« January 2010 | Main | March 2010 »
February 28, 2010
bizarre
The assassination of Mahmoud al- Mabhouh (a senior Hamas official in Dubai) apparently by electrocution and smothering with a pillow by an alleged Mossad hit squad at the Al-Bustan Rotana hotel in Dubai is now at the centre of a white-hot diplomatic row between Israel, Britain and Australia. Israel has come under mounting international pressure after Dubai police published details of 26 suspects and said that 12 British, six Irish, four French, one German and three Australian passports were used to help carry out the assassination.
Israel has refused to confirm or deny its involvement but has described Mabhouh as playing a key role supplying Iranian rockets and money to Hamas. Israeli officials say they believe protests from Britain and other countries are for public consumption only, and that the current crisis will soon pass in the the "civilized" world that is engaged still in a "war on terror."
An example of Israel advocacy in the form of apologism is the op-ed in The Sydney Morning Herald by Sarah Honig, a columnist and senior editorial writer for The Jerusalem Post. This piece from the Israeli Right advocates politically motivated torture/assassination by a nation state whilst condemning terrorist acts such as suicide bombings, and Israel using extreme force as the preferred form of self-defence.
The "reasoning " is bizarre. Honig says:
The only reason for Israel's fellow democracies to harp on the purported insult to their hallowed papers is to curry favour with the terror-sponsors and bask in the warm ambience of the Israel-bashing fraternity. This presumably accords them some temporary anti-aggression insurance.The illusion may be sweet, but weren't Australians targeted in the Bali atrocity without an Israeli link? If anything, we are in the same boat rather than on opposing sides. It behoves Western democracies not to lose sight of the fact there are instances in which ends do justify means.
It is true that Israel and the Palestinians are in a state of perpetual war and it is only the intensity of the conflict that varies; that Israel sees Hamas – which controls the Gaza Strip – as a dangerous enemy that is committed to the destruction of the Jewish state; and that an end to the Jewish state is often demanded in the name of Palestinian nationalism.
But what evidence does Honig have for her claim that Australia curries favour with terror sponsors? Secondly, what has Bali got to do with Hamas and Israel? Honig adds:
Overlooking the crime and focusing on technical, legalistic niceties attests to a skewed moral compass, indeed, to outright moral impoverishment. It signals to Israelis that their blood is cheaper than passport-paper. It signals acceptance by the West of lopsided Arab logic whereby Arabs have the right to inflict incalculable harm on Jews, and to do so in the most sadistically inventive ways, while the Jews' attempts to deflect such blows are evil and deserving of punishment.
Honig's assumption appears to be that criticism from any quarter of Israeli actions includes an implicit questioning of the legitimacy of the Jewish state. This rightwing Israeli-nationalist political rhetoric functions to ensure that dissent is marginalised and any criticism from abroad robustly shouted down.
Israel has fought two major wars – in Lebanon and Gaza – with American support which killed more than 2,500 Lebanese and Palestinians and about 170 Israelis. Most Israelis thought the wars were justified acts of self-defence. However, particularly after Gaza, the international community began to disagree. The current right-wing coalition government's response is to play on a sense long shared by many Israelis that they are embattled, misunderstood and find themselves in an increasingly unsympathetic world.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:07 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack
February 26, 2010
Garrett: and so it came to pass
I landed in Melbourne this morning from photographing in Tasmania to learn that a wounded Peter Garrett, the Minister of Environment, had pretty much reached the end of his illustrious career. I was surprised. I thought from reading the headlines that the roof insulation story had been managed and controlled by the Rudd spin machine.
Presumably, an ambitious Garrett sought political power so as to make a real difference to the lives of the Australian population. If so, then that goal is clearly unattainable with his " reduced range of responsibilities".Garrett loses all responsibility for energy efficiency ( the insulation scheme, solar rebates and other energy-efficiency programs) and becomes Minister for Environment Protection (whaling, biodiversity and conservation) Heritage and the Arts.
The fallout from the home insulation disaster continues to widen, even though the Rudd Government has suspended the scheme, and Greg Combet has been bought into fix the government problems. If it is tough on Garrett, he knew the political game that he wanted to be a success in. He has been required by cabinet solidarity to announce so many pro-industry decisions on the environment that he has largely lost his green credentials. That is being a team player.
