. Instead of fostering competition, they hinder it. Instead of promoting innovation, they stifle it. Instead of protecting the consumer, they deny choices to the consumer.
Maybe. Telstra's community service obligations to the bush is ompatible with a egulatory regime based on competition at all cost.
But it is hard to feel sorry for Telstra for being is being "strangled" by regulations and having to bear alone the burden of improving services to the bush. Telstra is well known for playing the anti-competitive game very hard top prevent alternative services from developing.
Of course, nothing was said about that lack of interest in Australian consumers by the gorilla in the marketplace. Nor was anything said about the current anachronistic arrangements subsidising Telstra's monopoly and helping Telstra suppress competition.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 2:48 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack