|
No matter how Australians may vote the Labor and the Liberal Party senior career politicians will always be in control even if they lose their seat in parliament. Another web site on the Mosaic Portal Network created by  Kevin Beck I serve only relevant content to you |
|
|
|
|
 Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia |
|
After Accountability Failures |
|
Globalisation Impacts |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Custom Search
|
|
|
|
 
"Opus Dei is a Catholic institution founded by Saint Josemaría Escrivá. Its mission is to help people turn their work and daily activities into occasions for growing closer to God, for serving others, and for improving society. Opus Dei complements the work of local churches by offering classes, talks, retreats and pastoral care that help people develop their personal spiritual life and apostolate." |
|
Custom Search
|
|
cartoon by courtesy of Nicholson |
|
Wikileaks - a global source of information kept from the people of the world by the power collectives Beyond the horizon sits the Shadow Server |
| by KEVIN R BECK, MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA |
|
Going going gone, was the headline in the Australian politics web site owned by Kevin R Beck. It referred to Mr. Kevin Rudd. It was posted fourteen days before the coup. I have access to a tool that can use a focus group of handful of carefully chosen people to determine if a sitting politician will hold their seat or if a candidate will win. ("The Demise of Kevin Rudd's Prime Ministership", Kevin Beck) |
|
June 2010, watching the commentary on the demise of Kevin Rudd as leader of the labor party in government in Australia I noted the rush, by the commentators, to get on board and offer opinions and rationale. Perhaps one of the most common refrains from the "insider elite" is " no one knew" or "who could tell?" and "no one predicted this". Readers of this web site would know that someone definitely did klnow, and predict, the outcome. Similarly the economic watchers were caught flat footed, and out of the loop, on the global financial crisis, again justifying their lack of intuition by being part of the ignorant pack that claimed that it was not possible to predict. They simply did not know. Therefore generally the rest of us would not know. That also is not true. These are the things I do amongst others, assessing, analysing, predicting and implementing. Politicians, political parties, government agencies, businesses, and corporations, could save a lot of money by reading, and studying, the content of my multiple topic web sites or by simply sounding me out in a conversation. There is a lot more to our arsenal of utilities and skills than blogging and commentary on the internet. Soon I will begin to examine Australia, through the eyes and mind, of the Prime Minister Julia Gillard. ("Some of us knew", Kevin R Beck, Melbourne Australia, Australian Politics and Governmment) |
|
The Deepwater Horizon disaster caused headlines around the world, yet the people who live in the Niger delta have had to live with environmental catastrophes for decades... about that disater." |
|
The day we discovered we had no leaders in the state of Victoria's government nor
in the public service. It is not clear to me how the Victorian Police Minister Bob Cameron retains his Ministerial
portfolio and why the government lead by John Brumby shows no remorse or shame for its dereliction and in some cases
corruption of Victoria's governance. (June 2010: "Leadership void", Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia)
Click Here |
 THE SMARTEST GUYS IN THE ROOM June 2010: What an irony, Australia's own federal government may well turn out to be the creator of a sovereign risk crisis plunging Australia into the realms of a third world country. More irony, as Kevin Rudd makes a mess of almost everything Tony Abbott cannot muster the support - Australia's political leaders, detached from the electorate, live in a world of their own illusions, delusions, egos and interests. A book has been written about the collapse of the Enron Corporation, one of the US and world's most spectacular multi billion dollar failures. The golden child of commerce in the nineties and into the 2000s, it was the envy of the markets, capturing the accolades of world economists and financial commentators. Enron had a policy of hiring the brightest, and the best, from the world of academia. The impressive alumni of the globe. Let us transpose this practice to the Prime Minister of Australia. Kevin Rudd's coterie of closest advisers, and the staff he surrounds himself with, are in their early thirties and they are all graduates, cum lauda, of their respective academic institutions. Mr Rudd's closest Ministerial allies are also alumni luminaries. Academics tend to think alike, they swarm, and thus it is more accurate to describe Kevin Rudd as an academic rather than a bureaucrat. The common thread of the senior bureaucrat is their high level of education and their affinity for aceademia. If you want to get your written words to be accepted before a committee of the parliament or to have it examined by a bureaucrat then write it in academic vernacular and underpin it with a research methodology and footnote published academic references and upporting research preferably peer reviewed. This is "evidenced based" dissertation. This is why Kevin Rudd demands the evidenced based approach to policy and why the Australian Public Service swallows the hook. He is an academic. It is highly likely that Kevin Rudd's demands on staff, and the public service, exhibited during the term of his Prime Ministership arises from the perceptions of the smartest guys in the room that everyone can perform, or think and understand complex theories, like them. Lindsay tanner bemoaned the modern day media and its inability to distill complex concepts and details on the ABC Insider Programme on Sunday 13th June, 2010. It just takes commitment and purpose in the thinking of the smartest guys in the room The problem for them is that only a small percentage of people are of academic leaning and thought. They cannot work it all out and they burn up. So we see a high attrition rate in Rudd's sphere of influence and those of the Ministers who view themselves among the smartest in the room. The smartest guys in the room speak helicopter and think way above and ahead of the average. They think in whole pictures not in clear sentences. This is why Kevin Rudd cannot communicate with an audience. He has gone past their last thought to his next paragraph whilst they are dwelling somewhere else. The smartest guys in the room outline a hazy frameset of ideas, usually many at once, and then move on. They have an expectation that everyone got it. Thus the insulation debacle and the failure of Ministers like Julia Gillard to be able to admit that their work is mired in failure, her BER programme in education is anything less than steallar. She cannot conceive that the stuff up is her own short coming. She has been terribly let down by her department and the state, and territory,s public service. Every policy that the Rudd government ahs implemented has done damage to some section of Australian society and economy. The smartest guys in the room usually have limited experience and whilst they may appear to be lateral thinkers and the brightest in the environment they are usually quite unable to anticipate, they rely on gut feeling and their own infallibility, unable to see the future. They do not see the pitfalls and if they do they relegate them to acceptable risks that can be overcome. In the minds of the smartest guys in the room someone else stuffed up in the delivery. Never mind that they themselves are limited, and narrow, in skill and ability with a distaste for the detail. They profess a type of brain drug, an adrenalin of new ideas. This is their rush, it keep them fiting on all cylinders. They do not want to consult because that risks dealing with opposition and query. It slows them down and they cannot tolerate going slow. Kevin Rudd and accolytes are Australia's Enron. They fail to see beyond their immediate horiozn to the hidden obstacles. They are not the smartest guys at all, because if they were then they would realise their limitations and see who may be smarter than them. Like Enron they are flaming out quite spectacularly. The electorate is turning from Australia's political leaders because Australia is poor in quality representation in our parliaments. Australia's political parties became incestuous, and inbred, decades ago. The talent is well beyond the corridors of the federal parliament. ("The Rise and Fall of a Prime Minister", Kevin Beck) |
|
WITH MR. RUDD Heavy duty campaigning by practitoners of the art  Click image for the tool box |
|
HOW KEVIN RUDD’S MINING PROFIT TAX WOULD WORK Imagine this happened to your business or a business you work for or contract to. In a given year the business makes a $100 profit before the following costs: Head office or administration costs of $10 • Interest on overdraft or loan of $10 Giving a net profit before tax of $80 In the same year, the business invests $100 to purchase plant and equipment for the business. Here is how it works: Profit before admin, interest on loans and tax $100 Profit subject to Resources Super Profit Tax (RSPT) = $94 Being: $100 profit less $6 “super profit” return allowed (6% on $100 invested in plant &equipment) Less: 40% RSPT ($94 x 40%) (-$38) Profit after RSPT $62 Less: Costs not deductible for RSPT HQ admin costs (-$10), head office or corporate Interest on business loan • (-$10) Profit subject to company income tax $42 Less: Company income tax at 28% (-$12) Profit after tax is $30 So, how is the $80 of profit of the business divided? Paid to the Government in “super” profits tax -$38 Paid to the Government in company tax -$12 Balance $50 (63% tax) Left for the business owner $30 (37%) The Government seems to be taking 63% of the business’s profit. Under existing tax laws the business would have paid $24 in tax – 30% of profit Ask yourself some questions: Does this sound fair on the business owner who is investing all the money and taking all the risk? If this was your business, would it make sense to keep investing in it? If you were employed by this business would you be worrying about your job? If you were a contractor or supplier to this business would you be worried about the future of the business? ("Watch the outcome of Australian labor's mining tax", Kevin Beck) |
|
Three years and the outcome: Rudd has failed to learn how to generate accepted policy, how to govern and has ignored the lessons of his attempts and failures. It is difficult for me to find a quality in the Prime Minister that I admire or even like. I did not like much about Prime Minister John Howard but from time to time there was a glimpse of something to admire and quite a lot that one could respect. Kevin Rudd gives no such glimpses. It is as if he struggles with the average human condition. Desiring to be accepted he tries vainly to be, and sound like an ordinary man of the people. He uses words like mate, and strange made up rhymes like fair suck of the sauce bottle. His is a garbled vernacular that portrays insincerity. All in all the Prime Minister fails to inspire confidence and trust from my perspective. Mr Rudd's popularity rating will fall further before the 2010 Australian federal election a He approaches the prospect of failure of his re-election much as he approaches the failure of his stewardship, with alacrity, and ignorance, of his situation. Blinded by what? A mind set that cannot grasp real versus theory? A bureaucratic approach that is devoid of human interaction and behaviour. Misconceptions of the nature of power and government? Who knows why Kevin Rudd has fallen from grace. It is obvious that he lacks the ability to communicate easily, he cannot coherently articulate his policies. Kevin Rudd now (June 2010) resorts to the traditional tools of the mediocre, public relations, media spin and ppublicly funded slick advertisements. Kevin Rudd, and the federal labor party, should by any logical measure lose the 2010 federal election, because they are grossly incompetent and in many respects dangerous as decision makers. Their standards are lax, actions rushed and ideas are implemented without adequate research as to the full implications. They lack the ability to see beyond their own perceptions limited by a lack of experience, very poor advice and the support skills around them. The labor party has so machined its environment that it hs killed ingenuity and challenge. It is the world of "yes Prime Minister, yes Premier", no one tells these people that they are wrong. No one pulls them up and asks them to judge their own actions. Similarly John Brumby, and labor in Victoria, should lose following his totally unacceptable time as Premier, particularly during the time of the bushfires and after. We see examples everyday. A political adviser in a government Minister's office penned a strategy to mislead and corrupt the planning process as if government is the play thing of an elite few. The play thing of corrupt political parties and people within. The administration of emergency services in Victoria by the labor government Minister, Bob Cameron and senior leaders of the CFA, DSE and the Police Commissioner herslef of the time, is not appalling, it is a sad indictment of irresponsibility, and disregard, measured by the death of 173 people and the destruction of whole towns. Yet liberal leader Ted ballieu is ineffective regardless of all of the failings of John Brumby and the corrupt practices of the Victorian labor party. Kristina Kenneally, and labor, should lose in the state election in NSW yet the liberal leader of New South Wales, Barry O'Farrell, is also ineffective aginats corruption, and corrosion, of governmment by the labor party. The public service is moribund. The liberal party, across Australia, with the exception of Western Australia, is choosing leaders who are incapable of capitalising on the misrepresentation, corruption and ineptitude of the labor governments of the nation. Taking down labor and the government of Kevin Rudd down can be so easy given all of the ammunition that labor hands over. It was similarly so under John Howard. Yet the opponents continue to rely on their own abilities limiting their chances dramatically. This is human error and human foibles at work. A beleif in self despite all of the signs. maybe if we do it this way, maybe if we just wait, maybe if we run on law and order, education and health. The same old hoary claims and policies. failed and recycled. Dressed up by employed spin doctors and the parasites that infest the public paid institutions of the nation. The political system, like any other, operates to keep the players within it in their positions of influence despite their abilities. Our poractitiners used different tools to China, and Burma, but the end objective is the same. It is not a system that promotes and nurtures talent. New candidadtes are chosen for their glamour potential or because they have done their time. At the federal level the opposition leader, Tony Abbott, is a person who cannot forumlate and implement a cohesive and strong set of strategies. This is evidenced by his stupid approach to refugees and a return to the rancid policies of the previous government. Liberal spokesperson Scott Morrison attempts to explain the liberal party refugee policy. He peddles a policy of fear, a colonial mode of thinking where we must guard our way of life against the invading masses of unwanted. The language of politics is divisive. It harks back to a style of paternalism where aboriginal children were taken away to be assimilated. Abbott would be offended and deny this. He sees himself as a guiding light keeping Australia safe. he is a fool in this regard. Tony Abbott's proposition for asylum seekers is about deterrence and power. It is founded on beating up the oppressed, torturing the afflicted for political gain under a pretence of protecting Australia's borders. The disadvantaged are easy targets for thugs of all types. Mr Abbott's policy, like that of his predecessor John Howard, hinges on getting countries in the Asian, and Pacific, regions, to take refugees and house them whilst Australia processes their applications. Oh we will pay for this wonderful and totally knew concept. Pay in many ways not the laest in a further degradation of our esteem as a nation. It is a policy that plays to be the fearful amongst us and the bigots. People who get their information and beliefs from the Herald Sun newspaper, the shock jocks and the semi literate who are unable to distill complex ideas and a humanistic approach to Australia's future. The liberals are oblivious to the colonial tone of this blight. They do not want to talk about whether the poor nations nearby will jump at the chance to make a few dollars. Abbott knows that this is a simple rude policy and set of statements that he may not have to deliver. Mr Abbott is devoid of ideas of his own borrowing most of his policies and arguments from others. He rides alone through the nation, all muscly and compact. Too much excerise may well stunt the blood flow to the brain. The mouth may become detached from time to time popping out thought bubbles. We demand so little of our political leaders and cannpot be bothered t take an active role in governance. Companies and individuals will only bleat and take aninerest if their own interests are affected. Where are the great Australian examiners of government and political philosophy? Driving trucks in the outback mines perhaps where the money is better. There is a saying that the definition of stupidity is a person who keeps doing things, the same way all the while expecting a different outcome. The Prime Minister is clearly within this definition as is Tony Abbott. Most governments in Australia in 2010 are in this category. Kevin Rudd has pushed every policy into the electorate in the same manner - crude and rushed with little or no communication and discussion. His is a style of being in charge, the boss, who encapsualtes a thuggish and bombastic approach treating the community as lesser intellects in the glow of his being. The super profit resource tax is no different an approach. It is indicative of Kevin Rudd's consistent inability to articulate coherent messages that the Secretary of Treasury has resported to explaining the policy impact and justification. Kevin Rudd is a proven failure at strategy and tactics. There is no greater demonstration of thuggery than Senator Conroy. When the senior labor members are challenged they resport to theats and belittlement treatng the sceptics and the challengers as if they are stupid and ignorant. Kevin Rudd has no place as Prime Minister and Austra;lia would be better off if he lost the election and his seat in parliament. Julia Gillard, pops out to defend the policy all the while ignoring her own massive failure, the waste of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money in the over priced, over hyped Building the Education Revolution. Not only is she shown to be extraordinarily slack with the money, and prone to bending the facts, but also her department, and the state agencies to whom she gave the money, are as incompetent. All of this though is largely irrelevant to the those, with thick hides and egos, who would continue to promote untruths such as the BER saving jobs and the economy as Julia Gillard keeps up even though the evidence shows her arguments are hollow and untrue. She has no idea of reality. Perhps Ms Gillard simply ignores the truth becuase it is too much a burden? If they are not lies, and Ms Gillard believes what she says, then one should question her capacity to be Deputy Prime Minister and a Minister in government. Kevin Rudd, and his senior team, do not merely misrepresent they control access to information, manipulate, mixing lies and half truths. This has become a game of power and winner take all. Andrew Robb, another liberal spokesperson ridicules the research paper underpinning the taxation review committees assumptions for the resource tax. He derides it as the work of a university graduate. On that basis Andrew Robb may well have derided the thoughts, ideas and writings, of Einstein, Galileo and Copernicus, among others. Mr. Robb is not demonstrating a capacity for innovative, and creative, thinking. Instead of debate and examination we have chest beating and the passing of wind.("The nature of Australia's politicians", Kevin Beck) I would hazard that it is not. There is a growing level of poverty and monetary stress that is quite deliberately being pushed into the background. Kevin Rudd has failed to alleviate disadvantage. The power hungry individual who thinks that if he simply says that he is going to do it that it will happen. There is no realisation that Rudd understands dynamics and the depth of the challenges and objectives he sets. The Australian government is not all powerful. Surrounded by many who believe that the government means power to implement, Mr Rudd seems bemused that it is not so. Political commentators write that advisers in Mr. Rudd's office are perplexed. They are so myopic in their perspective that they miss the clues. They do not run a sophistiacted intelligence operation from within the PM's office. They are unable to grasp why it is all going wrong. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan tells us that the government's policies resulted in the saving of our economy. Julia Gillard says the government saved obs and the Australian economy. Perhaps they might explain how it is that out of 23,000 children surveyed in the home state of Wayne Swan, Queensland, in a place called Logan, over 10,500 children reported that they had no lunch, or breakfast, because their parents cannot afford the food. Schools rely on charity. Perhaps Swan and Gillard may explain why Australia's largest retailer, Coles, finds it necessary to have signs telling how faa family can be healthily fed for under $A10 a day. Perhaps they can explain an additional 60,000 Australians seeking welfare from charities? wayne Swan, Julia Gillard and their closest labor coleagues in government, are yet more untrustworthy participant in the ever passing cavalacade of politicians whi relay on spin, who peddle fantasy and engage in self delusion. If they fail to even know of, or acknowledge, the growing poor in our cities, and towns, prferring to tell us lies for their gain, then they are unfit for not only government but for parliament. The government is about to spend $A38 million on advertisemenst, to convince us of their merit of their taxation policy, even though it does not affect too many Australians. They are cloaking it in the veil of beneficial superranuation and more money in the teaxation coffers. Ms Gillard tells us that the electorate is hungry for information. What rubbish. Does she think that all of the electorate are gullible or that the journalists to whom she trots out her garbage are particularly challenged, intellectually? How much information, about a complex multilayered pilicy, will there be in a television commercial? The Minister who granted an exemption to the labor government, labor Senator Joe Ludwig tells us that he was swayed by the argument of the Treasurer to permit the advertising exempting it from scrutiny. He implies this was recent application. He is lying. Advertising agencies were pitching for the business three weeks before Labor made the application and before Minister Ludwig claims to have received the application. Lying is a hallmark of decrepit, and corrosive, politicians of low grade infesting our nation's parliaments. What a load of tripe comes from the mouths of our government Ministers. They prostitute democracy and government for their own purposes, pimps on the public purse. The industry leaders in mining are not all that flash in their own right with their apish, and hysterical, responses, snide remarks and resorting to carefully contrived use of statistics. They are as unethical today as our governments. There are valid, and cogent, arguments that we should have this tax. Though it is very questionable why the policy includes a caveat to have the tax payer take the risk, 40% if the project fails. Obvioulsy the creators have never worked in the resources industry. Such a carrot would cause those who are vertically integrated to ensure that the mining resource segment of their business runs at a loss, taking the tax deduction and passing the cheap commodity through the chain to the end consumer. Who would do such a thing? Energy producers who also happen to be miners of coal, and producer of other fuels, would be tempted. So here we are locked ina hairy chested cavalcade of bullshit from testosterone pissing little men who are driven to be combative regardless of the interests of others who employ them. Whatever it takes is the mantra of modern corporate management and of politicians who happen to be in government. ("Spinning Australia's governments", Kevin Beck Ethics and morality are casualities. How is it that Mr Rudd and his tacticians have not learnt from the climate change and the pink batts and the BER and the rest of his moribund attempts at reform? Could it be that he thinks he is good at what he does and wants to be the sole hero if one of his actions, and strategies, is successful? Maybe they think that those failures are those of others? The climate change catastrophe was the making of others over seas, the pink batts the fault of crooked and untrained operators, the waste in the school's buildimg programme is the fault of the states. This time however Rudd and his nappy brigade cannot blame others. It is of their own making. Dr Ken Henry is the only bright player in this facade. The Treasurer, Wwayne Swan, has a demonstrable lack of capacity in both macro and micro economic complexity. He seems to learn a few lines, and buzz words, and trots them out, over and over. having never managed a significant investment or business he promulgates third party theories like a parrot. What a enerous allownace Swan has given before the tax kicks in. Investors can spend billions and when the return market hits just over 6% Swan deems that a reasonable return on the billions and the risk. It would be far better to invest the billions elsewhere and get a better return. Rudd says these are valuable resources and we should get the maximum benefit for them. If this is the case why is it that the federal government does not fund mining and resources development? We know the reasons. They are many among them that the governments of the nation cannot spend the money needed to develop the mines. Yet would seek to penalise, and limit, the returns to those who they want to invest. What were the business representaatives on the review committee thinking when they agreed that the assessment perameter should be the Australian bond rate? labor will have to set it at 12% - 15% to be realistic. The senior labor Ministers of the federal labor government, and their staff, disregard advice and rebuff offers of help preferring to trust overblown self beliefs in their abilities. Communication falls on deaf ears and revenge is the order of the day if they are really confronted. Woe is my lucky country. For we are truly lost with the quality of our parliamentarian representation, governments and public services. Billions, upon billions, gone through mismanagement and maladministration. More billions wasted on onerous, self protecting administrative practices in the public sector, e.g tendering processes. On the other side of the parliament house sit the opposition, endlessly hanging around waiting for their turn, at government, in the fullness of time. Labor and liberal, actors in a Shakesperaean play, the Comedy of Errors. Sadly the Australian electorate that puts these people into office is detached and unable to distill complex issues. They prefer to camp out at a store all night waiting for a feckless new piece of technology to add meaning to their empty lives. Meahwhile thinking people can puke, and wretch, when the Prime Minster engages in his rivetting style of dialogue - "well mate" and "well Koche" (he calls him Koshee)..... exhibiting the characteristics of a nauseatng person who gravitates towards being patronising and disingenous. perhaps more perplexing for those who analyse government and look at the decision making and thinking, is the apparent inability of Kevin Rudd and his stratgey team to comprehend what is happening in the electorate as a result of their failed or jettisoned policies. What does Rudd and Wong not understand about the reaction to their abandonment of the ETS and their walking away from the hard yards of climate change. As labor and liberal fail across the nation to engender confidence the electorate shifts. Behind the scenes the manipulation of democracy and voting goes apace. Front (false candidates) are being prepared to stand for elections. They will garner votes and pass their preferences to their respective major party backers, all the while acting as if they are independents and free thinkers. Assess your parliamentary candidates candidly and carefully. Nowhere on the horizon are there stirring members, and candidates, of stature and vision. ("Never learning a lesson" Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia) |
| As we head towards a federal election in 2010 it is time to assess the performance to date and the likelihood of reelection of everyone in the government and the opposition. Here we start with the self absorbed, mean, little, Kevin Rudd, Prime Minister of Australia. There is plenty of evidence to suppport my harsh, perhaps offensive, description of him. Have you noticed how Kevin Rudd gets agitated and angry when opposed or becomes unable to cope when the politics gets hard? Did you see him snap at the school student on the television show when she challenged him? "One student even asked (at 42:20) him whether the Climategate and IPCC scandals, and the Dutch Government’s decision to review the IPCC advice, made him think twice about relying on the IPCC, too. Even more interesting, the question got sustained applause and Rudd was visibly angered. He refused to look at the student while answering, knowing the young man had his hand in the air, wanting to object to his claim that the IPCC just comprised 4000 (sic) scientists who just “measured things”. True, there was even more applause for Rudd’s I’ll-save-you-from-warming exhortation, but the strong division among the students was extraordinary. The great scare is crumbling, even on Rudd’s turf. Another student, again with applause, noted that the Copenhagen climate summit was a failure (at 44:47), and Rudd struggled to show it wasn’t." (Source: Rudd with more Qs than As, Andrew Bolt, Tuesday, February 09, 2010, Herald Sun, Melbourne, Australia) The advisers within Kevin Rudd's office may lack experience and knowledge. The turn over of staff working near Kevin Rudd is too high, too costly and points to the poor human relations skills of the Prime Minister. Is he a "control,freak" as some opine? Is he really abusive as even more report? We have seen public instances and heard stories, many stories. Could it be that not too many people, who know him, actually like Mr. Rudd? I heard a woman sya that she wants to slap him she finds him so offensive. I can relate to that.
|
|
|
| Peter Costello was the Treasurer, in the Howard coalition government, for elevem years. In that time he made no reforms. He made surpluses. That is something that any person of reasonable skills can do. There was no innovation and no investment in the longer term welfare of the nation under John Howard. Peter Costello is lauded as a good Treasurer. He,a nd Mr Howard, are examples of the mediocrity of the two major parties who occupy the highest office in our parliaments. Similarly there is no brilliance in the states or territories. Politics in Australia does not attract the creative and the unusually visionary and talented. The last great reformers (all labor party leaders) were Gough Whitlam, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The follow ons were, and are now, nothing more than a parade of the very average. Kevin Rudd is far more dangerous than John Howard to the average Australian and the nation as a whole. Whilst Kevin Rudd, and his clown Ministers, damage the economy and the lives of people Tony Abbott trots out inane dribble. He burped up a policy for maternity leave, where he would impose a levy on the big corporations. Then he suggested that the unemployed should all go west and work in the mines. Never mind the fit of talent and skill, the lack of infrastructure, and the implied proposition that employers should simply take the dross that is on the dole. Never mind that the mining, and resources, industry cycles on bust and boom. Never mind that in the rest of Australia the economy is mediocre and in some places no existent in terms of job opportunity. Abbott and Rudd have no answers and no ideas. If we examine the labor, and liberal policy sets we find there is nothing there to inspire. The Australian media does not examine this lack of policy. They themselves lack the capacity to distill complex offerings prferring to find the fool who will oppose the policy with a vacant, biased mind. In their respective education policies we find they are focused on shallow competency (short term) skills. The liberal and labor parties, are about literacy and numeracy, reading and writing. At least the liberal party lists an education heading. As at April, 26, 2010, there are no policy links on the labor party web site. |
|
There is no political, or for that matter corporate leadership,
in Australia, able to imbue, in Australians, a love of life long learning. We are generally not a nation that taxes our mental abilities.
In the majority we are a lazy, dullard, nation. The focus is on skills. This is a dumbing down approach to
education and learning.
The recipients, of education and training, are there to serve the needs and whims of employers and the economy. The members of the Howard and Rudd governments were quite happy to take advantage of Gough Whitlam's visionary free education but now they would have us pay. They are hypocritical parasites who think our learning should be self funded. Where does it say that the goal is to nurtue a love of learning for learning's sake. The ignorant lead by the ignorant. "Lifelong Learning in Australia EIP 03/13 Executive Summary The lifelong learning policy agenda has four distinguishing features:
|
|
The lifelong learning policy agenda is built on assumptions about the importance of
skills in the new economy. Almost all industrial sectors are increasingly ‘knowledge-based’ and
economic returns are obtained from a range of ‘intangible’ inputs, one of which is workers’ skills.
Participation in education and training is increasing and economic rewards are flowing to people with high skills (Section 2.1)." (Source:
Australian Government, Department of Education, Employment and work Place Relations: http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/higher_education/publications_resources/other_publications/lifelong_learning_in_australia.htm)
No government, since labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, has championed "life long learning". The Australian nation is largely semi literate. The well educated are in the minority, the basically educated and the semiskilled are in the majority. In 2007 Kevin Rudd trumpeted an education revolution. Again all talk. " THE education revolution announced by Kevin Rudd almost two years ago is drifting off course, having failed to adopt key strategies critical to improving schools, including giving principals greater autonomy, improving teacher education and introducing different models for running schools as in the US and Britain. International education consultant and former dean of education at Melbourne University Brian Caldwell yesterday said the education revolution was heading for failure and risked giving Australia one of the most centralised and bureaucratically run systems in the world. Professor Caldwell assessed the Rudd government's education policies against 10 strategies considered critical for improving education systems, marking the education revolution 43 out of 100. "We've hardly loaded our rifles for four of the key strategies that our research tells us will help create success for all students. Top-performing nations are leaving us behind," he said." (Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/poor-marks-for-education-revolution/story-e6frg6nf-1225793355104,) Poor marks for education revolution, Justine Ferrari, Education writer From: The Australian November 02, 2009) Why single out Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard? Tony Abbott was a former Minister, he and his colleagues in the Howard government were as mediocre in their championing of education and their own ideas. The natio is dull as a direct result of the policies of the Howard, and Rudd, governments. ("Competency skills versus life long learning" Kevin Beck) |
| The Rudd government, via the simply excellent stewardship of the Wong/Garrett combination has abandoned the fabulously contrived "green loans programme". Thousands of assessors across the country now have no work, just like the insulator companies. How does the insulation and green loans failure balance out against Gillard's claimed protection of jobs? Rudd has created the "reject shop" style of governance, whereby he, and his clones, come up with really neat ideas and then trash the lives of the unsuspecting with their shoddy offerings. This is not a federal government is a circus that camped in parliament House and has more than the traditional number of clowns. Penny (Constantly) Wong has conceded that there are problems. Really? Only 4,000 or more problems. At least she is a bit more on the ball than her colleague, the remarkably incompetent Peter Garrett who has managed to stuff his environmental and his arts portfolio with a lack lustre, incomprehensible performance of ignorance, and ineptitude. 100,000 house are waiting, as at April 2010, to receive their environmental assessments, just as 200,000 plus people are waiting, scared shitless in their homes, to see if their roof is a fire hazard. A whistleblower in his department is telling the media that senior officers of the Minister's department told their management and Garrett's advisers that there were extreme dangers. The informant claims that they palced the importance of doing Rudd's bidding, and creating jobs, ahead of the risks. There is one conclusion from all of this, as there is in most cases where the governments of Australia are in particular arenas, incompetent and derelict. Down the road a bit local councils, across the nation, may have stolen $A1,300,000,000 of federal funds allocated to roads improvement, for their own purposes, operations, administration and projects. Local government CEOs are grossly over paid. Local government council membership is a training ground for labor and liberal party aspirants. It is a publicly funded "school of politics". The federal labor governments Fix it Guru, Greg Combet, might be construed as saying that the fiasco of people being killed, and houses catching fire, people losing their livelihood and conmpanies going broke, has an upside because it highlights the need to clean up the insulation industry. He joins the ranks of the stupid political spin meister, burying themselves daily in a manure of their own making. The programme investigator, for the pink batts insulation programme, Mr Hawke, says Minister Peter Garrett responded in a timely manner. This is public service speak. Mr Combet thinks that the outcome now is one of restoring "consumer confidence". ("Austarlian government's policy failure, death and mayhem, is water off a duck's back", Kevin Beck) |
| Every few weeks the Australian media publish opinion polls. The content of these is consistent - preferred Prime Minister, two party preferred vote and whether the electorate likes Kevin Rudd better than Tony Abbott. To my mind these are shallow and fairly unilluminating assessments. They are offered up as positive pointers to conclusions regarding popularity and likely election outcomes. But we are looking at a different set of questions and what they will tell us. To see some of the survey samples (limited access) being distributed, enter as a "guest" or join the forum, and contribute. You may complete the various polls if you like and we will transfer the results to the live polls in circulation. Our polls are demographic. They are ongoing. click here. Given Kevin Rudd, and a number of senior Minister's performances, one wonders when the electorate might get tired of it all? (Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia, Kevin Beck) |
(Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia, Kevin Beck) |
| IS MR ABBOTT FIT TO BE PRIME MINISTER? April 2010: Tony Abbott claims that the Rudd labor governmment has lost control of Australia's borders. What an idiotic, and untrue, statement. That implies that anyone can walk into Australia through our ports, arrive on any coast line and come here by any means and the government, and its agencies, are failing, unable, to stop them. Mr. Abbott borders on incredulity and thi is plain misrepresentation regarding the refugee issue. In this he should be treated as being questionably competent to be Prime Minister. Hysteria, and a propensity to tell porkies, to exagerate, is a worrying quality in someone who would seek to be Prime Minister. He is, to my perception, demonstrating of late, that he lacks integrity and truthfulness. His general statements about many things border on veiled benevolent fascism. He casts our minds back to Tampa, and the regime of John Howard, when ignorant, and fearful, little people were in charge of our border, and immigration, policies. John played tough on the Norwegian ship that had rescued refugees from the sea, and then, in contravention of international shipping las and good grace and behaviour, was treated disdainfully by the little John Howard. Mr Abbott's policy ideas may be reflected in this archive site. All Mr Abbott has to offer, in the way of ideas, policy, actions, are borrowed themes, and practices, from a former politician and political era. He is a clone of the Howard style, and thinking. He claims that we have to get back to the situation where we decide who comes here. This is disingenuous because he knows as all thinking Australians know that we do hvae strict decisioon making criteria exactly for that. Enveloping himself in galadiatorial verbage he says that he will do whatever is reasonably necessary to protect Australia's borders, to keep our country safe. What pomposity. On hospital funding Kevin Rudd continues to seek to wear down the state governments. To me, Mr Rudd is hollow in his rhetoric. I find though, I look assiduously, that there is little substance in most of what Mr Rudd extolls. He says that he has put in to his hospital take over (well not quite a take over just putting up 60% of the money whilst purloining 30% of the GST, - misrepresentation again) policy a protection for small regional hospitals to ensure their survival. What like Victoria's, Phillip Island hospital? It closed under his watch and under the Victorian Premier John Brumby. It is now a 90 kilometre drive to the nearest hospital from this sugnificant community and tourist destination. ramoing up the game play, Mr Rudd has written a letter about his plans and there are graphs in it! Wonders wil never cease, what spontaneity and use of innovative presentation, graphs. How compelling it must be. I must put graphs on this web site and emulate the innovative thinking of the Prime Minister. What graphs might I create to misrepresent facts, and reality, to my own ends? The possibilities thrill me. As I observe the day to day meanderings, and antics, of our senior politicians. I am lead to contemplate what hypocrites, and liars, Australian politicians are. They lack ethical foundations. Soon the tax reform paper will be on the table and we will see the shadowy influence, and control, exercised by what some business people, and other watchers of government, may see as Australia's real Treasurer, public servant, Dr. Ken Henry. Among other things he favours a rent resource tax. The Robin Hood tax as it is called. Why not? It is our dirt that the resource companies are mining and exporting. At least the overall population, rather than a few, may benefit from the wind fall riches of the voracious appetites overseas. I tingle at the thought of being as powerful as Mr Henry. Ooh it thrills me, but I will never ever ascned to such heights. The intrigue, and the conspiracies, that flow through the halls of the centre of power, the Commonwealth must be exhiliarating. Easter is upon us and Mr Rudd can get a whole lot of picture opportunities at churches, and not only on Sunday. Is this just a bumper time to be Prime Minister! ("Monitoring politics in Australia", Kevin Beck) |
| GET A NEW SET OF IDEAS FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE April 2010: There is hardly any defining difference between the major political parties (labor and liberal) in state and federal politics in Australia. We are being brain washed day in day out that the economy is the be all and end all of primary focus in government. If we take an interest in our governance we are given short spin bursts that one or the other is the best at managing the economy and there are no alternative choices. One will trot out a policy, and the other will, if they smell a wind change in the electorate, say "me too". Thus it is with Tony Abbott and his response to the Rudd government's proposals for hospitals. There is nothing new and exciting in the Rudd government's policy unless we think that thrwoing buckets of money at specific elements of health care is new and innovative thinking. Boring hackneyed, ideas and policies, are dressed up in new outfits and recycled back to us. Then there is the tough talk. The Australian leadership psyche is "macho managerialism", whatever it takes and always talk tough. The leaders of governments in Australia, the Ministry and the political parties, border on benevolemt fascism. They dictate and tell us what is good for us. They pass legislation to keep us in line and on the path they think is best. They brook no contravention or rebellion. The leader of the federal opposition, Tony Abbott, has decided that the number of desperate people coming by boat to Australia, villified as illegal entries and possible dangerous types by red necks, in the labor and liberal party, is a crisis of huge dimension. Never mind that it is hardly a blip in terms of population and the global problem of refugees. Play the fear game and ramp it up with the assistance of certain media running headlines such as "they are among us". It is like some soap television show with highly paid fools as the cast members. Never let fact get in the way of "macho" iron man imagery. Whatever it takes Abbott intones. So what does that mean, back to the Howard government's practice of order? What is it within our system that inculcates that certain (value questionable) career politician, who, on the merry go round of public funding, year after year, promulgates their narrow minded bias, hypocrisy, bigotry and mediocrity as strong policy and action? Why is it that this rich Australian nation, wallowing in a resource boom of a golden age, that stretches forever, with deals day after day, in the mega billions, is unable to afford things? Who is getting al of this economic wealth and growth? We have a media, that is as unthinking, laterally, as those they report on. How will we pay is for this, is the bleating refrain. Meanwhile the graeter number of Australians are disengaged from politics and will only react if it affcets their ptach of life, or they are required to vote. One only has to look at the outcome in the state election in Tasmania to determine that the voter is fundamentally thick and not very discerning of how the political system works or the hidden systematisation that makes their vote, unless they are in a marginal seat, largely ineffective and worthless. Our electoral systems do not reflect the ultimate will, and intent, of the people in reality and nor is the make up of our parliamnets representative. Acknowledging, and allowing for, the impact of the Hare Clarke System: "The Origins of the Hare-Clark electoral System The Hare-Clark electoral system is named after Thomas Hare (1806-91) and Andrew Inglis Clark (1848-1907). The Englishman Hare was the originator of the idea of using the single transferable vote (known as preferential voting in Australia) to provide proportional representation. Clark was a Tasmanian and in the late 19th century the state's Attorney-General. He first introduced what became known as Hare-Clark on a trial basis in Hobart and Launceston for the 1896 election. Clark modified Hare's original system by incorporating a modified quota calculation, and a more precise way of determining the distribution of preferences from elected candidates. After its initial trial, Hare-Clark has been used for Tasmanian state elections continuously since 1909. Hare-Clark is one version of a category of electoral systems often called 'quota-preferential'. Candidates are elected from multi-member constituencies, but not using the proportional representation methods common in European countries. Candidates are elected by achieving a quota of votes, and those votes can be made up by votes cast for the candidate, or votes transferred to the candidate as preferences. Hence the term 'quota-preferential'. (Source: Antony Green, Electoral Guide, ABC News On Line, http://www.abc.net.au/elections/tas/2006/guide/hareclark.htm) The Tasmanian parliamemt is now hung with Labor having tens seats, Liberal having ten and the Greens having five. The voters followed the how to vote cards which allocate the preferences and this would naturally lead to the current outcome. The voters are detached. In Tasmania and emerging around Australia, particularly in the metropolitian areas, there are now a number of "class voters" which might be loosely categorised as those who (a) focus on work, career and income, and home (b) lifestyle, and quality, including environment and (c) the rat bags who cannot be bothered treatig elections seriously, or who choose not to vote. Why anyone would vote Green? It is not logically apparent to me given that this party is purist in theory and practice, and unable, to compromise. The Greens party members, with the exception of Senator Bob Brown, rarely create anything. Bob invested his own money into a "not for profit - public interest" called "Bush Heritage" that started off with two properties in Tasmania, and is now (2010) national in scope, nearly a million hectares of land, over 2700 species of plants and 700 species of animals, and measured in the tens of millions of dollars. It employs and it adds to the quality of life. By comparison Bob's colleagues are very careful committers of their own funds and resouces, almost anti-risk oriented, preferring to demand that somoen else pay and do all of the hard work. Thus the electors of Tasmania have now stalled their government until the next election. How bright is that? In South Australia it is not much better although the labor government has been returned. The vote just flipped flop by 12%. The state is still governed by a political elite whose vision is standard. Many of the voters report that they simply could not be bothered. ("Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia", Kevin Beck) |
| MAD AS HELL The grass roots of people activism can be seen in the web activities of disparate individauls creating a web pattern in accordance with the principles enunciated in the Mosaic Portal's tool kit for activism. Several million individuals across Australia collectively referred to as Mad as Hell "Disability group mad as hell and ready to fight, Mike Steketee From: The Australian March 27, 2010 12:00AM Voters are being asked to back only parties that promise a national disability insurance scheme IN the 1976 movie Network, Peter Finch in his role as a television broadcaster urges people to go to their windows, stick their heads out and shout: "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not gonna take this any more." Windows are thrown open and the words echo around the country. Australians with disability and their supporters are hoping for something similar from the campaign they are launching via their "australiansmadashell" website. As it says, "we are not going to take it any more -- and there are millions of us". They are asking people to take a pledge to vote in state and federal elections only for parties that promise to introduce a national disability insurance scheme. The responses will be compiled and candidates, particularly in marginal seats, will be told of the number of pledges in their electorate." (Source: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/disability-group-mad-as-hell-and-ready-to-fight/story-e6frgd0x-1225845897896) "Monitoring voter sentiments in Australia, predisposition of voters", Kevin Beck |
| A SHOWCASE OF THEIR MEDIOCRITY AND ARROGANCE. THE INCOMPETENT AND MEDIOCRE DERIDE SENATOR BARNABY JOYCE March 2010: Minister for Climate Change and Water, the Honourable Penny Wong, is another failing Minister of the Rudd government. Gullibly Ms Wong has swallowed the climate change theory, hook line and sinker. The Minister champions the very dangerous Emmmissions Trading Scheme. Ms Wong has no runs on the board. Yet, ironically, she chooses to deride Senator Barnaby Joycem, who has just been appointed the role to shadow her portfolio management. Ms. Wong is the classic person in a glass house, like the Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, she snipes at others whilst failing to concentrate on the task at hand, rectifying the collective stupidity of these Minister to date. The education revolution will bite Ms Gillard on the political arse. The Rudd government Ministers deride the economic credential of the opposition. Whilst not acknowledgeing tha the loiberals have any ownesrhsip of economic superiority this would have to be a bad joke given Prime Minister Rudd's, and his senior Ministers' performance, pissing billions up against a wall on the spurious justification of saving jobs. The economy as a central plank of good govrnment is a bygone, used concept. Fools who have not learnt the lessons of the global financial crisis keep rattling on about the ecoomy. Mr. Rudd and his labor government Ministers have come to believe their own spin and may think they are doing a real good job. They will not enterain the possibility that they, being Mr. Rudd, Ms. Gillard, Ms. Wong, Mr. Garrett and Mr. Swan, are actually incompetent. Barnaby Joyce annoys the senior labor Ministers greatly. He is far more popular than they are. His continually harping about debt has enraged the squandering Rudd government and they throw diatribe at him. His liberal collleagues, lacking any ability to create a strategy, turn to the hackneyed past, they lack new policies and any unqiue thoughts of their own. They also snipe at Barnaby and one may well ponder if they are jealous. What is it that the generic politician and Minister cannot handle about Barnaby? Is it that maybe is quaint and tells the truth or what he believes to be the truth? Whilst they lie or echo the party line. Listen to Gilard, Swan, Gareett, Wong, they all are little echoes of the boss or the "chosen line". They are lexicon robots. If they had an individual thought they know they would be lonely in Rudd's little inner sanctum. Best to be a clone then. What else don't they like about Barnaby? He has his own mind and tells it like it is, in fairly plain speak whilst rudd prattles his convoluted twaddle. Tony Abbott proved he lacks iconic leadership capacity, and people analysis, skills. He is yet another knee jerk politician who will cut someone loose if there is an enough sniping and carping by the mediocrity. Is it a complex theory - borrow too much and you xannot pay it back? What fools the politicians are to listen to their media dvisers who are part of the media clique. So many ordinary types fail to see the innovative potential of Barnaby Joyce. Mr Abbott did what he was told by internal politicains and a hectoring media, removed Barnaby from the finance portfolio, giving it to Mr. Robb. Abbott recycles the dregs of a by gone government. The nation's voters can make a difference this year, they can vote National, democrat and Independent in the Senate and in the House of Representatives coveying the inept, and corroded members, of parliament who are in labor and liberal to the political dustbin. ("Monitoring voter perceptions in Australia, in a political leadership vacuum", Kevin Beck) |
|
AND WATCH BILLIONS BEING FRITTERED AWAY IN ANOTHER DEMONSTRATION OF INEPTITUDE March 2010: the Australian media was in alater. Behind the scenes the moles, who talk to the media conspirationally were apparently agog. Kevin Rudd had called a debate between himself and Tony Abbott. The Prime Minister apparently had told no one an this was intriging to the ceerbrally challenged press gallery members. It was to be at lunch time at the Canberra Press Club. There was much speculation, by people whose intelligence quota is apparently limited to the gladiatorial spectacle of two testosterone egos, going for it. Neither participant actually prepared and instead they treated the exercise, like they treat the electorates, with minimum attention. It was as if they were playing a childish game. Tony Abbott had the opportunity to present himself as a statesman instead he bordered on buffoonery. Kevin Rudd had his poker face on, the one of studied disregard that he used on the NSW Premier when he humiliated her over the hospital negotiations. Abbott's advisers obviously have no vision or little influence on their boss. He is not Prime Minister material based on his performance. Rather he is an ignorant clown in a carnival side show, called federal parliament. Kevin Rudd did not come up much better and should be voted out of the Prime Minister's office and the parliament. Though the liberal national colaition offers no better talent and innovation. It is the same old, same old. After it was all over the vision of the participants, in the debate, turned out to be not quite to reach the wall of the Press Club. It was a dud. But that ws to be expected given Rudd's record. He is a light weight senior politician masquerading as a visionary change reformer. He is too often detached in his demeanour. Some in the media opined that Kevin07 had returned. Given that the media are generally besotted with that past image, it may be argued that they are not all that bright in their ability to distill complex issues. They instead tend to be shallow and light in their observations and conclusions. There was a "worm that moved across the television screen". I think that a worm may be most appropriate to measure the performance of close relatives. Both Kevin Rudd, and Tony Abbott, lacked substance in their presentatiins, were boring and the jurnalists who asked questions did not demonstrate an ability to draw them out. It was a waste of time. The audience was not engaged, and the two were very unilluminating as to their policies and ideas. There was a lot of hand movements, inflections and overall mediocrity on display. They played the puerile games perhaps of boys not yet grown. We can ignore Mr. Abbott and his lack of substance, credibility and policy. We must however question the ability, and cognisance of the Prime Minister as to his role and position, and we should question the capacity of his advisers. These advisers ask jounalists seeking interviews what is in it for them? This shallow cofected man, proved yet again that he is very lacking in the where with all to manage, and deliver, his grandiose agenda. He is supported in his helath reform agenda by Minister Nicola Roxon who is incapable of stemming massive fraud in her portfolio, systemic failure and is manipulated by external vested interests. She would rather accede to raising health insurance rates allowing for a the fraud to become embedded as an acceptable corcumstance. Like Mr Rudd, Ms Roxon fails to deliver a justifiable performance for salary and position. Here is a extract email that the Minister sent me following the dbate. It demonstrates the dwarfish intelligence of her media staff who thik that a few lines of spin and broad spectrum bile suffices as communication and information. "Time for Mr Abbott to be positive and constructive about Health Reform Dear Kevin, What we saw today from the national televised debate between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, is that Kevin Rudd has a plan to deliver better hospitals and more doctors for working families across the country, and Tony Abbott only has a plan to criticise, complain and be negative. He has no plan to improve public hospitals. The establishment of this National Health and Hospitals Network builds on record investments in health and ospitals made by the Rudd Government over the last two years, including a 50% increase in hospital funding, increasing GP training places by 35% and training more nurses. The Rudd Government's action stands in contrast to the Liberals who ripped $1 billion from our hospital system when they were in Government, capped GP training places and ignored the shortage of nurses in our community. The below chart shows how Federal funding for hospitals declined while Tony Abbott was Health Minister. (then there is concocted chart that purports to indicate a reduction in helath spending Bt Abbott when he was Minister). (then a web hyperlink) Read more about Tony Abbott's health funding chart gaffe and funding cuts. Mr Abbott is out-of-touch on health - please let your friends know about Mr Abbott's record on public hospital funding. Nicola Roxon Minister for Health and Ageing" RUDD, ROXON AND GILLARD CANNOT MANAGE AND ADMINISTER MONEY AND PROGRAMMES Isn't that adeep and evaluative communication full of factual proof and substance? No, it is far from it. It is trite and there are thousands of these being emailed every day. What an insult from the parasites, the media advisers and political apparatchiks, of Australian politics who think that using the internet makes up for their lack of deep and intelligent cohesive, and compelling, arguments. They are paid from the public purse to con us and esure that their political bosses are protected. They really are insulting twerps using dumb communications, minimal content and mediocre strategies. I am hoping for more intellectual power, and substantial communication, from Nicola Roxon. The Prime Minister has been shown to have been very aware of the massive failure of the insulation programme which killed people, ruined lives and caused people to live in fright in their own homes. Billlions wasted and a programme loved by charlatans and thieves. Billions wasted and a dangerous programme allowed to run. Similarly it has become apparent that Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard's, construction programme in her education portfolio is being rorted by hundreds of millions also. She too responds with inane justifications bleating that they spent the billions (and will tolerate the waste and inneficiencies) to save jobs. Whose jobs? Local builders and trades people in rural communities seem to have missed out. What Gillard, and her departmental officers, did was to allocate billions of dollars and the management to the states. The inept, and shady, education bureaucrats siphoned off hundreds of millions into state coffers through administration overhead charges, management fees and other internal costs, flat percentage charges on the amounts. As the contract price escalates the money going into state government coffers escalates. It is a transfer payment system. The bureaucrats then used their standard procedures, issuing complex tenders full of irrelevant rubbish, and ideological, clauses (OH&S, Fair Work practices and other drivel) paying lawyers for probity services that are a waste of money. These probity people are there to make the process look fair and even handed and to enable the public servant to avoid accountability and responsibility. The big corporations win the tenders and siphon off their fees and charges, and allocate the work out by sub contract to their regular contractors and to people who are prepared to accept the amounts on offer. This pyramid system results in massive over charging, and massive cost over runs, with little actually being spent on trade and construction on the ground. ms Gillard refuses to accept reality and stoically soldiers on, because there is no accountability in the world of politics. What should have been done is hat the money should have been allocated direct to the school community council to be administered locally. This could have been audited and the community groups could have been assisted where they did not have the expertise. But no that is too simple and annoying to the state and territory Ministers and bureaucrats. They wanted to siphon off money and would have missed out. Allow the Rudd federal government to take over hundreds of billions of health funds and GST taxes and watch them squander that on stupidity, ineptitude, croneyism and personal political grandiosement. The Australian hospital system will collapse under the conspicuous talent challenged, Mr. Rudd, Ms. Gillard and Ms. Roxon. Add in the ETS and climate change fiasco, within the portfolio of Senator Penny Wong, and the single handed destruction of the solar energy investment and research industry by Peter Garrett, and there a litany of multi billion dollar debacles based on falsehood, maladministration and poor skills. Oh it is never their fault, it is always someone's elses ineptitude, lies and corruption. The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has no managerial competence standards, a demonstrated questionable ethical foundation and the Ministers hold their positions through factional political power brokers. The modern Australian political party, and government, is more about managing perception, media and their careers than about public benefit and governance. Government is a sinecure handed around, a political club that is maintained for the few at the disadvantage of the majority and the bulk of stupid Australian voters are oblivious to, or tolerate, this. We desreve what we get abd we could be a far richer, and more productive, nation than we are. We are shackled by the mediocrity of our legislators and the corruption of the major political parties. ("The inability of our parliaments (COAG) to agree, and frame, national interest policies, Politics and a Candy Shop Mentality", Kevin Beck) |
| Pick one, spin or substance March 2010: There is a serious matter before the parliament and the public and it is called health. Both major political parties (labor and liberal) play puerile, and immature, games when it comes to policy particularly when an election year comes around. At this moment we have our inboxes being flooded by Tony Abbott's teaam to convince us that labor's claims about his track record as Minister are not true. So Tony's team send me an email with his digital signature embedded to give it substance and it is addressed "Dear Kevin". It has a nice little statistical diagram in the middle. Now I know quite a lot about Tony's time as a Minister (Employment and Health) and his love for statistics. When bureaucrats wanted Tony's attention and agreement they plastered their paperwork with statistics. However on the drak side when the statistics were not in Tony's favour e.g in the employment portfoilio, they were doctored to suit. So Mr Abbott let's cut the crap about what the statistics tell us. We are not all that gullible, and detached, as the bulk of the electorate are. Then we have labor. They cliam their preeminent skills to be in health and education. That also is a crock. Labor rolls out the hackneyed shallow short trem training as a proof of their doing something. In Mr Rudd's current health promotion there is no detail. There is no substance. It is ageneral broad brush of pushing money from one tin to the other and a nebulous system of governance by local committees. I thought that most states in Australia ran their local health districts by committee or is that a myth? So what is it that Mr Rudd has come up with? He will not actually tell us. He prefers to media manage perception and information and use the standard tool of the dullard politician, spin, and massage, of facts just like Tony. Concurrently Health and Aging Minister, Nicoal Roxon, pops out a press release about how they will solve the doctor shoretage crisis in general practice. The mandatory big number statement is included. The bigger the "million or billion" estimate the better. Typical fairy dust and crystal balls. What a load of rubbish lies in the statement - 1,200 delivers 5,000,000. " Analysis by the Department of Health of the Government’s $632 million investment to train 1200 new GPs a year has shown that the move will deliver around five million extra GP services across Australia. Those services are much needed in all parts of the country, but particularly so in rural and regional areas. With half the new places to be provided in rural and regional Australia, this will go a long way to reliving the pressure on stretched local GPs. I spoke to the Breathing NEWLIFE into General Practice Conference today about the importance of GPs, and particularly GP registrars, to our primary care system. It is clear that we cannot reform the health system as a whole without investment in primary care and our GPs – the lifeblood of our health system. Australia has a significantly higher rate of hospitalisation than comparable countries – double that of Canada and significantly higher than the United States, the UK and New Zealand. It is estimated that last year, some 441,000 hospital admissions could have been avoided through providing better care in the community – nearly one in ten hospital admissions. These additional five million services will provide a welcome boost to our efforts to improve primary care. The many GP registrars at today’s conference are central to our future health system. Delivering better primary and preventative health care will keep people healthier and out of hospital and, importantly, take the pressure off our essential acute care services. The Rudd Government is determined to deliver real change to our health system, so that all Australians can have better health and better hospitals. " (Source: Five million extra GP services Nicola Roxon Thursday Mar 18, 2010, 11:32am, http://www.alp.org.au/news/five-million-extra-gp-services)" On the face of it this is tremendous and wonderful. This is actually a fantasy rather than an actual effort to engage the electorate in meaningful debate. Talking at us with small paragrpahs of manipulated facts and content. Grow up Ms Rozon because there are many who are onto you and the government as a whole. Nicola Roxon only wants to hear the good news and dismisses anything that is contrary to what she wants or believes, she is a politician not a health practitioner, and her stuff above sounds good on paper, is logical and the illinformed masses may find it credible except the people who actually live in rural Australia. This is spin over substance and reality. Beneath the surface lies the hidden truth that no bullshit analysis by a subservient department is going to hide. Past governments including labor have brought about the problems of medical practitionber supply in Australia. "there have been particular moments where the numbers of medical practitioners have been assessed as either too few or too many to meet the needs of the population. Following from these perceptions, the policy response has been either to restrict or increase medical student numbers. However, such reactions have sometimes had unintended consequences, such as compounding the underlying shortages of practitioners. This has been to the detriment both of patients and practitioners as patients in some areas are unable to access an adequate array of medical services. For medical students this type of approach has also meant that at times there are insufficient places available in medical schools for all those who wish to study medicine. Understanding better how the transformation from student to ‘specialist’ medical practitioner works and the roles of those institutions which contribute to, and influence that transformation may help to lessen the possibility that these types of negative outcomes unnecessarily beleaguer the health system." (Source: 15 July 2009, 2009–10 Medical practitioners: education and training in Australia Dr Rhonda Jolly, Social Policy Section, Parliamentary Library of Australia, page 3, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/2009-10/MedicalPractitioners.pdf There are not enough medical trainers and medical trainig facilities to meet these objectives. The system cannot physically handle the numbers plucked out of the air by the Rudd government and Ms Roxon. There are many stake holders involved in medical training and the simple statement by the Minister belies the tensions and constraints that underpin and influence the training, the numbers and the infrastructure. Here are some examples: Australian Medical Council (AMC). This independent national standards body for medical education and training accredits the university medical schools and specialist colleges that deliver medical education and training. It also provides advice to governments, medical education providers and medical boards on a range of issues. Specialist medical colleges. The specialist colleges (not including the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, see the point below relating to this college), in consultation with other relevant bodies, are responsible for determining standards of education and training required for qualification in particular specialties. These colleges also determine the numbers of training places they will provide. Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP). This College supports general practitioners, registrars and medical students by assessing doctors’ skills and knowledge, monitoring professional development activities, developing resources and guidelines and assisting generally with issues that affect practice and accreditation processes. Unlike the other colleges, the RACGP does not provide fellowship training. This is delivered by a government-run organisation, General Practice and Education Training Limited (GPET). Private hospitals also provide and fund a small amount of training to postgraduate medical students. Postgraduate medical councils in the states and the Northern Territory support and develop education and training requirements for junior doctors and hospital medical officers in the prevocational years. It is costly to train a medical student—more costly in some universities than others. The number of scholarships are limited. Students are also expected to pay a financial contribution towards their education. This contribution is set by higher education providers within a limit imposed by the Government. Students can elect to pay their contribution upfront and receive a 20 per cent fee discount as a result. They can make a partial fee payment of an amount over $500 and receive a discount on the amount paid or they can defer the whole contribution amount. Students who choose the latter option can apply for a HECS-HELP loan.40 Following graduation, repayment of HECS-HELP loans is required on a scale set by the tax office once graduates earn a minimum income ($41 595 in 2008–09)." (Source op cit, page 13). Medical students who are Australian citizens or permanent residents are also able to apply for support under the two bonded medical places schemes offered by the Australian Government. Applicants for these schemes need to meet the same entry requirements as other students and selection for all bonded places is undertaken by relevant universities. The first of these schemes, the Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme, provides 100 scholarships annually for extra places in medical schools. Scholarship recipients, who must be Australian citizens or permanent residents, receive an annual tax free, non-means tested, indexed payment for as long as it takes them to complete their medical degrees. In 2009, this scholarship payment was $23 686. In return for support under this scholarship, students agree to practice in rural or remote areas of Australia for six years continuously upon completion of their medical and vocational training. The second scheme, the Bonded Medical Places Scheme, also provides extra university places for students who wish to study medicine. The number of places available to students per year is set at 25 per cent of all students commencing in Commonwealth supported medical places.44 In return for the opportunity to study medicine, students commit to work in areas where there are workforce shortages (Districts of Workforce Shortage or DWS) for a period equal to the length of their medical degrees. (See Appendix B for information on DWS). There is no direct funding to students under the Bonded Medical Places Scheme and students are required to pay the full student fee contribution, unless they choose to train or work in a rural DWS. They may then be eligible for the HECS Reimbursement Scheme. This Scheme reimburses one-fifth of HECS-HELP medical fees for each year of rural training or service. The South Australian and Queensland State Governments offer bonded scholarships. The South Australian scholarships provide full time undergraduate students with $5000 per year for a maximum for three years. To be eligible for these scholarships, students need to have resided in rural Australia prior to undertaking study in a variety of disciplines, including medicine. They are required to live and work in rural South Australia on completion of their undergraduate degrees for a period equivalent to that funded under the scholarships.46 In 2008, the Federal Government agreed to reimburse Queensland for the costs associated with the training of 235 bonded medical students under the Queensland Health Bonded Medical Scholarship Scheme. Queensland Health scholarship holders have their full tuition fees paid to undertake the graduate medical course delivered at Griffith University. They also receive an annual Education Support Allowance of $21 000 for the duration of the course. The Australian Defence Force sponsors an undergraduate scheme which is available to medicine, dentistry, nursing, pharmacy, radiology, law, environmental health, engineering, Business or Arts students. Under this scheme, students are paid a salary of $33 750 per year while they study, their student debt is paid and they receive free dental and medical benefits. Upon graduation, they are required to serve as officers, in the service of their choice, for the length of their sponsorships plus one year(Source: ibid, page 15). ("Managing PR instead of government", Kevin Beck |