To be fair a lot of Garrett's troubles arise from the Rudd Government's poor track record on climate change, solar energy, as well as the rorting the energy efficiency and solar schemes by the shonky installers (spivs and fly-by-nighters)in the industry. These days Ministers are not sacked and do not resign when departmental public servants fail them because of their incompetence.
The judgement is that Garrett, politically speaking, is damaged goods, with limited opportunities for political rehabilitation.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:02 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
February 22, 2010
Sweet on health reform
Melissa Sweet makes a good point in her Intensive glare article in Unleashed about debates over health policy in Australia. She says:
in Australia we are stuck with a health debate that just cannot budge beyond hospitals, and Mr Abbott's headline-grabbing policy pitch for local boards to run hospitals simply reinforces that unhealthy focus.His plan creates yet another mechanism for focusing health funding and policies on institutions rather than on better meeting the community's health needs. It also provides another mechanism for enhancing division both between hospitals themselves, and between hospitals and the rest of the health sector, and for ensuring that health services remain centred around the needs of professionals rather than the community.
Health reform in Australia is still being reduced to talking about hospitals and doctors. If it is not about that, then it is about private health insurance industry. Most governments in Australia have avoided questions that involve confronting powerful vested interests in that industry
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:05 PM | TrackBack
February 21, 2010
bad ideas
Bad ideas are the norm in the mainstream media that has embraced info-entertainment and tabloid excess so they can sell more product. The bottom line is what matters not culture. In an industry buckling under the twin pressures of the credit crunch and the growth of digital rivals what matters is the sales impact of a story.
Some say that paywalls are a bad idea. For major publishers, paywalls represent a desperate floundering in the face of death. Advertising is still what makes money for news, even when there's a cover charge. The bad idea is the rule of the market in which the ABC should have no special place coupled with a special pleading about making market domination easier for Foxtel and News Ltd.
The really bad idea is that we consumers pay Foxtel twice for everything, once through a monthly subscription for limited choice of packaged programmes and once by sitting through the adverts.
Of course, for the Murdochs, that is a really good idea as it means more money for them for less product. What they also want is less regulation of Foxtel and less public subsidies for free-to-air television.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 6:56 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
February 20, 2010
Glenn Stevens on the economy
In his Opening Statement to House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics Glenn Stevens, the RBA Governor says that:
the historic shift in the centre of economic gravity to the Asian region is continuing, and if anything it has been highlighted by the different performances during the crisis and initial recovery. The differences in speed of recovery between the emerging world and the advanced world, and the likely persistent differences in growth trajectories into the future, will increase the pressure on exchange rate arrangements in the region. Australia is relatively well-placed. We are located in the part of the world that is seeing the most growth. And in terms of fiscal sustainability, Australia’s position is, by any measure, very strong indeed.
He adds that the overall size of the downturn in economic activity was considerably smaller than thought likely a year ago. Consequently, there is less scope for robust demand growth without inflation starting to rise again down the track:
Monetary policy must therefore be careful not to overstay a very expansionary setting...If economic conditions evolve roughly as we expect, further adjustments to monetary policy will probably be needed over time to ensure that inflation remains consistent with the target over the medium term. This is a normal experience in an economic expansion: as economic activity normalises interest rates do the same
Michael Stutchbury uses this to reiterate his well known economic policy theme---budget surpluses, paying off debt and retreating from Labor's re-regulation of the job market.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 7:49 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 19, 2010
Climate change: Wong on adaptation
Penny Wong's speech to the National Coastal Climate Change Forum in Adelaide is significant.This is not because of its reflections about Copenhagen, or the defence of both climate change science or the Rudd Governments' emissions trading scheme, but because it addresses the need to adapt to the effects of climate change.
The Minister says:
even with strong emissions reduction action we face a stark and sobering fact – the opportunity to avoid climate change altogether has passed. It has been lost to us – this generation no longer has that opportunity.Any effective climate change response now also needs to address the question: how do we adapt to the impacts of climate change that we cannot avoid?...
