Grossly offensive political ads about the alleged dangers of Chinese purchase of electricity “poles and wires” during the last week of the New South Wales election campaign say much more about the Labor-affiliated unions who placed them than they do about the Baird government’s privatisation plans. It seems that Richo’s “whatever it takes” political philosophy remains alive and well in the ALP.
As for the power privatisation policy they were seeking to demonise, my own attitude is succinctly summarised by Ross Gittins:
I’m never sure who annoy me more, the business types who are certain every business is better run if privately owned, or the lefties who oppose every sale of government-owned businesses on principle.
As a general rule, privatising a natural monopoly is a dumb idea, because the monopolist will extract monopoly rents and prices paid by consumers almost inevitably rise. However, as Gittins points out, the situation is different with power in Australia because of the tight regulatory regime surrounding the industry:
Something that’s fun for chess patzers like me is watching really good players play blitz and seeing how much further their chess intuition goes. This is normally savoured at live tournaments but I just discovered Banter Blitz which pits grandmasters against patzers like me – and quite good players as well. Anyway, the reason I checked this out is that the grandmaster is David Smerdon who is Australian and indeed works for the Australian Treasury – or did. Anyway, apologies for those who don’t like this kind of thing – it’s not such an imposition – they don’t have to check it out. But for those who might enjoy it – enjoy.
In answer to my post earlier today about the data retention bill, frequent commenter Patrick Fitzgerald made a rather important point about the data retention zeitgeist:
Embrace the panopticon Ken, buy yourself a webcam, attach it to your head and stream live 24×7. Plus for good measure get a fitbit with GPS and stream that live 24×7 too – that way at least your friends will know as much about you as your enemies, and you may kill at least one enemy through boredom ;)
As it was, I had already made pretty much the same point earlier in the day on Twitter in answer to a tweet from FOI guru Peter Timmins linking an article about the US situation regarding metadata retention.
— Ken Parish (@KenParish1) March 24, 2015
Data security and retention are very much in the news at the moment. Indeed the Abbott government’s data retention bill is currently being debated by the Senate and will inevitably be passed given that the Coalition did a deal with Labor whereby the latter will support it in return for inclusion of a fairly weak requirement for a warrant before law enforcement agencies can access journalists’ metadata. Richard “Justinian” Ackland published an article yesterday that highlighted the deficiencies of the warrant regime in the current bill.
I can modestly claim to have been ahead of the zeitgeist on this issue, having made a submission and given evidence before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs way back in 2010, when they were considering the bill which eventually gave rise to the current journalists’ qualified privilege or immunity in relation to disclosing confidential sources when giving evidence in court. As I argued at the time:
I remember being excited when Barack Obama was elected, but largely because he was such a fine orator and black and reasonable. I didn’t hold out very much expectation that this ‘change’ that we were supposed to be believing in would be all that exciting, though of course politics is full of surprises, and so I was intrigued and didn’t entirely prejudge the possibility that he might be able to change politics in some way that we might look back on as being transformative. But I didn’t know what that would look like and I didn’t rate it as much of a chance.
As it is, I think he’s done pretty well achieving health reform in an increasingly dysfunctional political culture, and have been pretty frustrated with his penchant for ‘negotiating with himself’ as Paul Krugman calls it – his tendency to begin negotiating with The Stupid Party by doing the initial negotiating for them and presenting them with an entirely reasonable proposition which they then denounce as socialist and treat as an ambit claim.
I’m more genuinely excited by Yanis Varoufakis. That’s not because I share his worldview. I’ve read most of his book The Global Minotaur and while I enjoyed being reacquainted with big picture painting of the evolution of the global financial architecture after the Bretton Woods system was established in the late 40s, I found a lot of it unconvincing with conspiracy claims (about how the Americans were controlling things) many of which were interesting and worth considering particularly in the 1950s, but many for which little evidence was presented.
But what’s exciting about Varoufakis is firstly his remarkable style with the media. This is important to me because, as I argued earlier on Troppo, we live in an age of such domination of the style of communication that it takes great insight and skill to cut through with a different approach on the media.
Secondly the message he has is the simple response of economic orthodoxy to the VerySeriousPersonOnomics that has Europe in its grip. Indeed it’s hard to see what’s so left wing, what’s so radical about his most recent post most of which I reproduce below. Yes, he omits some of the other side of the debate – represented in this comment on the post – as most people putting a case do. But it’s compelling stuff IMO.
So the change Varoufakis wants us to believe in is the commonsense of economic orthodoxy (before the VSPs got hold of it in or around 2010). #WTNTL?
Of course there is the question of Varoufakis’s chances. Well as another commenter on his blog mentions, they seem pretty slim and Robert Preston in this BBC column (make sure you read the associated letter from Tsipras to Merkel) makes seem slimmer still.
Joe Hockey has received a lot of flack after his ‘thought bubble’ that first home buyers could be permitted to withdraw from their superannuation accounts to fund their home purchase. From the housing perspective, many have warned that faced with a fixed supply of housing, an increase in purchasing ability for first home buyers will just translate into a ‘first home sellers subsidy’. From the superannuation side, many, including Paul Keating and Malcom Turnbull, have protested that such a change would undermine the very concept of superannuation.
But I like Joe’s bubble – and would like to add one of my own.