| Clinical training is an essential part of a medical degree. As the Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand note, this training is necessary for students to ‘contextualize and further explore the clinical problems and systems learned in the classroom and skills labs’. In the initial years of a degree clinical training often occurs in general practice or community settings and may consist only of observation, although in recent times, early clinical training has included experience in clinical skills training laboratories. Clinical skills laboratories are considered to provide flexible, controlled learning environments that allow junior students to make mistakes, while avoiding risks to patients. Senior medical students traditionally undertake their clinical placements in hospital settings. While some private hospitals provide these types of placements, overwhelmingly this clinical experience is provided in public hospitals. Students generally rotate through a number of specialties as part of their clinical experience. For some time there has been concern that the number of clinical training places has been insufficient to cope with increasing numbers of medical students. Professor James Angus from Medical Deans Australia and New Zealand argued in September 2008 for example: By 2012 there will be nearly 60 per cent more medical school graduates than that expected in 2008 … However there has not been a commensurate increase in clinical training places. There is very little point in training Australian medical graduates if there is no significant increase in the number of clinical placements to cater for these students and the quality staff to train them. Students can’t learn by looking over the shoulders of 10 others. In response to such concerns about the adequacy of clinical training places for medical students, an additional $500 million for undergraduate clinical training places, which includes increasing the clinical training subsidy to 30 per cent for all health undergraduate places, was agreed to at the Council of Australian Governments’ (COAG) meeting on 29 November 2008." (Source: 15 July 2009, 2009–10, Medical practitioners: education and training in Australia Dr Rhonda Jolly, Social Policy Section, Parliamentary Library of Australia, page 20) Then comes the exacting nature and type of training and the debate about the effectiveness of problem base learning. Thta is beyond the scope of numbers and physical facilities. Then finally it comes down to the graduate, the doctor's preference for location. They do not want to go and live in the far and remote locations of the nation and many do not want to live in the suburbs. Specialisation offers the lure of higher income far above a general practitioner's lot. ("The failure of Australia's health policies is a labor and liberal failure", Kevin Beck) |
| WITHOUT REALLY SHOWING ANY INITIATIVE OR INNOVATON COSTELLO A LEGEND MADE UP Peter Costello is Australia's longest serving federal Treasurer as at March 2010. We all have seen a company losing billions one minute, on the ropes, such as BHP, years back and the next, they are in surplus and have recovered. The Australian government, along with the states and territories, are no exceptions. They have all created these accounting smoke and mirrors miracles. They have squandered, in the past decade, tens of billions of dollars of taxpayers money without being held accountable or responsible. They have all pork barrelled electorates. Journalists and commentators, report economic marvels of turn around. making a surplus and puuting in the ledger is apparentky best practice government. Let's not get too carried away with Pete Costello's attack on Tony Abbott. Peter Costello may have been a long time as Treasurer but that is it. He squirrled money away and the Prime Minister John Howard gave it away. It is simply vote buying to retain government. Peter Costello wanted to be Prime Minister and did not have the ability to achieve that. He could not disloge John Howard. He did not have the grit that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating had during their time in politics. They took the office. To my mind and based on his record, Mr Costello achieved his level of ability. No risk, no gain, no pain path, and ultimatley a government book keeper of sorts. Mr Costello had, during his time as Treasurer, a competent Reserve Bank, and a set of banking enterprises, and business exectives, who worked to make Australia prosper and shield it from the real world. ("The legend of Peter Costello and the Surplus", Kevin Beck) |
| Prime Minister Rudd exhibits appallingly bad manners One may well think that sleazy politics and corruption should have destroyed the labor brand in Australia, at state and territory levels. It is a resilient party and one eyed, or detached voters, have little interest in the quality of our democracy, governments and the poeple sitting in our parliaments. It is one thing to be incompetent and corrupt it is quite another to be incompetent and full of one's self at the same time adding rudeness to the mix. Yet there are some discerning voters whose stomach turns at the low grade perfomance of many, including the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Today (Saturday, March 13 - 14, 2010, in the Weekend Australian at page 4, one can see the real persona of Kevin Rudd. The arrogance, and the ignorance, of a man who is full of himself is captured in the picture. The Prime Minister has two faces. The sly matey type who trots out trite collohialisms as if he ahs been at the dentist and had too much laughing gas and the other a mean, acid tongued, short tempered weasel. He does not have the good grace to be civil to NSW Premier Kristina Keneally, to look at her while she speaks to him. He treats her with indifference. He cannot bring himelf to act with manners and aplomb. Kevin Rudd is, it seems to me, a thuggish little brutish character who degrades the highest political office in the land. Unlike her he lacks grace and good manners. Is more suited to selling used cars, property and pyramid schemes than being a great Prime Minister of the Australian Labor Party. Does Kevin Rudd think he is teflon man, able to stand arrogantly before the nation and get elected again? He seems to believe in some personal invicibility. If Kevin Rudd accidentally fell under a bus Australia would not suffer the loss of a worthwhile Prime Minister, the natio may well be rid of a surly, foul mouthed man, who has a record, since assuming the office of Prime Minister, of abusing females with crude four letter words. The media has reported this trait and then there are rumours. When challenged about having to work on a weekend, it is rumoured that Rudd told the female staff member to "have the (whatever) on my desk by Monday, - - - -" (a four letter disgusting word for female anatomy). This obnoxious one man band, a self centred crusader of full of hubris and bile, whilst demonstrating very little of value, and ability, in administration and human resource interaction knowledge, masquerades as a deeply religious, and caring, human being. He needs to watch his "Ps" and "Qs" from now on and be on his very best behaviour to counter those who want him out of office. Many of his labor colleagues in the parliament are mortified by his behaviour towards Ms Keneally. He is alienating people in his own members of parliament, labor, as well as other voters. He has now attracted an, active, dedicated, well resourced and singularly focused, campaign by people outside of politics to try and make him a "oncer" Prime Minister. Mr. Rudd should apologise unreservedly to Ms Keneally immediately. lacking the skills to negotiate legislation through the Senate, that John Howard possessed, Kevin Rudd, has given that away and moved on to beating up the states perhaps believing that such a tactic requires less problematic talents. His select cabinet members, Penny Wong, Peter Garrett and Julia Gillard have not been actly revolutionary in their abilities and success. They have geenrated a lot of hot air and adopted the thuggish threatening style of their boss. ("Counting down the numbered days of Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd", Kevin Beck) |
| Big talking Kev has arrived at the Lodge and he is going to be a "game changer". The Australian commercial media are, it would seem, unable to correctly report the facts. Kevin Rudd presents his health plan as something sensational and reformist. Rubbish. Before the election, and more recently, he has bragged that he will take over health federally. If blocked by the states there will be a refernda. On what? The Prime Minister is overstating, as usual, creating yet more falsehoods, smoke and mirrors, grand standing as he travels across Australia meeting the Premiers. Kevin Rudd has no idea what it takes to run a health system just as he had no idea what the impact of his brilliant rushed idea to insulate every house in Australia. There is a probability that this plan can result ion even more deaths and damage to peoples' lives. Disingenuously, Mr Rudd is only offering to fund 60% of the cost, up from 40%, with the states still carrying 40%. He says that he will end the blame game. Can he not count? 60% is not 100%, so the blame game has just altered by a few percentage points and can go on unabated. Mr Rudd is so full of crap that it may be addling his ability to think clearly. Kevin Rudd made 600 promises before being elected Prime Minister, what sort of tactical strategy is that? He has a record of failure now measured in the hundreds but it is rumoured that he may be working on 2,000 for the next federal election. Let's have another 2020 style summit and get a lot of ideas from people that can be ignored. Ignorant of the members of his government Ministry who are actually good performers and skilled in their jobs he steals the lime light so that their efforts are lost in the Prime Minister's day to day stupidity, and reckless, regard for parliamentary process and protocol and the fundamental processes of good governance and federalism. Mr Rudd is to my mind one of the parasites of the Australian political system who climbs the ladder of party structure, and politics, to fully embrace the "peter" principle in all of its irony. Labor is beside itself that Tony Abbott trumped them on maternity leave for women. Labor has a whimpy (pandering to business) policy and they are now faced with a six months, full pay, policy, which plays on the voters disenchantment with big business. Abbott will pass their legislatoon through, he is a more considered tactical politician than Kevin Rudd. Elements of the voters will, be devastated at his demands on the rich - "oh the poor hard done by executives, and Board members, of the big companies, we feel for you as you bleat about a 1.5% levy to fund it. The fat cats of the banks who gouge and steal the pennies of the ordinary citizen whilst collecting the mega salaries." Boo hoo Heather Ridout. In response Wayne Swan mutters vacant semi literate responses, he tells the ABC Insider Programme that labor is not into policy on the run and the simple propositions. Really what is the insulation policy and fiasco if not that? Where is the surplus that Wayne had? Nicola Roxon sneers at the proposition that Tony Abbott is the friend of women, Lindsay Tanner screams about big taxes and mac taxes. The political class, who run our country, seem unable to debate with substance, coherence and good manners. Their bag of tricks are lgely about insults, innuenda and trite slogans and immature observations. Our political represents are not all that articulate, and sophisticated, in their roles.  The epitomy of poise, grace and manners, Kristina Keneally Premier of NSW, March 2010  The epitomy of hubris, arrogance and appalling bad manners, Kevin Rudd Prime Minister of Australia ("The Dreams of An Every Day Prime Minister", Kevin Beck) |
| What a good idea Prime Minister except ....it has been tried before Kevin Rudd, and his strategist advisers, have yet again proven their lack of operational experience and knowledge and failure to adequatley research their bright ideas before they trot them out via the Prime Minister or altrenative Ministers. Some years back Victoria was paying performance bonuses to hospitals. In 2008 - 2009 Victoria's bureaucrats, and government, discovereed the hospitals were rorting the statistics to get more money. These were not onlt small hospitals but the big metropolitian ones. So they abandoned the practice. If Kev had bothered to ask his advisers to adequatley keep up their knowledge base or to go out and look he would have known this. Now he risks another claim of negligence like his insulation programme. On that topic we learn in parliament that Mr Rudd actually knew about the fiasco whilst in the apst weeks he has by slippery dancing avoided that admission. The poor planning and skills have cost this nation tens of millions probaablt hundreds, but so what its not their money is it? Mr Rudd may appeal to the uninformed, and less discerning, who see politics as a charde and in a narrow prism of celebrity, when he uses folksy and chatty language and Australianisms, but to those who want to see depth and knowledge he comes across as disingenuous. A famous quote comes to mind and whilst it is not produced here in the same vein, and context, as when King Henry without careful thought said it, there is a political connectivity as we go to a federal election, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" ("The knives are being sharpened", Kevin Beck) |
| Let's begin with the topic heading, why "paper boy"? Well the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd wasa public servant in Queensland under the Premiership of wayne Goss. He was the person who coordinated the cabinet (paper) submission papers. Thus he was the 'paper boy". Tony bbot, well we know what budgie smugglers are, they are his swimmers. However, he has a far more impressive background than Kevin Rudd in public life. He has been a Minister and now leader. He is also a far more awarded university graduate than the Prime Minister and I would hazard a better scholar and politician. At first one may well question why Mr Abbott does the things he does and on the face some look foolhardy and not thought out, I doubt that this is the case. In politics strategy and thinking usually goes much deeper but the commentators and media are often not equipped laterally and cognitively to discern that. Thus, the proposition that the public prefer Kevin Rudd over the Tony Abbott either demonstrates the lack of indepth analysis of the selected pollster interviewees or the shallow comprehesnion of the Australian voter. Three things elect governments and they are not poll creations nor can they be statistically determined or calculated by a new formula of the Australian newspaper. The results of the next Australian federal election are like the global financial crisis, the pundits are guessing and full of bullshit. The voters are party oriented. They vote liberal, national, green. There are few exceptions who vote independent. The voters either like, dislike, or do not care about, their local member, at the time they enter the ballot box. It depends on what their favourite shock jock or tabloid newspaper said. It depends if theirs elf interest is tweaked. Austarlian voters, I argue to the contrary, are not deep thinkers. The voters are prepared to accept the nominated leader (without too much evaluation and assessment) to be Prime Minister, in concert with the above sentiments. Swinging voters are a nebulous, and shallow, lot who may not fully value their democracy and government. maybe they should, like immigrants, have to fill out a form every three years, or four years, to qualify to vote. That would be a totalitarian regime though. Our governments are totalitarian but well dressed. They have no guns also. Unfortunatley democracy does not work like that, our politicians are in many respects a worry, the calibre is not all that falsh and the system of selection is somewhat fixed and dodgy. Have a look at the USA and see what happens when the government, and the democratically elected constituency, cease to function correctly. Government falls apart and the nation suffers. Here we mask it a bit and our two major parties, labor and liberal, are not all that far apart in ideology uin comparison to the United States. We also do not put out boots on the necks of the poor and use them as fodder for others' forunes. We may not be as greedy as some others. We are not as overtky racist. We can look at the Australian Health Policy proposed by Kevin Rudd, in the context of our system of federation. We can place it within the context of the articles below, about competency. 5,000 public servants in the federal Health and Aging department and not one of them operates a health centre today. Many do have policy, and operational, health backgrounds at the any level - state, or territory - but that does not seem to have an impact on perfromance of the agencies at federal level. They are not influencing Mr Rudd and his team. We have the selling Ministers out front, Kevin Rudd and Nicola Roxon. The snake oil caravan, of old, that passes through town. They have zip operational experience between them in health. Lacking legitimacy, and experience, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has to reosrt to a threat, the states have "four to six weeks" to decide. He has the temerity to bluff a referendum. This man, being fool hardy, has not rationalised what that might mean for him. Does he think he knows the outcome? This is the stuff of ego, that says because I am Prime Minister, and in charge of money and the country, you will obey my wishes and promptly so. Kevin Rudd appears to have no idea of the complexity of the federation, work required or the problems, people issues, administration, vested interests and so on. The doctors control health in Australia. They control the functioning of hospitals. Mr Rudd is fast demonstrating some sort of "savant detachment from reality." Perhaps the Prime Minister is really an autocrat in costume masquerading as Prime Minister? Kevin Rudd is supported by his loyal, yet similarly, thuggish Deputy, Ms Julia Gillard, whose every second word drips with challenge and the veiled threat. Ms Gillard is well known for threats and a snakey misdemeanour when challenged. In the political world populated by people, with limited experience and knowledge, there is a tendency to resort to threat, bluff and hyperbole. The avoidance of complex questions, through vacant answers, or misdirection down an alley, is a sign that Kevin Rudd, and his health policy, are on shifting sand. ("The quick sand of health policy in Australia", Kevin Beck) |
| The "oncer" labor government or a reforming one? March 2010: The Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has sent in Mr ("fix it"), Greg Combet. How many Greg Combets does he have? He has not many and in any event it will all come to naught. Whereas Kevin Rudd cannot foretell the future some of us can. The staff of the Prime Minister allowed the debacle of the insultaion programme to unfold due to their lack of lateral thinking, analysis, intellgence and prescient capabilities, they lack vital life experience and a low in the required complex personal skills. Ministerial staff, focused narrowly on their own portfolios fail to see the signs of problems and major disasters unfolding that will ripple into their Minister's sector. One only has to look at Health and Climate Change to see this. The Prime Minister himself appears to lack a lateral thinking capability to anticipate. He has hired around him, people who are indeed loyal, but are ill equipped to carry out the ambitious agenda he has set. They have failed him most dismally. Yet Mr. Rudd struggles on with the millstones, into the blizzard. The Prime Minister seeks to reshape the Australian public service, in hs own mould, or some other vision, that he has. he has gone through the motions briging back the old brigade. They like the person whom Rudd has at the helm have spent decades mired in the decline of Australia's public services, across the nation. They have stood mute as the politicisation, and neutering of thes ervice has taken place, and the skills base has been largely removed. All of this in the name of service of the government of the day. The Prime Mimister is envelloped in incomeptence and historical decay that has come home to bite him and his Ministers. There is more to come. If Kevin Rudd wants to achieve his agenda, and succeed beyond a first term, he must now take the hard decisions of the true Managing Director/CEO. He has to let his novices, and proteges, go. He has to seek out a most unusual group of people to do what he seeks. Probably those who have no background in the labor party and no factioanl alliances or aspirations. The people Rudd needs are mercenaries. But, I would hazard, that like all of the political leaders in modern Australian politics today he has no recognition of this, nor the capacity to break the mould at the core of his problem. Surround yourself with sycophants, and loyal subjects, Prime Minister and risk the ultimate humiliation. ("The numbered days of an Australian Prime Minister", Kevin Beck - A Futurist in Australia) |
| Kevin Rudd is infatuated with trying to talk low level with the ordinary folks. He is out front of parliament having a "yack". He says that he "aint" and hat the "buck stops", he uses the same set of phrsaes more at home in midland America where folksy drivel and homilies pass for deep and meaningful context. Big Kev is taking the blame and wearing sack cloth for his sins. He is disappointed in himself and is going to put in a greater effort. God help the poor wrteches that slave for him now. His human resource management skills are almost non existent so be prepared. Meantime Kev lives in that rarified world of politics, where people get demoted on full pay. Kev thinks that we are disappointed with him not rolling things out. Well here is a scoop. The people are getting to see Kev in a real light. maybe he is a flim flam man? he says on telly that he has experience in the fields that he is getting into, harking back to his own perception of his experinec and capability in the Queensland state government sphere. When examined. Mr. Rudd's background is hardly stellar, and gives an insight into a narrow prism of management practices and ideas. Whilst he is planted in academia of some sort, he holds a set of skills that appear moulded by bullshit and the sleazy, lying world of diplomacy. Opposition parliamentary leader Tony Abbott aptly dubs the Prime Minister the "milky bar kid". So let's, as you say, call a spade a spade, Prime Minister, uou are not cutting it and are less likely to in the future. In addition there are key people in your caibinet that are simply not up to the task and they are making the talented labor ones look bad. And while we are on the reform agenda, so dear to your heart, and the insultaion stuff up and disasters, who is in charge of service delivery for the Australian Public Service, Mr Terry Moran, the imported staate bureaucrat? What role has he played in wasting billions, and failed delivery? Could it be that he has no idea what a federal public service does? Why pillory the Environment Department alone? Why not include the Ministers and Secretaries for Health and Climate Change? They are both unable to deliver to the Prime Minister's ambitious agenda. I note that, eye candy, Senator Wong is still a senior cabinet Minister even though the ETS, and CPRS, are a dog's breakfast of cobbled together stupid policies and propositions based on problematic and questionable modelling, discredited premises nd gobbly gook. She of course is also on full salary despite the abject failure. Senator Conroy another bovver boy who presides over tens of millions of waste and a war on Telstra for no purpose other than teaching someone a lesson about how tough and rough he is. As the Deputy Prime Minister said, in her quite open threat, it is dangerous to oppose the government. " And now I see in the newspapers this morning that his deputy Julia Gillard is threatening the business community with injury if it doesn’t stay out of the industrial relations debate. Now this is the ugly face of the Labor Party, this is bullyboy tactics." John Howard. (Source: AM - Tuesday, 1 May , 2007 08:05:00, Reporter: Chris UhlmannABC Australia On Line - http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1910769.htm) As for the future in 2010 - 2011, what will Kevin Rudd do when the nasty balance sheet entries, pasted onto the puboic sector last year have to be taken back into the private sector? Pee in his pants and take the blame, for that new, and unpredicted, fiasco too? ("Hey mate, fair suck of the sauce bottle... oops I spilt it" Kevin Beck) |