The speech highlights that one of Australia‟s principal adaptation challenges is preparing our coasts since these coasts play a major part in our economy, our environment, and our way of life:
climate change threatens coastal homes and the viability of coastal industries and ecosystems.With our coasts at the front line on climate change, facing sea level rise, storm surges and inundation, they also must be at the forefront of our efforts to adapt to climate change. Australia‟s coastal zone in particular will experience the full range and impact climate change.
It refers to Climate Change Risks to Australia's Coasts report and the National Coastal Risk Assessment.
As is pointed out development around the Australian coast assumes that sea level and storm events would function as they have in the past and our housing estates, business sites and public utilities have been designed as if the coastline and tidal levels would not change. Such assumptions are no longer valid.
The Australian, of course, is not at all convinced. It ain't gonna happen.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 6:14 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
February 16, 2010
Canberra Gaze: political convergence
George Megalogenis makes a good point on his blog about Rudd and Abbott. He says that the ascendency of Abbott as Liberal leader has brought a combative new political polarisation. However, on one crucial question, the role of government, both sides converge
Each leader is offering voters a version of greater federal government intervention in the economy during recovery. Who has the bigger health package, the most dollars for the environment, the largest cheque for families? Yet they also insist Australia’s record budget deficit should be wound back as soon as possible. The main parties can only walk both sides of the fiscal street if they find more revenue and force expenditure restraint elsewhere to pay for their promises.
The conversation breaks down here because neither side will spell out the clawbacks to go with the carrots for fear of stoking the other’s scare campaign. So there is no talk about trade-offs. It's all blue sky.
This account is spot on. There is little talk about spending cuts or belt tightening. Austerity doesn't sell. It's bad. So the talk is about expanding the reach of government rather than curtailing government spending even though the recession is behind us.
An overly austere budget could well crunch the economic recovery that has been driven by the stimulus package. Surely the extent of economic growth/recovery needs to be factored into Megalogenis' scenario. The optimist's scenario currently circulating is 'the go go China one': --- a second mineral boom buoyed by a resurgent Chinese economy with the boom automatically reducing budget deficits and so reducing the need for the harsh budget cuts advocated by the conservative economists.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:43 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
February 15, 2010
Tasmania: state election
I came out of walking in the Franklin-Gordon National Park in South West Tasmania to find the newspapers in the Queenstown IGA supermarket saying that the Tasmanian state election had been called for March 20. The commentary said that the contest will be close, bitter and dirty---"tight and brusing" they called it. As is to be expected, there was no mention of the policy issues that divide the Labor and Liberal parties in the local media. Are there any for a state whose economy has been based on its natural resource development and hydro industrialization?
Bartlett-led Labor is carrying old baggage from the 10 years of Labor rule in the state and particularly the four years of sleaze under Paul Lennon, who so corrupted the democratic process of governance in order to fast track the Gunns pulp mill in the Tamar valley. The Gunn's pulp mill continues to cause grief, with Labor under Bartlett still unsure whether to back or back away from it. To counter the "It's Time for change" mood, and the dislike of the corrupt culture of old Labor, they are reinventing themselves as the right part party for a more modern, positive Tasmania in a global economy to prevent the loses blowing out to 5 seats.
What do the policy-lite Hodgman-led Liberals stand for, as they try to end a 12-year political wilderness? They promise a new government of openness and honesty, but they are slippery when dragged off script onto tricky, controversial subjects. More environmentally unfriendly pulp mills? More logging of the old growth forests? More mining indifferent to the environmental consequences? It's hard to say. They talk about "two futures" for Tasmania, but as policy doesn't seem to be their thing, the "Two futures" scenario simply refers to Liberal and Labor. Is there much of a difference between Labor and Liberal around the development of Tasmania?
Labor need lose just two seats to lose its majority (14 seats in 25), and, as it is highly unlikely that the Liberals will increase the 7 to gain a majority (13 seats), it is more likely that Labor will be a minority government forming a formal power-sharing deal with the Greens. The issue of minority government is ever-present and old Labor will not like that prospect. Their scare campaign is that the basket-case economy of the late 1980s to mid-90s was caused by minority government.