That Tony Abbott should have been forced this week to concede defeat on fiscal reform by declaring partial victory over “debt and deficit” (“the glass is half full”) is both ironic and fitting. As I discussed in a fairly recent post, Abbott was responsible for bringing to destructive perfection the toxic mix of “small target” strategy and relentless negativity that both major parties now employ when in Opposition. Tony has now been hoist with his own petard, brought undone by his own success in convincing the electorate to believe erroneously that governmental debt and deficit are universal evils that can never be justified. He finds himself just as helpless to achieve a budget surplus in the foreseeable future as his ALP predecessors, and for essentially the same reasons: unexpectedly slow recovery of revenue in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis; progressive collapse of iron ore and coal prices; and a recalcitrant Senate with an opportunistic Labor Opposition gleefully intent on being just as relentlessly negative towards Abbott as he was towards them.
Peter Hartcher had quite a good article in yesterday’s Fairfax media (which I can’t now find) outlining the recent history of tit-for-tat political bastardry that has brought Australia to our current situation of almost complete governmental paralysis on fiscal policy. However, the cycle of retaliatory fiscal mischief goes back decades. I would date the phenomenon back at least to Paul Keating’s cynical and unprincipled demolition of John Hewson’s Fightback policy in the lead-up to the 1993 election, a tactic that Keating pursued relentlessly notwithstanding that he himself had advocated a GST only a few years previously and that John Howard by contrast had had the guts and integrity (not words that most on the Left would associate with him) to support most of the Hawke/Keating government’s necessary deregulatory, market-based reforms over the previous decade. The gloves were off on fiscal policy from that moment on.
I drove for the best part of 11 hours over the last few days giving a Do Lecture (would you believe?) which was fun. In any event I listened to some seriously great radio.
Inside the drug court
I was riveted by three 50 minute docos on the NSW Drug Court. It really is a tragedy that our media overlords have decided that this innovation is ‘soft’ on crime compared with the traditional system. I think it’s much better understood as simply breaking down the interface between prison and out of prison in a more thoughtful way than the traditional system does. The traditional system exercises various sentencing and post-sentencing discretions. All the NSW Drug Court does is design a system of discretion and resources so that the incentives in the prison system actually work in the short term – where we know from research (and commonsense) that stimulus-response mechanisms work much more effectively.
The NSW Drug Court operates by suspending the sentences of prisoners and bringing them into a regime where their progress and their liberty is reassessed every week in a court hearing before a judge. This is combined with some counselling resources and drug tests three times weekly. They must attend all appointments on time, and they must self-declare all breaches of their conditions in their weekly court hearing. When they acquire 14 ‘sanctions’ or recorded failures to meet these conditions (and with their chaotic lives they often they acquire several in a single week) they are sent back to prison detox unit for 14 days and so the process goes on until they either graduate to stages two and three which involve progressively less intense supervision after which they graduate altogether. The alternative throughout is that they simply lose their place in the program and complete their prison sentence.
As you can see, it’s hardly ‘soft’. Just a sensible adaptation of the prison system and its resources to the challenge which the radio programs show you is an immense one, of rebuilding the life of a person who’s leant on drugs to get them through their life for often at least one, and frequently two or more decades, while their life has fallen further and further apart, while what semblance there was of order in their lives has been thoroughly white-anted, whose whole identity and social network is built on their life on drugs and outside the law.
So it’s pretty much out of the fire of prison and into the frying pan of a Skinner box of active operant conditioning. It still struck me how legally based the program still was. I have no problem with the legal architecture. A court hearing once a week might make a lot of sense, but it seemed to me the program, as good as it seemed to be was still crying out for more peer support mechanisms such as those we build in TACSI, in addition to – and probably in replacement of some – of the professional support.
The three programs were made over 14 months and take you inside the process and into the lives of four or five people who go through the process. If you don’t have three hours listen to one of the programs. (This is an order from Troppo Headquarters - your internet address has been logged).
Fascinating story of an eccentric Melbourne man who set himself up as The Vagabond, (presumably) Australia’s first ‘embedded’ journalist reporting from the front-line of various institutions of Melbourne that would have been, without him, out of sight out of mind. Here’s the link.
I’m not much of a fan of modern ‘serious’ music and so have not listened to Peter Sculthorpe. Indeed, after listening to him being interviewed and loving doing so, I’m curious to listen to some of his music which I will, though I don’t have any strong expectation that I’ll even like it. But the moment you hear his voice you can hear that he’s a certain kind of older person. Centred, thoughtful, humble, insightful about his life and the world around him. I love listening to such people. His music wafts beautifully mostly in the background. Here’s the link.
Note: All these programs other than the last are on a new program called Earshot which seems to simply scoop up all sorts of docos on just the kinds of subjects that interest me. It also seems to have absorbed the ABC’s religious program Encounter, which I’ve always liked, though some of the programs I listened to on my drive were pretty disappointing. One on Volunteer Tourism took an awfully long time to get to the point of what was wrong with it beyond vague generalities and the second program in three on Faith, reason and the three Abrahamic religions – on Islam which let radical Islamic spokespeople off way too lightly IMO. They all claimed to be non-violent and I presume they were, but the scene was set with references to Australian Muslims demonstrating with signs calling for the death of those who ridicule the prophet. The Muslims in the program were not even asked to say what our attitude or policy should be to such conduct or required to confront it as a problem.
The episode on Christianity interviewed some very interesting people – like poet Christian Wyman. It offered a reasonable alternative view to schoolboy atheism, but having set up the dichotomy between atheism and belief drifted into a comfortable “we’re among Christians here” mood offering the alternative view without going to the trouble of offering anything that would have any chance of at least slightly unsettling the schoolboy atheists they’d framed the program around (many of whom are readers of this site).