| February 2010: The Minister for Health, Nicola Roxon, was besotted with golf balls in parliament in the last week of February. The Minsiter ridiculing others, shrugs off her own momolithic underperrformance and failures. She has been unable to deliver the Prime Minister's health reform plan or the suoerclinics, and improvements that were the stuff of dreams and fantasy in Rudd's fevered pre-elction mind. The Minister ought to ook at her stewardship of a portfolio that bleeds hundred sof millions due to the inadequacy of the politicians who are tasked to deal with it. Should Gre Combet, the fixer, also be given a mantle for health? He could ten maybe get a pay rise from his $206,000 a year and a seat in cabonet in place of either the failed Peter Garrett, on $260,000 a year despite having been demoted. perhaps Roxon could take a pay cut for poor performance and ignorance? The Minister's office has been told in writing that the estimates for fraud in both the private and public health secto are grossly underestimated. There is a system that esnures the spin doctors, and parasites, of the political system (unelected paid on the public purse) dismiss any correspondence that might prove embarrassing or too hard for their mediocre political bosses. An Australian private sector health practitioner, the largest in his field, has provided documentary evidence to Medibank Private fraud managers and advisers, to the office of the Minister for Health, the office of the Minister for Finance (the owner of Medibank Private), to the Office of the Minister for Human Services, a subsequent meeting has been held with as senior public servant of that agency, material has been sent to the Treasurer and to the burueaucracy in general, all pointing to a system being manipulated for gain by vested interests. Why bother being a concerned and good citizen when dealing with a detached government focused on its own self indulgence? The correspondence the evidence, has been ignored except that perfunctory and peurile responses cpme back, thanks but no thanks. The Office of the Prime Minister has been alerted to look for the correspondence but that is like sending documents into a creche. This health practitioner has also provided complementary research to support his claims. He has paid for all of his research and arguments. yet the message falls on deaf or it is - ignorant ears? He has questioned the structure, membership and value of the preferred provider agreement. How many preferred providers can one have before they are all in? In short he has put his money where his mouth is, unlike the people charged with the public interest and those who occupy official positions. The Senate Estimates Committee needs to look at the whole health fund charging and agrement exercise, the level of fraud and what the public service knows. The Health Minister and Minister for Finance need to be brought to account for their slack attitude. Medibank Private is a multi billion industry owned by the government with 30% of the market and its activities require looking at. This is yet another example of the slip, shod management and administration of Kevin Rudd's cyclonic drive for reforms and action. There is a theme song developing in labor, it goes: "There's no business like show business, like no business we know ..and we do not know much ...(add labor refrain - do not bother us with the detail, we are on a mission from Kev and we are zealots to his cause and whims." ("Fraud in dental health coming to haunt Australia's labor and liberal politicians", Kevin Beck) |
| Prime Minister Rudd has told us the level of ethical and accountability standards he requires of Ministers in governemnt setting a new benchmark in poor leqadership. he should immediately look on ebay for an ethical compss. He states, in his tradional, school principal lecturing style, how there are two fundamental tests of accountability and responsibility - (1) Did the Minister seek an indepndent review? and (2) Did the Minister act on the advice of his Department? If the answer is yes then all is okay. One can be as dumb as dog shit, waste billions, be incompetent and show no emotion when actions result in death, loss of livelihood or other impact as a result of a Minister of government but it is alright because political expediency and interest are the unstated measures. This is indeed a flakey standard typical of the decline in ethics Kevin Rudd's standrads, beliefs and capabilities are the best we have in the nation? This is truly a sad reflection on the quality of cnadiadtes and members of our parliaments. Day after day Mr Rudd disappoints and demonstrates a lack of ability to inspire as a leader. He best work hard at relection for as February 2010 comes to a close, the labor party should be in terminal decline for a second term. The electorate however are not all that discrening and appear to have a low regrad for their democracy and government preferring to whinge, and whine, mislead their intentions in the polls questioning, trather than participate. ("Mean Prime Minister on slide", Kevin Beck) |
| THE MORAL DILLEMMA FACING PUBLIC SERVANTS February 2010: What is more important, and valuable, to the nation? The integrity of the Australian Commonwealth Public Service, and protection of its dedicated officers, or the vain prurient, self absorbed interests of politicians? Politicians, supported by reprehensible political staff who feed disinformation to the media in order to discredit, and undermine, senior public service officers, on behalf of their immoral, and unethical, bosses. Political staffers who usurp the role of elected politicians. We have seen the undermining of the nation's elite public service by someone associated with the office of the Minister for Communications and the Digital Age. We haves een the undermining occur to protect the incompetence of the Ministers for the Environment and Climate Change. We have heard it from the Prime Minister's own mouth some time back when he pronounced that whilst there were some people criticising the burn out hours being demanded he had news for them - there would be a lot more. Big deal, akll he is demonstrating that he is a tough talking, myopic little man, with limited human relations skills and regard for the well being of others. Let Mr Rudd work himself into the ground, risking the likelihood of ill thought out reactionary decisions. Let hom go on Good News Week and act as if he is just an ordinary guy. Who cares really, the voters? I don't think so. Am I, and others, deemed to be stupid enough to believe that the Ministers, and their staffers, do not make decisions that are bad and then try and pass them off as public servant incompetence? They operate a system of isolating the Minister from their reprehensible antics so that he or she may have deniable protection. This is a less than subtle line to cross and only the most naive or rusted on ll, would believe Senator Conroy when he sits in the Senate (February 2010) and denies that he has knowledge of the media being prepped about his failed tender that cost the nation $A17,000,000 in waste. Pity we do not have a Senate that is truly impartial and acting in the public interest. What a corrupted, and corroded, process we tolerate in our name. There are Ministers, and staffers, across all of Australia's governments, who think that the general public out here are oblivious to their lying to the Senate or ther Committees and their general heinous behaviour. Their minions work to cover their sanctimonious, incompetent, bosses' arses. Some Ministers, and their Chiefs of Staff, at the federal level of government, especially, really need to look beyond their short distance horizons and see who is watching, and it is not merely Crikey.com. There are many people in business, and private life, who value the public service, I am one one of them. Not that this registers with the dim witted political staff. Fortunately they come, and go, but the public service remains. It is irksome that they can last for years, but that is the price of democracy and the stupidity of the electorate. I have little time for the parasites that infest public office for their own political gain. Most recently some of the federal members fall into this category of eople t be treated with contempt because they place their interests before the public interest. They are ethical vacuums. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and a handful of novice Ministers are destroying the quality, fabric and reputation of Australia's premier pubic service. They are degrading and corrupting policy and process through ignorance and incomptence. You have between now and the federal election to act. They need to go to ensure that the damage they are wreaking does not render the elite service to a low grade acquiescent and failed service. This may clash with the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and the Ethics of the Australian Public Service but there is much at stake. Don't openly defy them, mutiny nor deliberately sabotage the activities of the poorly talented Ministers under which you labour day and night. Just act with reserve and do not come to their aid, when they stuff up, let them hang on their own petardes for they will surely engineer their own demise without too much help from anyone else. The role of the Australian Commonwealth Public Service is one of policy development, domestic and international, management of key, core functions such as immigration, national crime policing and in concert with international organisations, health and research at the upper levels of the system and national interest things like certain parts of the environment function and education theory and practice. There is a sharing relationship with the states. The federal governments of the apst started to blur the lines of responsibility and the Rudd federal labor government has largely obliterated them forcing federal agenfies into areas where they have neither a charter nor the experience. The great winners out of all of this are the lawyers and consultants brought in aas public service management attempt to manage and divest risk. Policiesa re rushed, not tested and changed at the whim of the Minister and necessity as it all goes to shit. There are no sound policies that have been put in place and bedded down by this labor government. lack of care, competing challenges and political ideologies and needs are bundled in with political expediency. The lack of knowledge of the role of public servants by the Minister for the Environment Peter Garrett and by the Education Minister Julia Gillard are demonstrative of this shift and subsequent damaging outcomes. If Kevin Rudd, and his novices, want to be Ministere in charge of delivery then they should transfer to state politics and stuff it up there. The state public services cannot be degraded, in terms of capability, and serving the unethical, demands of their politicians, any more than they are now under labor governments in NSW, Victoria, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Then we have South Australia and Tasmania, the latter being brazenly unethical in its modus operandi of government. ("Managing Australia's Public Servants for Political Self Interest", Kevin Beck) |
New, and inexperienced, federal government Ministers, and the Prime Minister himself, may have no clue about good management and quality leadership, and the value of Australia's Commonwealth public service, but are full of arrogance, and bile, for those who do not conform to their views and values. The Prime Minister may burn the candle for long hours of work but there is a big difference between hours and productive outcome. He is typical of the workaholic whose output is of low value often bringing others down to a lower level. We are looking at the slow death of a oncer government. Good riddance to bad rubbish many of you think according to the polls as th slide begins. Pity the seasoned, intelligent and knowledgeable, labor Ministers shackled by their incompetent colleagues. February 2010: Try and tell any of the Rudd novice Ministers, and their parasitic minders, anything that does not fit with their view of how things are and you may learn that they will ignore you. They only react to their perceptions of who is influential or threaten their agenda or make them face embarrassing questions or events. I term political minders parasitic because they are employed, from the public purse, to pursue partisan political interest at the expense of good government. I am not talking about public servants on sceondmen to assist Ministers I am talking about the political staff. They act in many respects as if they are the pseudo Minister without having been elected. They, particul;arly those in Prime Ministerial offices, demand, cajole and threaten Australia's public servants with reprisals. They are a blight on our governance. One is likely to get a better and more coherent reponse from one of the seasoned Ministers, John Faulkner, Simon Crean and Martin Ferguson, among others, than the pet coterie of the Prime Minister. Interaction with the Rudd government is an onerous task and in many respects a waste of time, resources and effort. They all know better. They "take advice" and do what they think anyway regardless of cost and risk. This is a grossly incompetent government, in the hands of people whose understanding of the principles, and processes, of quality government are limited at best. Mr Rudd was never a star in the Australian public service diplomatic agency and never a great reformer of public servce and delivery of portfolios, under his stint in Queensland. he has a record of mediocriity and yet the Australian public are mesmerised by his smoke and mirrors. perhaps they are glazed by his babble and confuse this with being smart? At the head of the queue of incompetent politicians is the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. A mind numbing bore who ran out 600 promises at the election and then decided to put them al in in three years. What a stupid decision that is proving to be and who can remeber what his 600 promises were or who actually cares? Mr Rudd is, annoyingly, unable to continulaly articulte a simple proposition. When confronted with challenge he snarls. When he performas badly others in the Ministries and public service suffer. He is to many an insufferable egotist who lacks a grasp on detail whilst trying to micro manage everything. There is even greater decay in the quality of government, and public service, under the federal labor government, if we are to go by the performance of the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard and her agency the Department of Employment, Education and Workplace Relations (the introduction of modernised awards), the Minister for Climate Change, Senator Penny Wong, and her agency (the debacle that is called CPRS and ETS, the agreement between the states on water) and Ms Wong's inability to actually inform us correctly. She states that the ETS, under her supervision, will cap and reduce Australia's carbon pollution. This is not true and it cannot be. The polluters are being given free permits and when taken into the Treasury moddeling apopear to be an impost below $A1.50. Tpo do what Ms Wong claims would require a carbon price/tax of somewheer approaching $A100 a tonne to render technology alternatives viable. Yet she has no problem trotting out cant and rubbish. Either she is ignorant of her department's driel and Treasury's questionable modeeling or is misleading with intent. Anyway Ms Wong should not be beleived as she is a novice in a complex Ministry. The federal government government under Kevin Rudd's management, and all over the plaace shallow style, is riddled with incompetence, arrogance and extreme waste. Minister Stephen Conroy pissed $A17,000,000 up against a wall because he was not prepared to listen. He then gives the free to air television netwoks a gift of $A250,000,000 of taxpayers' funds, even as his colleague Lindsay tanner struggles to offset a massive deficit. Senator Conroy is ably supported by yet more of Kevin Rudd's mind fantasies as they spin a story, off the top of their heads, to suit. Mr Rudd said that the money was an offset to assist the change from analogue to digital. never mind that that was funded elsewhere in the communications portfolio from the previous Howard government. Senator Conroy tried another con, the payment was to sustain local content. What sort of content? My kitchen rules, Australia's greatest slob or what passes for current affairs on the commercial networks? What a double vaudeville act Messrs. Conroy and Rudd are. They both should be stars in a disappearing reality election. All of the Rudd government's major flagship programmes that he bloomed in his psychedelic mind have failed to deliver. Oh he claims that a lot of the 600 have been delivered. perhaps he could name a few hundred in another one of his pubescent riddles of the English language. Where are the computers, the child care drop off centres, Grocery Watch and the GP Super Clinics? They are mired, and lost, in the incompetent clutch of novice, incompetent new Ministers of the Rudd government. One doesn't see too many stuff ups, on a scale like these others, from federal Ministers Faulkner, Tanner, Crean and Ferguson. How sad that they should be tarred by their colleagues. It seems that Prime Minister Rudd and the brigade of novice Ministers, he gave us do not understand the function, and capabilities, of the Australian Public Service. In this lack of insight, and knowledge, they are destroying the core foundation of our federal government public service. They are political vandals bringing everyone else down to their base incompetent levels, in pursuit of their own political purpose and interests. Write a letter telling them this and they either do not see it (most probably because they have parasitic minders who are a blight on government) or they simply are lacking the prescient capacity to see the future. They are oncers at this rate. And good ridance even a "drover's dog" would be better at government. The Minister for the Environment, and the Arts, Peter Garrett and his multiple departments (insulation and solar), doesn't bear talking about what an insular and stupid Minister. Then we have the Minister for Health and Aging, Ms Nicola Roxon, she seems unable to read coherently. Her multiple agencies (national health and hospitals, engage in some form of fantasy about the possible, and happily go on accepting a level of unspecified fraud in medicare, and the private health sector)that inflates costs and rates. The Minister for Human Services, Chris Bowen, seems to have little interest inn the real level of draud that infests the health and social welfare systems despite the fact that he and Ms Roxon have been told by medical practitioners that it is well above the department's estimates. The senior government Ministers, of health and human services, are quite happy to allow an inherent level of fraud to steal from the public purse and inflate the rates for the Medibank Private public sector fund. meanqwhile a $A100,000,000 leaches from the pharmaceutical benfits scheme, overseas. People are dying due to the ineptitude, and inefficiencies, of Australia's agencies. Peter Garrett tells us that he approved a new training module. There you have it. One of labor's everyday offerings to all things hard - unemployment, recessions, problems and cirisis, training. A competency based shallow curriculum, typical of the overall education platform of the Australian Labor Party in the past, now and into the future. Hundreds of millions are being wasted, daily across the nation, by the incomptence and mismanagement of Kevin Rudd's favourites. The Prime Minister blithely tells us to "call a spade a spade" and he is demonstrating a capcity to blather and talk in riddles. he says that they must get on top of it. There is no apparent recognition of the absolute breakdown of governance under the Prime Ministership of Kevin Rudd. It may be a just a political glitch? Kevin Rudd stands in front of hiss enior public service and lectures them about his background and his skills berating them to something yet unspecified. He demands time, effort, labour and resources without clear objectives and without apparently good Ministerial guidance and talent. The government of Kevin Rudd is dangerous from many perspectives and respects. What a disappointment this must be for many. The choices that we have in the federal parliament are truly appalling in the near, and long, term. The government is being cleaned up like skittles and they may not know by whom. It is not Mr Abbott doing the number on them, as the pundits may conjecture, it is far more complicated than simple politics and opposition. It is a mosaic of interests beyond their horizon. ("The Corrosion of the Character of Australia's Public Service", Kevin Beck) |
February 2010: Prime Minister Rudd appeared on the ABC Q&A programme and demonstrated that he is ill eqipped for the office of Prime Minister. He became irked and tetchy at a 16 year old girl's questions of him. Over thirty minutes Australia's head of government was mauled by young people. he is a facade and his government is proving dangerous. Under the Environment Minister and his department's watch, people die from electrocution delivering the government';s ideological policies. Minister Peter Garrett was an instrument of the short sighted, temporary and shallow strategies of the labor government seeking to maintain employment for the poorly skilled lower end of the socio economic demographic. The Minister, and the Department Secretary, Robyn Kruk overliookde or were oblivious to the general reaction of opportunists who smell money and lack of control. Why else would firms with no experience in insulation, including call centres, be attracted to the task? Now the householder will have to cliam the money back after paying out $A1,000 plus. The Minister and Department still expect to achieve the benchmark numbers. "At every step of the way I have acted on advice to ensure the risks are managed accordingly", says Peter Garrett. Well they weren't too well managed were they since they increased dramatically across the nation, houses became at risk of being electrified and four people died. Is Garrett serious? He says that if he had known the real statistics of the shylocks applying to install the induslation he would have acted. Where is the Department Secretary and senior staff in all of this? Are there no performance standards and codes pof conduct in the Department of the Environment? Let's ee the Minister wield the axe on the highly paid 'wind in the willows" corrodors of his agency. In Australia you can report any danger you like, to life and limb, whether it be children, indigenous people, aged, visitpors to the country and generally, citizens every day welfare and the information will be ignored. People are dying through negligence at state and federal government levels. There are very inadequate performance demands on the public services of the state and federal governments, because many of the Ministers are incompetent. They are embarrassing to their more dedicated colleagues. Kevin Rudd is surely an embarrassment to the seasoned members of the Australian government, as Ministers Wong and garrett surely are. If not then we, the people of the nation, are in a very bad place with our governments. The quality of government in Australia is a disgrace, denigrated by politicians who do not deserve to be in public office. They have, over two decades, destroyed the integrity of Australia's public services, and agencies. Whilst decline is generally applicable to both major parties, in government, labor ad liberal, it is, on the face of it, more likely that the Australian labor party is the most corrupt, and degrading, political party, in local, state and federal governments, in Australia, today. The strategists in the office of Prime Minister, Minister for Climate Change and Environment are extraordinarily inept at seeking out the influencers that change opinions in Australia. They persis with what is in front of their faces looking to the pundits and the known names. They think big business influences the voters and the opinions. It is far more likely that the people in the pubs and the clubs have more influence and impact. It is highly likely that web bloggers and other commentators beyond the horizon of the politicians are the ones who are the undoing of governments across the nation. The labor party will not be able to implement an ETS, carbon trading or any other dodgy idea, of major impact and reform, in any portfolio, in 2010. Their credibility is shot. The electorate have seen that the popular Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, is perhaps a man of straw. There are many hard working, and credible, labor party federal Ministers. Simon Crean, Senator Faulkner, Lindsay Tanner and Martin Ferguson, to name some Then we are accoisted by the likes of the quadrella, Rudd, Gillard, Garrett and Wong. How is it that the government became captive to this lot of shallow, manipulative, self gratifying politicians? They are weak on substance and semi articulate in their arguments, pushing dangerous agendas. The two most dangerous, in my opinion, are Minister, the Honourable Senator Penny Wong pushing an argument she seems to know little about - climate change. Ms Wong may be very well credentialled in indsutria law, but her knowldege and talent around Climate Change and Emissions Trading sucks. There is a farcical game on in our political system to pop out a bigger number. ms Wong and the Prime Minister start in the lower billions and at the end of the day these numbers have ballonned out to tens of billions. They appear immature and often infantile in their attempts to justify the rubbish that emanates from their portfolios and departments. Ill prepared they bluster and fabricate, dissemble and at times express crude insults. Then we have the Deputy Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard, pushing her glossy education web site as a major event in the education revolution of Australia. There is no revolution unless we count stupidity in policy and action. One may well wonder if the policy makers within Australia's governments (state, territory and federal) were born stupid, or they just grew into the roles? Ms Gillard is yet another spruiker of competency based education, demonstrating the political propensity of obtaining a senior role whilst seemingly lacking knowledge, and good advice, in a very important (critical) portfolio. She pontifictaed that the My School web site would provide invaluable information to government, not available before, for planning and decision making. If it was not available in that or any format then where did it come from? It is frightening that policy, and funding allocations, would be determined on the content of a web site. If Ms Gillard wants to improve educatinal performance then she should start at the very foundation. Telling her department to produce a life long learning policy first. Then promoting a regard for, and valuing, education, at the society level, in the home where the children live. She might notice how many people have linmited education in Australia and tothers who do study do not go on to expand their knowldge. The performance of primary school children rarely reflects their later perfomance in secondary school. This is not to say that literacy and numeracy are not important or that there is no merit in testing to see what differing performances there are. To propose that there is a correlation between the LAPLAN performance scrores of children and the perceived socio economic disadvantage of a certian demographic area is simplicity that provides no deep analysis of individual circumstance. Whilst it may interest the media that Ms Gillard could become Prime Minister, diverting their attention from substance, a more indepth examination of her credentials, and the performance of her Department, under its managment, may deliver much more of an insight. ("On your bikes, your day is coming - monitoring voter sentiments about all aspects of Australian labor party in government", Kevin Beck, "The rout of NSW and Queensland will come first") |