One scenario is that the protest vote will be parked with the Greens, denying the Liberals enough seats to steal government and allowing Labor to govern in minority. However, both Hodgman and Bartlett have ruled out forming a coalition or formal power-sharing deal with the Greens, as Labor did in 1989, should they fail to win a majority. If they don't win a majority what then?
Tasmania has been at a development cross roads ever since the High Court’s decision to terminate the Franklin Dam project. That meant Tasmania lost its development mainspring---hydro-industrialisation. Since 1983 there have been repeated battles over specific projects, usually with environmental concerns at their centre, with little coherent new direction to create new platforms for innovation that replace that of hydro industrialization. The image of Tasmania as a basket economy is due to the policy failure to develop a new innovation platform that can build a diverse export-oriented economy by generating value-added growth.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 5:36 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack
February 11, 2010
no need to comment
The Moir cartoon says it all. Rudd Labor's record on the environment has little credibility. There's been enough to evaluate the actions in relation to their rhetoric and to make the judgement:
There is no need to mention the bungled solar rebates and ''green'' loans for households, the failure to act on the River Murray, or the scare campaigns and the fog of misrepresentations.
True, the politics of climate change have changed after the failure of Copenhagen, the IPCC's mistakes and the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia.
However, we need to put a limit on pollution so we reduce emissions over time; we need to make polluters pay, so that pumping carbon into the atmosphere is no longer free; and we need to provide incentives for investment in cleaner technologies.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 6:36 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack
February 9, 2010
Turnbull speaks out
Malcolm Turnbull speaks out in support of the ETS when he explained to the House of Representatives why he would cross the floor to vote for the government's emissions trading scheme, even though the legislation is doomed to be voted down in the Senate. In doing so he attacks his own party's new climate change policy.
His Liberal colleagues don't want to know what Turnbull is saying. Nor are they willing to listen to the arguments about needing a a strong, credible policy framework that will deliver 5%cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. Turnbull is persona non gratia in the Liberal Party that is marching lock step with Abbott.
Turnbull is his own man.
It is ironic that Turnbull is defending the ETS when the Rudd government no longer bothers to do so.They had failed to go out and sell their CPRS and they were not frank with the public. Nor do they appear to be willing to fight for the merits of a market mechanism, the importance of action with long-term sustainability and the need to give businesses certainty if they were going to invest in clean technology).
Are they in retreat from their own policy? Or just bad communicators? Or both?
Update
Turnbull crossed the floor of the House of Representatives to vote in support of Labor's emissions trading scheme.The legislation now goes to the Senate, where it faces almost certain defeat for a third time.It increasingly looks as if the Rudd Government will be faced with cutting a deal with the Greens after the next election.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:55 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 6, 2010
Tasmania: river problems in Launceston
As I'm off to Tasmania for a holiday next week with Suzanne. It's a break from work for Suzanne and a photographic roadtrip for me.
So I'm interested in what is happening in that island state, environmentally speaking. One issue is the Tamar River silt problem, which refers to the massive amounts of sediment flowing into upper Tamar Basin near Launceston. Close to 30,000 cubic metres of silt is deposited each year. Boats now sitting in the mud at what was once a very picturesque part of the city's riverscape.
One consequence is that the increased amount of mud in the Basin effectively limits the space for the rising river waters---a one in 50-year flood event would lead to significant property damage and an emergency evacuation response in the low-lying suburbs of Launceston. The solution has been dredging and building flood levee banks around the city.
One cause of the increase silt is the diverted water flow down the Cataract Gorge that now passes through the Trevallyn Power Station. This has reduced the natural flows down the Gorge of 20-50 cubic metres per second has been reduced to 1.5 cubic metres per second. There is not enough water entering the basin to flush the silt away.
The increased sediment that is choking the Tamar to death with silt can be traced to the North Esk River and the North Esk catchment, rather than the tides bringing silt up the estuary Its bad catchment management. There needs to be a vegetation buffer zones (up to 100m wide) tree planting, cattle control and better regulation of agricultural and forestry practices.v
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 4:32 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
February 5, 2010
yeah, but whatta about....
I've started my road trip to Tasmania. Blogging will definitely be lighter, even I am able to get pre-paid mobile broadband from the Telstra shop in Devonport after we leave the ferry from Melbourne. Many in Tasmania love chopping down trees, not planting them.
Meanwhile, the Britain's Met Office says the world is on a path towards a potential increase in global temperatures of 4 degrees as early as 2060. And Kenneth Davidson in The Age argues that the Coalition 's fear campaign against an ETS will bite and that Rudd should dump it and introduce a carbon tax instead.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
February 4, 2010
SA: democratic deficit
The Bill introduced by Michael Atkinson, the SA Attorney-General, to change the Electoral Act and the rules governing democracy in South Australia offers an insight into Rann Government's understanding of individual freedom and it highlights the democratic deficit in South Australia.
This is not an open government, it has a track record of curtailing freedoms and rights, and Atkinson stands for hard-right or authoritarian law and order policies and is known for his refusal to accept R18+ rating for computer games and the introduction of an adults-only games category.
This is a government that opposes South Australia needing an Independent Commission Against Corruption--there's no corruption in SA you see. There's no need for the furiously spinning politicians to clean up their own act, despite the lack of open accountability around political donations. This is a government dominated by the Labor Right.
Atkinson 's agenda was to increase the minimum number of members a political party needs to be registered, and therefore to be capable of effective electioneering. Secondly, to political candidates putting up posters on power poles, the cheapest form of political advertising.Thirdly, the Act also makes it compulsory, the instant electoral writs are issued, for people who send a letter or comment to a newspaper, or news sites (eg. Crikey) or blogs, Facebook and Twitter to provide their real name and postcode address. Individuals blogging about the election could have been hit with fines of $1250, while businesses weighing into the foray faced fines of up to $5000.
All parties had supported the bill when it passed through parliament! they now say that they were hoodwinked by Atkinson's smokescreen. The reality is that vigorous public debate is unwelcomed in SA. and Atkinson has little time for the uncivil, unruly blogosphere as a modern-day version of the town square meeting. It needs to be controlled and managed.
Atkinson's law can be interpreted as muffling free speech in the public sphere---a cracking down on internet political comment ----even though political speech is an implied right in the Australian constitution. Most journalists are on the drip feed of leaks and tidbits and so they don't rock the boat too hard preferring to 'top and tail' the media releases that come across their desk
Atkinson then, backflipped under pressure from News Ltd, told South Australians that he would repeal the law after the election.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 9:56 AM | Comments (13) | TrackBack
February 3, 2010
Abbott's green wash
It's what you would expect from the Coalition on climate change after they dumped Malcolm Turnbull as their leader. The risk was that the opposition will be seen as having no policy clothes.Their problem was that they had to do something about addressing climate change, even though they are climate change sceptics and deniers.
They came up with a climate change plan to get the Coalition through to the next election, not a serious plan to refit the Australian economy so that it emits less carbon. It's a fig leaf designed to give them some green wash and a shield designed to protect Australia's coal, aluminum and cement industries from change.
Ben Cubby in the SMH says:
By failing to address the sources of rising greenhouse gas emissions, even the federal government's minimum target of 5 per cent cuts by 2020 would be likely to spiral out of reach, potentially exposing Australia to punitive action from other nations that are able to meet their targets. A 15 or 25 per cent cut by 2020 could no longer be contemplated, passing on much steeper costs into the following decade.In essence, farmers would be asked to plough carbon back into the ground faster than the coal industry can dig it up, and Abbott's volunteer ''green army'' would be asked to plant trees faster than the timber industry can cut them down.
There is nothing to make the polluters feel the cost of their polluting. Without any penalty for forcing emissions down, they would continue to increase because those who decided not to reduce their carbon footprint (coal fired power stations) would have no reason to change. They could keep their emissions at ''business as usual'' levels until 2020 without penalty. This would cause more taxpayers' money to be spent on incentives so the 5 per cent target would be met.
This is another indication that political leaders have proved so reluctant to make big polluters subject to the kind of price signals that are essential to force a shift to low carbon technologies. Neither of the major parties in Australia has adopted a cap that is deep enough to drive the industrial transformation.