Did they deliberately set out to mislead us? It is not clear how Kevin Rudd arrives at strategy and who has influence? It is clear that the Australian labor party, or for that matter also the liberal, national and greens parties, have substandard intelligence gathering networks and systems. If the labor party had a sophisticated mechanism in place then they would not have been blindsided by Tony Abbott. They would also be well aware that the Australian electorate is not on board with the government's ETS (Emission Trading Scheme). They would also have a better understanding as to where to gather their information and identify the protagonists and the barrier creationists. The government's Emission Trading Scheme is under serious threat internally within Australia. Climate Change and Water Minister, Senator Penny Wong, has not covered all the bases and has failed to clearlt articulate the scheme. To simply put a "spin" argument on the web purporting to be a full justification is not the manner in which this issue should be approached. There are hidden forces, and interests, who intend to stymy and kill off the government's ETS. The process adopted by Kevin Rudd, regarding policy development is a myopic and bureaucratic one. The Australian media has focused on Mr Rudd's propensity for the "research and enquiry" based approach. What they have not looked at are the pitfalls in this approach. The practically oriented, invariably those who may have little regard for, or little deeper education, may eschew Mr Rudd's approach. They may prefer historical experience "If practitioners shun theory then they must rely on experience as a guide to action. In deciding on their response to a problem they draw on a range of options suggested by previous experience with that type of issue. However, “it is wishful thinking to assume that experience alone will teach leaders everything they need to know” (Copland et al, 2002, p. 75)." (in Theories of Educational Management, Tony Bush, http://cnx.org/content/m13867/latest/) The Climate Change Department of the Commonwealth government may have failed the Senator in its role since it is a new and powerfulk department at the apex of government policy. What has been the focus of this agency? "Niskanen argues that the size of the discretionary budget (Y) reflects the reward structure in the bureaucratic environment...Niskanen begins by showing that bureaucrats maximize personal utility (wages and perks) by maximising the agency's budget. Actually, he corrects this statement. Instead: bureaucrats maximise objectives defined in terms of the agency's discretionary budget. (The discretionary budget is the difference between the budget parliament gives and the cost to the agency of producing its output)." (Source: Niskanen: Bureaucrats and politicians, Journal of Law and Economics 18 (December): 617-43.) "In an address to senior public servants in April 2008, the Prime Minister observed that, ‘evidence-based policy-making is at the heart of being a reformist government’. I want to explore why that is profoundly true; what it means in practice, and some implications for those of us in public administration. In doing so, I will draw on the experience of the Productivity Commission—which with its predecessors has been at the heart of evidence- based policy-making in Australia for over three decades—to distil some insights into what is needed across government generally if we are to be successful. It is as important that we have a rigorous, evidence-based approach to public policy in Australia today as at any time in our history. This country faces major long-term challenges; challenges that have only been exacerbated by the economic turbulence that we are struggling to deal with right now. When the present crisis is over, we will still have the ongoing challenges of greenhouse, the ageing of our population and continuing international competitive pressures. We should not underestimate the significance of those challenges, which place a premium on enhancing the efficiency and productivity of our economy." (Source of extract: Contemporary Government Challenges Challenges of evidence-based policy-making, Gary Banks AO, Australian Public Service Commission, http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications09/evidencebasedpolicy.htm) Thus we might say that the Prime Minister is more academic than bureaucrat, though there are overlaps in the profile of each type. In the case of the Australian ETS proposal there is little evidence to show that the examination, and choice, of this particular mechanism (ETS) to address climate change was academically, bureaucratically or politically astute. Because a topic is complex and detailed, that should not mean that there is no attempt to explain it. The government's behaviour in ths regard bears examination and demands explanation. The Honourable Minister, Senator Wong, appeared to my mind to speak all too often in generalities bristling with political barbs. Then the government, and particularly, Mr Rudd and Ms Wong, intertwine Climate Change and the ETS as if they are homogenous and synonymous. This is not merely disingenuous it bordres on both misrepresentation and questionable behaviour. The ETS has nothing to do with climate change. The ETS is a contrived (creatd) market instrument. The theory is that price and market forces bring about Emissions reduction, investment in renewable energy and changes in behaviour. "ETS will kill Tourism, Transport and Trade, By Viv Forbes Saturday, Canada Free Press, September 12, 2009 Emissions trading schemes proposed for the western world will guarantee another global financial crisis for tourism, transport and world trade. All carbon control schemes have at their core two essential features aimed at reducing man’s production of the harmless gas, carbon dioxide. Firstly, increasingly severe rationing of carbon dioxide (CO2) releases. And secondly, taxes on all permitted emissions and punitive taxes on any excess. They are all Ration-and-Tax Schemes and they will all enforce arbitrary reductions by 2020. But not one car, truck, bus, train, plane or ship can move without producing CO2. There is no possibility that this will change significantly before the doomsday year of 2020, just a decade away. Therefore neither Australia nor New Zealand can cut CO2 emissions by 2020 without slowly strangling all those industries that rely on moving people or goods. Our politicians should be asked, individually, what food, mineral products and travel they propose doing without in order to meet the 2020 cuts specified in their Ration-and-Tax Schemes. Australia and New Zealand comprise four lonely islands in the vast southern oceans which stretch from Africa to South America However, world population, political power and finance are concentrated far away in the Northern Hemisphere. Apart from a few stock horses used by drovers, the occasional sailing yacht, some suburban bicycles and some hydro power that moves trains, our transport fleets rely totally on petrol, diesel, gas and coal. There are no solar powered aeroplanes or sail powered ocean liners – all produce CO2. Neither country can import tourists, get mineral and food products to their cities or export goods to world markets without producing CO2." (Source of extract as cited, An Honest Climate Debate, Exposing the truth about the Man-Made Climate Change theory, http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/ets-will-kill-tourism-transport-and-trade/) "The most questionably dangerous policy devised by an Australian government, Kevin Beck) |
|
Kevin Rudd has many dangerous ideas,
climate change
and an emissions trading sheme, among others, and if he succeeds in getting them in, he
is likely to create an Australian economic crisis allon his own.
November 2009: Why is there an assumption that if people oppose the passage of the Rudd labor government's ETS legislation that they are climate change sceptics or worse still branded as criminal? These are totally unrelated spheres. Perhaps Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Minister Penny Wong, should look at their failure to fully explain, and educate, the population on what precisely is intended by the ETS and how a contrived market can lead to a direct impact on global warming? They might explain why they think that an ETS is the way to go? Because the rest of the world believes it to be so? The EU model is not all that flash and has not delivered. Jyoto has not delivered. The proposed Australian ETS model, and the assumptions of Treasury and the advisers, who have put the ETS market model together are open to challenge. They are, in many respects, nothing more than theory, and guess, with big numbers attached. They guess the impact, the outcomes and the costs. This is a dangerous way to determine, frame and implement policy. The Rudd labor government, and the Australian government Treasury, and public service agencies, collectively have no strong record of assessment, with demonstrably accurate modelling. Yet we are to rely upon a crystal ball government modus oepnadi, and set of arguments, and the creation of a contrived market. In the mid nineties the Australian electricity market model was created. It failed to reach any of the expectations of costs and revenues. It was contrived just like the ETS. In today's modern governments the policy makers and the bureaucrats prefer to focus on "nebullous future" predictions over current every day pressing matters. It is far easier for people, who may be struggling, bereft of ideas, and plans, to address immediacy and today's problems to instead to turn to things that cannot be measured and challenged accurately. To blow up the hysteria and the urgency to move attention away from general failure of government. Billions are thrown around as if the billion is equivalent to a mere hundred in our minds. A billion today! That is nothing! Governments can manufacture a surplus with the sleight of a pen. They cannot deliver effective water, health, education and transport services so they turn to things that are nebulous. Things based on theory and that will not make them immediately accountable. Tings that are impressive and to which can be attached evidence from people whohave been in the twilight rabbiting away. They come into the light and go crazy with teir warnings, predictions and theories. One upmanship takes over the more mundane processes of a boring life. Prime Minister Rudd, and colleagues, prefer to take a stab at guessing the future. So we see extraordinary claims, and fear mongering, competing and nmore bizarre theories and claims published on the government climate change web site. If we do not do something now the cost in ten, or twenty years, will be x billions of dollars. If we do not do something now all of Australia's sea coast will be inundated. We are seeing government bodies such as in Victoria (VCAT) making decisions on planning applications using guess technique assessment methodology: what will happen on the Australian coast some decades into the future based on inarguable propositions that the sea will rise 0.7 centimetres. These are quite stupid deliberations and costly soothsaying. The Australian ETS called the CPRS has put a cap on carbon price of $10 a ton till 2012. By doing this; the CPRS is not creating a market at all, it is creating a centrally planned market economy for carbon. On top of this the government decides which industries are part of the CPRS and which are not; which industries get free carbon credits and how much. In addition, it is allowing overseas carbon credits to be bought in Australia to the tune of 100%. What this means is that carbon reduced in other countries as part of their ETS can be bought by Australian companies and they do not have to innovate to reduce their carbon output. By putting a cap on the price, by providing free credits as it seems fit, by excluding some industries and providing access to foreign carbon credits the government is acting as a central planner and distorting the idea of a carbon market. Centrally planned economies do not work. A distorted market will not provide the benefits of a free market and in this case it will not lead to reduction in carbon emissions. What else will happen is hard to fathom?" (Source: What will the Australian ETS achieve? or What can a centrally planned carbon economy achieve? Posted by: Suhit Anantula on: November 17, 2009, World is Green, http://worldisgreen.com/2009/11/17/what-will-the-australian-ets-achieve-or-what-can-a-centrally-planned-carbon-economy-achieve/) Malcolm Turnbull, leader of the opposition in Australia's federal parliament, has precipitated a crisis by forcing the convoluted mixing of climate change theory and ETS theory onto the liberal and national party parliamentary members. The media is focused on the leadership issue since gladiatorial contests are far better entertainment tan dry analysis of the facts. In this regard Malcolm Turnbull joins the government in an inept methodology of deciding policy based on evidence and fact. The government would claim that there is evidence. But of what? Climate change, not the prrformance of their ETS. World concensus is that an ETS is the ay to go. World concensus was that we slice and dice debt until it disappeared. What did world concensus deliver? The global economic crisis. Mr Rudd is likely to create, by accident or design, the Australian economic crisis. ("What drives this Prime Minister to self destruction?", Kevin Beck) |
|
|
|
November 2009: Rudd and Coterie Unimpressive Why ask New Zealand to take the Sri Lankan rabble parked on the Australian customs ship off the Indonesian Coast? With the exception of the Australian Newspaper, Australian media has generally lauded the operational style of the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and his fiefdom of close apparatchiks. The media, of course, are not going to acknowldge, or admit, that they are captive to spin merchants and psycho babble technocrats who dress everything up as "policy grounded in evidence based research. This is just tripe and is a stolen definition from the book of academic herbs and spells. An examination of Mr Rudd's decision skills and the work of his young gun, advisers, and chief of staff, to date, appears to demonstrate a fundamental failure of basic thinking capacity. perhaps they use tea leave reading, throwing bones, whilst using the passing off arts. Could it be that they have no administration, and management, capabilities beyond the media cycle manipulation? Below in this web site I report the "failed states of Australia", the "non existent education revolution", the "non existent building of aboriginal housing" in the Northern Territory, the "national public housing fabulous sleight of hand", the "non existent grocery watch and petrol watch web sites" and the "carefully crafted, highly selective and misleading, climate change magic pudding." The latter is under the deft hand of thes celte and very foxy Senator Penny Wong. An industrial lawyer who takes no prisoners whilst eschewing any demonstrative, deep thought analysis and eviodence, as to what effect the government's ETS will have on the nation, economically and socially. Now, from the Kevin Rudd, House of Marvels and Magic, we have the "terribly, not so effective, evidence based (yes we can see it and them) boats on the ocean experience. Evidencing stupidity, the Australian government may have asked New Zealand to process the Sri Lankan mob. New Zealand, in case Rudd's little stars had not noticed, or learnt in their recent schooling, is a bunch of small islands with a total population equal to one Australian major metropolitan city. Why would they demean us (who cares about them demeaning themselves) by proposing that soemone else should clean house for the Australian government? The Sri Lankans should be returned to their own country now. What is occurring now shows us that when the real wood is on Mr Rudd he is incapable of innovative and/or Prime Ministerial thinking. The proposition from Stepehn Smith that we have all the patience in the world, implying that such is a valid act of government is quite simply drivel. Rudd's one big bang policy action, the only action, was to spend money when the world financial system farted and shit itself. Now the government is doing the same over the boat people. ("Stumbling along in the Prime Minister's robes", Kevin Beck) |
|
November 2009: Failed States and Territories
The Northern Territoyr has given up any pretence that its elected parliament acts in anyone's interest other than their own and the power collective. Blatant stealing of federal allocated funds for purposes other than they are granted is endemic. These monies are used to feather the nests of a cotoerie that acts against democracy corrupting the process and operation. The parliament is a rabble of self interest and the public service is sycophant to the whims of the political and business class. The Australian government tolerates this indiacting that the current Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is both hypocritical and morally questionable. "Nicolas Rothwell | October 24, 2009, Article from: The Australian The Northern Territory is a lost cause. We've had three decades to get it functioning, and now it's time to admit the system doesn't work and needs to be replaced IN Australia we are used to seeing progress in governance, not failure. We expect governments in our jurisdictions that function well, provide efficient services, and maintain a fair match between the rhetoric of politics and the facts on the ground. There is, though, a failed state in our midst. That state is not Aboriginal north Australia, where the social fabric is in shreds and tatters. No: it is the jurisdiction largely responsible for entrenching this degree of indigenous disadvantage: the modern-seeming, self-governing Northern Territory. On the face of things, all the standard attributes of a democratic society are present here in Darwin: a parliament, political parties, government departments, a range of key social institutions that look much like their southern equivalents. But in fact the Territory is best understood as an interlocking set of interest groups. It is heavily dependent on outside funding, the bureaucracy is shot through with politics, almost all medium-sized business relies on public sector contracts and the entire system is founded on the administration of an Aboriginal underclass." ,,,, "The unicameral parliament, housed in a large wedding cake structure, is the most visible of the Territory's failed institutions. On the 33 days a year that it sits, it is a place of confrontation, not a chamber for debate between its 25 members. "With the state sector so all-dominating, and its patronage so rich, political affiliation matters. Why support an opposition party when you will be excluded from the circle of favour that expresses itself in consultancies, contracts and development opportunities? In this environment, a party-state comes into being, and both sides in politics have developed such a regime during their years in power. Bureaucrats carrying out party dictates, politicised appointments to key posts, a climate of obedience, a culture of prudent silence: these are features of the Territory's map. It is easy to blame the present regime for some of the system's more peculiar traits: the creation, for instance, of parallel constituency "offices of the chief minister" in regional centres, staffed by failed parliamentary candidates. But in their quarter-century in power, the conservatives presided over a similarly bizarre "total state", with implicit codes of loyalty and allegiance lying at its heart. Buttressing this inner cement of unspoken ties is a culture of vociferous announcement. At the core of the Territory system is a mind-set reminiscent of Pacific Island cargo-cults. An institution is named, set up, housed and lightly staffed: problem solved. Thus Darwin is full of facades rather than real structures: an Environmental Protection Authority without powers, an indigenous advisory panel without input, a climate change portfolio without policies, a museum with insufficient funds. Such facade institutions, and the philosophy behind them, infect the air. they create a fantasy approach to administration, where Canberra always lurks, saviour-like, in the wings, and the declaration of a policy is sufficient to change the world."(source of extract as cited at opening) In South Australia the speaker screamed "shut up" to the members of parliament who have allowed the house to deteriorate into a rabble of make testosterone driven hubris. The Premier, Mike Rann, leads people who are thugs in suits. As in the Northern Territory politics attracts some of the lowest moral characters and the ethically challenged on the ladder of society. These precious, shallow, politicians are cioncerned with ego and their own beleived prestidge. THE Speaker of the South Australian parliament has threatened to resign after a second day of uproar over opposition probing of Premier Mike Rann's relationship with a former parliamentary barmaid. "The Speaker, Jack Snelling, stunned MPs, including a visibly shocked Mr Rann, by screaming at opposition whip Ivan Venning to "sit down" after he had complained of a threat made across the chamber by Treasurer Kevin Foley. Regaining his composure, Mr Snelling, a father of five and former union organiser, said: "If I don't feel that I am able to control this chamber, if members continue to ignore my calls of order, I will resign -- I will go over to Government House and hand in my commission. "The behaviour today has been nothing short of disgraceful. It makes me ashamed to be a member of this place." The extraordinary scenes came at the end of a tense question time during which Mr Rann was asked about the payment of legal bills associated with an incident at a Labor fundraiser on October 1. Adelaide businessman Richard Phillips, whose estranged wife Michelle Chantelois was previously friendly with Mr Rann, has been charged with aggravated assault against the Premier. The hostility between the two major parties was palpable as parliament resumed yesterday and the level of anger among MPs rose quickly."(Source: Extract Michael Owen, SA political reporter | October 30, 2009, Article from: The Australian) In New South Wales the media reports that the Premier nathan Rees has resorted to spying on his colleagues. "NSW Premier Nathan Rees has ordered a spying crackdown on his ministers, with special phone-tracking equipment to be installed in their offices. Staff from the Premier's Department have met at least one company to discuss close monitoring of ministerial phones, with a plan to put sophisticated technology into Governor Macquarie Tower, where Mr Rees and his ministers are based. The move has outraged his colleagues, who accuse him of unprecedented interference and rampant paranoia. ''It took [former US president] Richard Nixon 30 years to get this paranoid - Rees has got there in 12 months,'' one said. At the same time, tensions are reigniting between former health minister John Della Bosca and the Premier over Mr Della Bosca's attempts to retrieve private information from his confiscated computer hard drive." (Source of extract: Rees spies on ministersLISA CARTY November 1, 2009, Brisbane Times) One might well query the moral and ethical capacity of senior bureaucrats who would participate in this degradation of the people's democracy. But this is not surprising examing the calibre and operation of the NSW public service where appointment is clearly reminiscent of a by gone "royal court". So as the foundations, and integrity, of our democracies, and parliaments, crumble away in the hands of corrupt and self absorbed egos and interests, the Australian people, and media, are consumed with 78 Sri Lankans on a boat off the coast of Indonesia. Kevin Rudd has mcuh more to deal with than a boat if he is to achieve anything worthwhile in his time as Prime Minister. But does he know what is important? ("The bankruptcy of ideas, and management capacities, within all of Australia's governments", Kevin Beck |
|
A public service management (CFA and DSE) suffering a lobotomy at the hands of the Victorian labor government Brumby, and the Minister, should have resigned long ago.    |
|
Oh please with the obligations, threats and insults Yet again we saw on display the low grade intellect and behaviour of Queensland's prominent citizens. The Premier Anna Bligh has been attempting to change the culture of corruption, ignorance and stupidity that typifies business and politics in that state. She is severely challenged in this goal. " Steven Wardil, September 30, 2009 12:00am, MINING magnate Clive Palmer has blasted Australia's foreign investment policies as "racist" and called on the Government to lift restrictions on China. In speech to the Queensland Media Club, Mr Palmer called the Federal Treasurer "Wayne Goose" and threatened to take the Foreign Investment Review Board to the High Court...."I must say to the Treasurer Wayne Goose, no Wayne Swan . . . I must say that I object to that as an Australian citizen too," he said. The National Party honorary life member's comments come after FIRB director Patrick Colmer last week warned the Chinese not to use the media and lawyers to fight the review board's decisions. Mr Palmer responded by saying the FIRB was a "racist body" operating against the laws of the World Trade Organisation and the Australian Constitution." (Source of extract: Clive Palmer says investment policies are racist, Courier Mail Brisbane, http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26143179-3102,00.html) Noel Pearson says that it is every Australian's responsibility to ensure cultural vitality, economic and personal health of aboroginal people. This is quite simply tripe. For decades in my life I have watched the chest beating and sycophantic "we acknowledge their land" dribble of politicians, and other bleeding hearts, opening mettings, conferences, entertainment, festivals and a new fast food or supoermarket outlet. One can tire of the endless recriminations that arise form those who make their living, reputation and public persona on the back of some interest group or cause. One can become tired of the recriminations against white Australia for having failed the aboriginal people. There is no let up just constant pressure which eventually defeats the cause and turns the average person cold to the plight. The champions of under porivileged causes, and special interests, must send the parliamentary members and the officialdom spare with their endless whining , sniping and critiques. The greater number of Australians, including myself, do not get off their arses and participate in the volunteering and in looking closely at the problems. We sit back and demand governments and the public service do it. In order to ameliorate the antipathy of those who do harangue, money is thrown at them for their lifetsyle participation in forums and conferences. Do the people in the Australian Council of Social Sevices (ACOSS) want poverty to end? Do those who minister, and berate, on behalf of the have nots want everyone to be rich and successful? Of course not, they would have no livelihood and no causes to pursue. They would not be sittin g in the airline member lounges and flying at the pointy end and dtaying in the nice hotels. The nation has spent billions on aboriginal people. yet we never seem to ge the weight, and demands, off our backs. These people want to live in the desert, to drink and be stupid, not to send their kids to school, not go to school themselves, live on the dole and in shanties, let them. When they beat and rape their wives and children then treat them as normal citizens and prosecute them. Everyone wants to get on the band wagon of celebrity high profile causes. Regardless of their abilities, intellectual capacity, knowledge and commitment. Now Missy higgins, an Australian song writer, and entertainer, thinks that she can expand her capabilities to commentary on what is environmentally damaging with regard to gas development in the Kimberley, with self belief in her expertise. What amount of time and research has she devoted to determining the economic and social impacts, against the cerebral cant of environmentalism? She has added her two bob to an endless streqam of diatribe and rubbish about what should be preserved, the odd shrub, a frog, a parrot and other miniscule rodents. Are these people serious? We should live in caves turning the nasty coal power statons off. We should worship the wind and the sun. A little bit of public exposure, fifteen minutes of fame, goes to the head. We have celebrities who think they are catalysts for social issues, media shock jocks believing that they can elucidate with deep thought and analysis and pontificate on complex issues. There are all manner of fringe dwellers who live on others' contributions, extolling the nature of things and telling us what our obligations are. In Tasmania we have the never ending example of the politician who wants to make hay from some activity but cannot say what it is, because it is commercially confidential, but it is exciting. "Mr Aird will visit the European headquarters of a major multi-national corporation considering a significant new job-creating project on the North-West Coast. He has been asked to deliver a presentation to the company’s board outlining why Tasmania is an ideal place for it to make a major investment worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Senior Australian Government officials will also join this meeting in a joint effort to demonstrate the Australian case for this project. The secretary of the Department of Economic Development will also attend. Mr Aird said the Government is unable to disclose further details of the proponent or project at this stage due to commercial-in-confidence reasons but will do so at the first opportunity." (Source: Tasmanian government media releases, http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=27823, Michael Aird, MLC, Treasurer, Tuesday, 15 September 2009. The typical tripe that media spin types (parasites on the public purse in parliemnatry memvers' offices) put out trying to put substance into something that they should keep their mouths shut about. These people dwell in the nether world. Do they realise that there are enterprising people out there in the real world, who will take an interest in this subterfuge, making it their business to find out what the Minister and public servants are up to? They trumpet the 'secret mission" as some flimsy justifiaction for paying the Treasurer, looking as if he is doing something worthwhile for the state. It is pathetic that open government is not the mandate of those elected to parliament. Instead they employ people to divert attention, trick, mislead, lie and obsfucate. many of the players in our daily lives, seeking to shape and influence, are fringe dwellers living on the creativity of others, ever demanding a share of the cake that they did not create, trying to bask in the sun shine of nearness and relevance. Add to this the worthless efforts of the state public servants in getting anything done and we have a major waste of money, time and effort entrenched in our system of economy, society and government. Malcolm Turnbull, leader of the opposition, tells his party coleagues do it my way or I will resign. Such is the quality of leadership and managerialism in public life. Malcolm's time as leader has not been auspicious. he has failed to articulate any clear thinking on the economic crisis, and the failure of the institutions of which he was formerly a participant. The whole Emission Trading Scheme proposition is based on theory and differing opinions. The Rudd government claims it is clear, we are on our way to destruction courtesy of carbon. These people have been eating magic mushrooms. The crash through approach os typical of the hubris that envelopes governments in Australia. It is an adversarial system, not only within the halls of parliaments but one that taken into the wider world insulting the nation's intelligence and demeaning the democratic processes. climate change the panacea of relevance for the fringe dwellers. Climate change is the cause celebre. The proponents of the theory see this as an opportunity to be relevant and to have their moment in the sun. John Howard's government denigrated academia. Thus they waited. Kevin Rudd is an academic. The peer hierarchy of the scientific world are not about to give up access to funds, credibility, relevance and access. The lower levels of the hierarchy know, as in politics, how the game is played. If they wish to rise through the ranks of academia they must not challenge their peers. They wil lose reserach funding, status and position. So it goes in every facet of society. The sycophants are like the stock market investors they are sheep. Better to be on the bandwagon than off. The academia of economics, overall did not predict, the failure, refusing to challenge the orthodoxy, or challenge, the theory of endless growth. It rises again like a phoenix becuse the same power collective remains. Better to be on the side of common wisdom than not. Thus it goes with climate change. Malcolm Turnbull claims that there is an excess of scientific evidence. There is not. There is the manipulated and the common ideology. Better not to rok the boat than to be irrelevant in politics. Thus is the decline in our democracy and in intellectual debate in Australia. The greater number of us go like sheep to the altar of cliamte change embracing erroneous theories and the world of the average. Towards a system destined for failure, Kevin Rudd's ETS. ("Manufacturing consent through spin and celebrity", Kevin Beck) |
|
September 2009: A SHALLOW PERFORMING PARLIAMENT FOCUSED ON SELF AND FALSEHOODS Australian federal opposition, parliamentary front bench member, Joe Hockey announced the liberal - national agenda for the rest of the federal parliamententary term. They will go to the election with a single proposition. They will reduce the annual budget by $A14 billion. This is typical. Then we have the drivel coming from Sharman Stone regarding the influx of refugees coming by boats. this has always been the principle low grade scare tactic of a morally bankrupt set of politicians. made all the more hypocritical because many in the liberal party disagree with this approach but remain silent looking after their own political career interests. There is only one member of the liberal party in Australia that demonstrates the quality that all members should aspire to. The Victorian Senator Judith Troeth. "Judith Troeth crosses Senate floor to end billing of detainees, Christian Kerr, September 08, 2009, Article The Australian. LIBERAL Senator Judith Troeth today crossed the floor to back government moves to end billing of immigration detainees. The vote has ended one of the more contentious immigration decisions from the Howard government. The Victorian Liberal told the Senate: “No advanced society should have on its books laws like this.” Senator Troeth said figures from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees showed Australia had received just 4500 asylum claims in recent years. “That is 0.5 per cent of the worldwide total and almost all of them did not arrive by boat,” she said. “I challenge the theories of those who want to say that this is opening the floodgates.” The liberals left her to stand tall shwoing the Australian electorate the calibre of their morality, ethics and their lack of spine. Sharman Stone and the front men, and women, of the Australian liberal party (not only in the federal parliament) are a reflection of the declining quality of Australia's national parliament. They are bereft of ideas and thinking. Forget policy formulation, analysis and creative thinking. Mr. Hockey and the moribund liberal party, under Malcolm Trunbull, have no vision for Australia. Similarly the Premier of NSW and the state labor party in government are as vapid, nut unlike the federal parliament, the A government mired in corruption. In South Australia the labor leader Mike Rann treats the parliament as his personal fiefdom showing contempt for process and demonstrating degradation every day he satnds in the house and opens his mouth. In the Northern Territory the government has been given billions a year ago and has not built a house for the aboriginal people under the federal government grant. In Queensland Premier anna Bligh deals daily with sleaze and corruption across the party. "Rudd talks about integrity. It’s lacking in his back yard. It’s also lacking across all the Labor states. NSW reeks. Victorian Labor figures are becoming regulars in the magistrates courts. Tasmania has had some colourful corruption scandals. And The Australian’s Adelaide bureau staff is doing a sterling job revealing the relationships between business and the local ALP. South Australian Premier Mike Rann made an interesting intervention into matters yesterday. His state doesn’t have an ICAC, or something similar. He has said they don’t need one. But he announced yesterday he would back the creation of such a body—if it were done nationally. “I’m more than happy if there is a commonwealth ICAC,” he said. “In fact, I think that makes common sense.” Rudd famously told voters that “the buck stops with me” on health. He promised to intervene if the states could not sort our their hospitals. He seems to be a little more reluctant to act on the matter now, despite his health review. How would he feel about taking responsibility for sleaze? One thing is certain: there would be much less moralising." (Source: Integrity is lacking, despite an outbreak of moralising House Rules Blog | August 06, 2009, The Australian At the federal level Mr. Turnbull probably became unhinged when the world as he knew it, through the eyes of a successful merchant banker collapsed in a heap of discredit. All his beliefs shattered and all of the principles, and theories, which nurtured his world, proven to be somewhat haphazard,unreliable, unethical and immoral. He desperately casts about for a credible foundation upon whihc to demonstrate his credentials. The liberals cling to hackneyed and worn economic management as the pathway to greatness and power. The labor party vision, under Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, is one of buliding things and dressing them up as revolutionary innovative action. apparently a school hall is an education revolution. It is not it is a stimulus to create work. To dress it up as an education revilution is spin and a stupid lot of twaddle. The govermment members who call it a revolution treat all of the electorate, particularly the majority that vote for them, as if they are as stupid as the proposition itself. Politicians get away with this is because to many it is irrelevant. Kevin Rudd's poppularity lies not in his leadership and abilities for making parliament of house of quality but bacuse the electorate is ill informed, lazy in examination and demands regarding democracy and often ignorant. Mr Rudd and Ms Gilllard are relying on the states, and territories, to deliver their policy outcomes. This is stupid also. They are flouting responsibility. They cannot (politically) acknowledge that these labor governments, and their public services, are incapable of managing the general delivery of everyday services let alone extra billions of dollars of public funds. This is however a short term consequence because the objective of keeping regional Australia and construction workers in jobs will be met. The government's policy to spend in construction is a sound one, driven by the impacts of the global recession. They, unlike others, in the Australian federal opposition, in the media and in Australian business, trawled the information sources and opinions for disparate jigsaw pieces that might predict where the economy was, and is going. The opposition thinks it is over. Thus Julia Gillard has the unenviable task of keeping in work by a crude and expensive process, being rorted by state and territory governments, corrupt and opportunistic consultants, builders and contractors and very inexperienced, inept public servants. ms Gillard is exposed by her own Department's inability to manage and protect her programme. The Secretary of the Education department has demonstrated no ability to carry out this role. Ms Gillard must bare the same types of insults she metered out in the past regarding the opposition's own project and policy management skills. The parliaments of Australia are ignorant of creative, and quality, government and public service. Kevin Rudd wants a quality federal public service, so he has announced an enquuiry. Such is typical of a person who has not conceived that his own inadequacies will alway hold back the brightness buried deep within the system. An inexperienced, and uneluminating, Prime Minister surrounded by political advisers barely out of diapers. The labor party has few conviction politicians, and deep policy thinkers, left, in any of the nation's parliaments, and the liberals have none on the front bench of any parliament anywhere in the nation. Barnaby Joyce in the Senate is a conviction politician as is Senator Bob Brown. This is beyoind sad, it reflects the ignorance of the Australian electorate who are besotted with image rather than substance. Kevin Rudd's popularity is a thing of wonder. He has demonstrated no substantail policy creativity operating with a single philosophy and ideology, spend money and ridicule using flowery language. The government's policies are bound in wwasle words, lies and misrepresentations. Shallow low grade (euphemistically called) training is presented as a maajor and significant stragey and when it is failing the Rudd government resorts to distortion of truth and bluster. Those who think that government should be something more and that politicians should earn their money are beyond being disenchanted, they are in despair that the nation's house, policy and performance, could come to this. ('pardon my political self interest, because it is synonymous with the public interest", Kevin Beck) |
|
Gloating politicians laud their opportunities, and good fortune, of the past. Support from governments not available to aspiring young people today September 2009: Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, both delivered speeches to students this past first week or two. Both lauded the former labor Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam's, visionary implemenentation of free tertiary education. Both crowed (low key of course) how they had benefitted, how the opportunity of a free education had added to their successful careers. Pity that these two nostalgically inclined, but myopic speakers, could not think see the irony in their content. The people in the audience would have no such opportunity. The audience would have to use the Higher Education Scheme, which would burden them with high debt, not a free education. Some may well have characterised the two as free loaders by comparison. Why is it that in this age of excess and tremedous wealth Australia cannot have a free education system? There is no reason actually just bullshit about the costs. The visionary objective of these two senior leaders, in the modern day federal labor government is a spin (education revolution) campaign, with gross misrepresentation and hyperbole, full of irony and hypocrisy, underpinned by a policy to build rather than educate within the schools of the nation. The billions being poured into school buildings across the nation could well have been applied to imbuing a love of education and perhaps a move towards free education in Australia, a nation with no life long learning policy and no action plan to start on the long road. Kevin Rudd has launched a review of the public service because he wants a modern, innovative service. He fails to see the fact that he is not at all innovaative hiself so what would he do with an innovative service? Plageurise the ideas most likely. Do not expect any innovation out of Julia Gillard's federal education department. Just an aping of the now embedded public service process of second guessing the Minister. The waste of time, money and poor delivery of hyped government services grows. Despite labor Minister Jenny Macklin's recent bravado, and promises, not one house was built in the Northern Territory in the recent past and none in over one year, not one since she came out a few months back and said that she would deliver 700 houses. Tawn, sure Jenny. Mr. Rudd, Ms Gillard and the labor party generally are not expected to deliver a revolution in any portfolio based on the performance of the new comers to parliament, to date. The visionary party members struggle in the background in Defence, Trade and Immigration whilst those in the front line have the sotlight showing an empty loft. The underperformance of a number of new, and inexpeienced, Ministers of the federal labor government, is being overlooked by the graeetr part of the Australian media, which is focusing on polls and celebrity rather than substance. A few lone Australian media icons are questioning the gloss and the glamour as the gold shine tarnishes. The Australian population generlly are not deep political thinkers and observers. This is a sad reflection on how we value our democracy and government. save the whales, dolphins, apes and the environment but not Australia's demoracy. And of one of the new comers, what does the Minister for Government Services delivery do? He got the job because he delivered certain politicians success in NSW. Again we see that party political machine ability is not a good gauge of the ability to be a Minister in the parliament. The same Minister, Senator Mark Arbib, is also the Minister for Employment participation. Pity that there are a lot of people not participating via his tremedously advertised, but somewhat failing, programme. What was the claim by the Prime Ministerm 50,000 jobs? Are we to assume that services delivery covers the government training scheme to get the unemployed a job? If so that is not delivering as the government claimed it would. Mr rabib did not even know what his programme was all about. Extract: "Gillard defends Arbib over PM's green jobs