The Coalition rejects any form of market mechanism to reduce carbon pollution from energy generation and transport fuels.The strength of the Coalitions' plan is on storing carbon in soils and vegetation and soils.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 8:05 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack
February 2, 2010
economic orthodoxy
The old economic "wisdom" is returning as the global financial crisis of free market capitalism fades into history and participants at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting 2010 in Davos meet to discuss how to rethink, redesign and rebuild the global economy to ensure principled growth and sustainability. For them the global recovery is fragile--- reliant on the stimulus provided by ultra cheap money and budget deficits--- and now is the moment to rebuild prosperity.
The old economic "wisdom" about rebuilding for prosperity as expressed in our media in Australia is well known. It states that we know from an economic point of view how to deal with excessive debts and deficits. You just take the bitter pill of austerity. That means public spending cuts and possibly some tax increases. The political question is can governments deliver that kind of pain-- some ‘shock therapy’? Do they have the political courage?
This is a shift in our understanding of crisis-- moving the crisis of the economy from one of free market capitalism and the financial sector to being one of the state, public spending and public debt. Behind it sits the discourse about welfare dependency, "rolling back" the state and people as atomised consumers, not citizens.
This account of crisis---one of managing sovereign debt--is swirling all around us in the media. It is being articulated by the Liberal Party, whose campaign meme aims to persuade voters that paying down national debt fast trumps all else. This has little connection to the new conservatism. if Interests trump ideas in politics, then in the Liberal Party, the weightiest interest is property and their political instinct is to approach policy from the point of view of the owners of property and wealth.
The above account of crisis is given by finance capital's institutions, bodies and agencies associated with them: banks, hedge funds and independent analysts who work in the financial sector. The modern media covers our politics and economics by providing a platform for these market fundamentalist views, which are presented as true (backed by science) and basically non-ideological. These views are not contested in the media.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 6:17 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack
February 1, 2010
an election strategy
I tuned into the ABC's Radio National Breakfast this morning before I went to the gym, and I heard the Coalition selling its retail politics. It was Barnaby Joyce doing his standard rave thingy on climate change. The ETS is a gigantic big tax, it's a revenue raising mechanism to pay off the huge government debt, and we'll all be crushed by the big tax and gigantic debt. Outrage outrage. Anger anger. Bad bad bad. He's running a campaign.
At least Joyce didn't go anywhere near the comic figure of Lord Monckton, currently going around Australia tilting at windmills:
Morten Moreland
Barnaby Joyce slowed right down when he was asked about his cost free climate change policies. He kinda sounded deflated. Aw shucks, I have to say something sensible here. Yeah we'll have something soon he said. No details though until just before the election. It wont be a consumption tax like Labor's and off he went on the talking points of the big tax rave crushing us all again. He's in election mode firing up the conservative base with the talking points of his politics of fear.
The Coalition may be firing up the conservative base, with its campaign, but it is still struggling to establish its credibility on economics, the environment and the digital economy whilst confronting the reality of losing the 2010 election. They are strapped for cash and will be hoping that consecutive increases in interest rates cripple the Rudd Government.
It is not plain sailing for Rudd Labor either. As Andrew Norton observes, the:
wide disparity between climate-change aspirations and ETS readiness creates major problems for reformers. Though there are many precedents for governments pushing ahead with unpopular policies, the ETS is potentially unusually politically difficult. Its effects will be felt by every voter, but especially those without children or on higher incomes. They face substantial and uncompensated additional costs. ETS benefits will be hard for voters to perceive; the scheme comes with a promise that fewer bad things will happen rather than that life will eventually get better.
The ALP is going to play down climate change, ETS reform and the shift to a low carbon economy. The politics of climate change has done its job----fractured the Coalition. It doesn't need to fight an election with its ETS as the central issue. Given its lack of reform so far, it will campaign on it how it has a long-term economic reform agenda: ie., the need for productivity improvement and fiscal discipline to address the challenge of an ageing population.
The Rudd Government faces the prospect of a Senate controlled by the Greens after the 2010 election, and that must make them rather uncomfortable.
Posted by Gary Sauer-Thompson at 6:00 AM | Comments (15) | TrackBack