scheme 'error', Christian Kerr, July 31, 2009, The Australian DEPUTY Prime Minister Julia Gillard came to the defence of her junior minister today, explaining that "anyone can make an error" after his bungled explanation of the Prime Minister's green jobs plan. Mark Arbib, a rising Labor star, took the gloss off the Prime Minister's first ALP National Convention speech by stumbling during in an interview with Sky News. “Anybody can make an error on live radio, live TV,” Ms Gillard, the Employment Minister, told ABC Radio today. Mr Rudd said that “Mark would admit himself, he didn't have the best of days”, adding: “That's not unique to him, that's not unique to politics.” Asked on Sky News yesterday how many jobs would be created, Senator Arbib said: “Well, straight off the bat 10,000 jobs with the new Green Jobs Corps”. Asked to clarify his comments he claimed that the “work experience program is a job”. When asked again whether these 10,000 positions were jobs or work experience, he again stated “work experience is a job”. (Source: The Australian Newspaper) This a labor rising star. God help us if this man is the future of a labor government. Does this Ministry also include delivering the housing scheme in the Northern Territory? The one announced April 2008, supposedly delivering 700 or is it a 1,000 houses to under privileged aboriginals? If so not one house has been built as at September 2009. Extract: "Not one house built out of $700m Fed Govt fund, Emma Griffiths reported this story on Thursday, July 23, 2009 12:10:00 PETER CAVE: For decades politicians have been promising to tackle the seemingly intractable problem of Indigenous housing. Now the Rudd Government has been forced to defend claims that the largest ever investment in new homes in the Northern Territory has failed to deliver. Seven-hundred million dollars in housing program was announced by the Howard government and adopted by Kevin Rudd. But two years on not even one new house has been built. Emma Griffiths reports from Canberra. EMMA GRIFFITHS: In the Northern Territory more than 60 per cent of Indigenous people are living in overcrowded homes. In some cases dozens of people can live in the one house and the conditions are known to contribute to chronic health problems and education difficulties. When the Federal intervention rolled through, the Howard government allocated $670 million to build new homes and fix up others. The initiative is called the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program and it was picked up by the Rudd Government. Earlier this year the Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin announced that work had begun to do up more than 300 homes in the Tiwi Islands, Groote Eylandt and in Tennant Creek. That work is due to be finished by the end of next year. But of the nearly 1,000 new homes promised under the program not one has been built." (Source: ABC Australia, The World Today) So government service delivery seems a bit wanting. When Mr Arbib is questioned about his portfolio and activities he presents as a less than assured Minister on top of his responsibilities. Looking again at Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, the litany of underperforming delivery examples within her multiple portfolios, continues. She has more talent than the average person in society because she has risen through the ranks of decrepit politics to achieve the second highest political office in the land. That however does not make her a good manager of complex issues nor a successful Minister. The criteria are completely opposed. She ran with the Medicare Gold project in opposition, on behalf of Mark Latham, quietly abandoned because it was too expensive and it was fantasy bordering on stupid. "...anyone over 75, even a multi-millionaire not in any urgent need, may jump the queue at a public hospital. (Queues of course are an inevitable feature of socialised medicine.) This recalls those earlier “reforms” of the 70’s to provide aged pensions and free university education without any regard to need. Neither lasted for long, but long enough to do damage. The universities have never fully recovered. At the heart of Medicare is that sacred cow, bulk billing, which was always a flawed concept. Bulk billing requires that not only the taxpayer subsidise each consultation, but also the doctor accept a fee substantially lower than that charged by tradesmen and professionals. There is no limit to the number of consultations with each patient, even when these are clearly unnecessary. When doctors demonstrate their lack of interest in doing the politicians’ bidding, state governments compound the problem by allowing hospital casualty departments to be misused as a surrogate for bulk billing GP’s. It is difficult to think of a more foolish waste of resources than bulk billing, although providing competition in the pay television market by having parallel cables in suburban streets came close. (Why not also encourage competition between tramway companies by encouraging them to lay parallel tracks?)" (extract:'Medicare Gold' and the golden age of health care, David Flint) Extract:" Julia Gillard stands by Medicare Gold, ABC Australia, AM - Monday, 4 October , 2004 08:06:00 Reporter: Alexandra Kirk TONY EASTLEY: Labor's Health spokeswoman, Julia Gillard, is standing by the costings in Medicare Gold and says contrary to the Government's claims, the Opposition has submitted its policy to the departments of Treasury and Finance for scrutiny. She maintains Econtech's figures are wrong, telling Alexandra Kirk she doesn't accept the private health insurers' criticism. JULIA GILLARD: Medicare Gold is properly funded, properly costed, the costings have gone into Treasury and we are… ALEXANDRA KIRK: But the Government says they haven't. JULIA GILLARD: Well, the Government's wrong. The costings have gone into Treasury and I am more than satisfied that Medicare Gold is fully funded and properly costed. ALEXANDRA KIRK: And will Treasury and Finance have time to go over your figures before the election? JULIA GILLARD: Well, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have an answer. There's a full week there for Treasury to look at it. ALEXANDRA KIRK: Part of your Medicare Gold policy is that if people aged over 75 and on a waiting list want to have private hospital treatment that they can. Why wouldn't they take it if they were offered it? I mean, you're arguing that not everybody will end up in a private hospital, but the Government says they may well. Why wouldn't people take up the option if they were given it? JULIA GILLARD: Look, I don't think that older people are going to be combing through every private hospital in Australia looking for the best room. I think people will make the sort of decisions they do now, which is which hospital is closest to my home so people can come and see me in hospital, which hospital does my doctor operate from or does my doctor recommend for the procedure that I need? ALEXANDRA KIRK: Now Labor is pledging as one extra election promise to spend around $700 million to reduce the cost of prescription medicines by 60 cents for pensioners and concession card holders." (ABC Australia, http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1212455.htm) Now (2009) As Minister for Education she, and the Department, sat around for three months while disadvantaged students, largely from the country, suffered misery and depravation, from another stupid decision under her stewardship. Extract: " THE Federal Government has given ground on the contentious youth allowance issue and will allow students currently on a gap-year before attending university to qualify for youth allowance under the old system providing they have to move away from home to get their degree. After fierce lobbying from regional students, with the backing of The Nationals, the Greens and Independent MPs, Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has announced that students who have taken a gap year and must move to attend university will be entitled to claim independent status for Youth Allowance under the existing system until 30 June 2010. Ms Gillard said while the changes to youth allowance, announced in this year's budget, were designed to help more people access the assistance, she acknowledged some students who had chosen to take a gap year in 2009 would have been disadvantaged during the transition between the two systems. But she said to pay for the change, the alterations to the amount a student can earn before affecting their youth allowance will be deferred by 18 months. Students are currently able to earn $236 a fortnight before their youth allowance payment is affected. This will now rise to $400 a fortnight, but will now not be introduced until 1 July 2012." (Source: Gillard gives ground on youth allowance 26/08/2009 9:44:00 AM, Stock Journal) "Author BJP River ® Date/Time: 22 May 2009 12:20:10pm Subject Youth Allowance, Double Standards What a brazen set of double standards we live by. Who is setting a prime example on this front but none other than the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia, the Federal Minister for Education Julia Gillard? The other morning (Wednesday) Ms Gillard was on radio (ABC) dictating / justifying her proposed budget position regarding the new rules for Youth Allowance qualification, where university students from households that earn more than $42,599 pa will not qualify for Youth Allowance. A reason given for changing the rules was to tighten up the system so that those who are well off can no longer claim youth allowance. Apparently now if you earn more than $42,599 in your household you are now classified as well off? For country kids, moving to the city to study, many of whom move many 100's of kilometres, Youth Allowance is basically their "living away from home allowance" contributing to covering such costs as rent, utilities etc whilst pursuing higher education. My daughter is expecting to move to Adelaide next year, to undertake her studies at Flinders University which she has deferred for a year in an attempt to qualify for youth allowance under the old rules. The double standard kicks in here where Ms Gillard, as reported on Today Tonight the other night, openly claims $215/wk "living away from home allowance", $8500 for half of last year, whilst living in her own home. My daughter will be living 300km from her home next year, living in some sort of rental, but under Ms Gillard's new rules, WILL NOT qualify for Youth Allowance (defacto living away from home allowance) because we earn more than $42,599. I can tell you this though, what my wife and I earn, our combined income, would not come close to what Ms Gillard takes home on her own, yet she gets to make these claims whilst living in her own home."(Source of extract: The Country Hour, ABC Rural message board, Discussion: Youth Allowance, Double Standards)("Counting the days of decline of the Labor governments, federal and state" Kevin Beck) Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd told us of an education revolution in the lead up to the election. This is not an education revolution, it is spin and misrepreresentation, designed to elude and cover up mediocrity, poor planning and management by federal and state agencies, corruption in pricing and mates, with spin from a celebrity politician. ("Travelling circuses corrodes nation's governance and prospects", Kevin Beck) |
cartoon by courtesy of Nicholson |
| The above equates to a $1.7
billion dollar over run on the education (fizzling) revolution. It is according to Ms Gillard, a bump in the road.
So successful is the programme that every wants in.
Why? It is easy money.
An exercise that is an over priced,
corrupted and inept big spending project on physical facilities for schools whether they want them, need them or want something else.
Like health, education is a blaoted over administered portfolio at every level of Austrlia's governments.
Services are taken away from schools to funds a whole army of pen pushers, paper shufflers and career fat cats. She is lauded by shallow
journalists for her parliamentary performance. Is it eloquent and quality presentation to refer to a parliamentary member as a "poodle"?
This is not a smat intellectually challenging retort.
It is a circus performance not becoming of a highly (publicly paid for) educated person in high public office. " PM-to-be Julia Gillard hits a road bump, Article from: Laurie Oakes, August 29, 2009 12:00am, Herald Sun Newspaper) "DON'T look now, but St Julia's halo has slipped. Suddenly the Deputy Prime Minister's competence is being questioned. Since Labor won office she has been Teflon-coated. While other ministers copped their share of criticism, nothing seemed to stick to Julia Gillard. Her image has been all polish, apparently untarnishable. Even the country's most conservative commentators have expressed admiration for her. But a $1.7 billion blow-out in the Government's stimulus spending on primary school infrastructure may have changed all that. Now there is talk about possible feet of clay. The bottom line is that an extra $1.69 billion has had to be found for Gillard's infrastructure spend on primary schools. It will come from money originally earmarked for other programs, most notably social housing. Comments in the report about administration and procurement processes - along with the ordering of guideline changes to ensure value-for-money in contracts with builders and purchasing of materials - also lend credibility to Opposition criticism. The huge cost blow-out focuses attention on claims that Gillard is not capable of handling both Workplace Relations and the Education portfolio. Calls are mounting for her to give up one of them. Making the most of all this is Opposition education spokesman Christopher Pyne. Back in February, Gillard made the mistake of ridiculing Pyne in Parliament as a mincing poodle. Since then he has pursued her doggedly (pun intended)." (Extract source: laurie Oakes, PM-to-be Julia Gillard hits a road bump, August 29, 2009) This debacle in the education portfolio follows on the genius of putting a computer on every school kids desk without anyone in her office, and in the bureaucracy, the federal Departmanet of Education, thinking about the ancillary costs. Then there is the modernisation of awarsd, yet more spin and doctoring as this exercise also turns sour. What does Ms Gillard, the Honourable Deputy Prime Minister, call this calamity? A speed hump in the road. A glitch, accordint tob the diatribe of spin, this cost over run is an exhibit of the wonderful policy that is just so exciting, and revolutionary, that so many schools, and not so bright people, have like sheep, embraced that they have all demannded more, and of course the government has listened, causing the cost blow out. Then she blames the states for the "crooks in the private education" sector. never mind that this is also a by - product of poor policy and stupid education ministers, never challenged at the state level, in the Australian federal government who dreamed up, and enacted, policies (albeit Howard's liberal - national coalition) on competition and selling education to the highest bidder across the globe. Oh please, this is not a revolution nor is it an indicator of success. It is apparent that Ms Gillard is in trouble when federal labor politician Anthony Albanese comes out to defend her failures, dressing them up as successes. He is not that plausible but never mind the hubris that runs in the veins of the career Australian politician. She has dressed up, and looks quite comely, often startling good looking on television. Will Australia ever return to the golden age of quality investigative journalism that examines political performance deeper than the make up and acid tongue? Are we about entertainment or good government, and public service quality? The federal Department of Education is not known for its challenging of policy, and Ministerial mediocrity and poor decisions. Rather it has a record of giving every Minister what they want to hear, read and see. This department's hallmark, within sections of the Department dealing with parliament, is sycophancy at great cost to the nation and the intellectual, and educative, development of Australia. The Department demeans the notion of fearless public service. Can't blame them though cause that "utopian concept" passed away long ago, with the corruption of public service by the Austraian Labor, and Liberal, parties in goverment, across Australia. ("The multiple faces of Julia Gillard and a bump in the road", Kevin Beck) |
|
There appears to be no admirable political leaders in any of Australia's governments. August 2009: The ethical, and moral, substance of today's governments across Australia The Honourable, Premier of Victoria, John Brumby, would have us believe he is doing a good job, as would Ms Anna Bligh in Queensland, Mr Nathan Rees in NSW, Mike Rann in South Australia, Paul Henderson in the Northern Territory, Colin Barnett in Western Australia, Jon Stanhope in the Australian Capital Territory and David Bartlett in Tasmania. The evidence is quite to the contrary. Ignoring the corrosion and corruption, of the governance of Australia, ignoring the ethical, and morally, challenged administration, and governance, of each of the major political parties and the government leaders, and we are still left with the gross failure of public service and management. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is travelling the country talking to health professionals. The federal government has committed to major reform of health delivery in Australia. This will be an extraordinary achievement if the Rudd labor government can get the moribund and inadequate state and territory governments to get off their collective self interest and deliver service as they are elected to do. A picture of state, and territory, mismanagement, and failure, dangerous decisions and other scandalous activities, within state and territory health, is being starkly painted. The management of health by our governments is a disgrace for a modern nation and represents the public face of misrepresentation, lies, and stupidity of the public service administration and the politicians who are in charge in the states and territories. There are two core fundamentals that make society -health and education. The Australian governments, collectively, in the past have failed on both portfolios. Every election the theme is the same - it will be fought on health and education. Is it that the state and territory Ministers and health agencies are collectively incompetent? Health, across the nation, is a bloated over managed system full of bureaucrats and consultants leaving insufficient funds for the employment of health professionals and supply of resources. It is a mix of vested interests both public and private. Why would anyone vote for the health Ministers of the states, and territories, when they demonstrate such incompetence year after year? In Queensland medical malpractice has resulted in death with health administrators disregarding the reports and exposures of nurses. Whistleblowers are treated with contempt. The Queensland health system is riddled with corruption and mismanagement. In Victoria the government failed to address major dysfunctions, poor administration and technical neglect in the state fire fighting services. Premier John Brumby expressed his support for the under performers of the bureaucracy. He arrogantly reappointed the most senior before the Bush Fire Royal Commission had handed down its report. John Brumby is not a leader of an Australian government worthy of great respect. Australians die, and others suffer greatly, as a consequence of failures in governance, and public service. There is no accountability. Across Australia the labor party sells access to Ministers and garners favours via lobbyists. In the Northern Territory, the government, and public service, has squandered, or stolen, millions in allocated federal funds for aboriginal communities. They have failed in their duty of care in every facet of their decrepit political administration. Liars, cheats and thieves, along with former political party mates and former senior Ministers and members of governments, infest the political spectrum of the nation and the two major political parties, the Australian labor and Australian Liberal parties. In NSW the government hangs onto office whilst being publicly pilloried for its stupidity, maladministration, corruption and arrogance. No less culpable are the states of Queensland and Western Australia, which are riddled with corruption, and poor public service administration. In Victoria Mr. Brumby is not interested in contrary or scathing opinions, speculation on his failing moral compass or any other studied examination of his under performance. Mr. Brumby says that paying for access to his Ministers of government is a sign of a healthy democracy. This is his idea of government in action. We have an ethical, and moral, void in Victoria within our government and public services. Yet even more telling of Mr Brumby's ethical base is his response to the deaths, and devastation, wraught by the fires in Victoria that killed 173 people and burnt 2,000 homes, 11,000 animals and countless assets. He says that "in terms of responsibilities we all feel, all Victorians feel responsible for what occurred on February 7, all of us do, I do, Russell (Rees) does, everybody does... there were systems which worked well on the day and there were systems that didn't" (Brumby media conference, Australian newspaper, Tuesday August 18, 2009.) What a load of crock, and sanctimonious bullshit, flows from this man's mouth. I am not responsible for the deaths and failures, Brumby, his Ministers and public servants are. Really Mr Brumby? You are the head of a government that failed to create the foundation of workable and responsive systems. You are the head of a government that failed to clear fire breaks and create protection systems. You are the head of a government that is inept at every level of its administration. The Victorian Bush Fire Royal Commission has found that all of the emergency services policies created, and managed, by this government were inadequate. The Commission found major failure at the leadership level of the Country Fire Authority and the Department of Sustainability and Development. The Commission found that the two senior managers of these critical authorities showed no leadership, did not take charge and that no one was in charge at the Integrated Emergency Coordinated Centre. What an irony that name is. For the leadership of the two critical agencies it was all about following the rules. For John Brumby it is all about following the political handbook guide "soin 101" plausable deniability and don't look at me. Where is the Minister for Emergency Services, Bob Cameron, in all of this? Nowhere, silent. No one took charge and no one is responsible, just the "collective we". The outcome of this terrible evequite a number of qualities that define real leadership, ethical and moral fibre. No one is in charge in any of the labor government portfolios. The Victorian transport system for Melbourne has been privatised. The most recent tender (July 2009) exposed, as in Queensland, the shadowy, behind the scenes presence, and influence, of labor party linked lobbyists. The governing political parties of Australia (labor and liberal) have corrupted the public service process and should be held in contempt. They are thieves of democracy and government. Business prefers to deal in the cesspool of the system than demand an open and transparent process. Business buys access and donates funds to these corroders of democracy. Business is complicit in the decay and degradation of government in Australia. The two political parties wait their turn on the carnival, merry go round, that is dressed up, and passed off, as democracy, and government, in Australia. ("The theft of Australia's democracy and governments", Kevin Beck) |
|
August 2009: A senior officer of the Australian Public Service, Godwin Grech, has betrayed the Australian Public Service eschewing the Code of Conduct in favour of seeking to consort in an inappropriate manner with politicians. In doing so he has shamed tye service and put a spotlight on the lack of ethics and honour of members of Australia's parliament. It has emerged that both political parties, laboe and liberal, have lied to us about their integrity and ethics. Both have actively encouraged betrayal of public service office and by accepting the fruits of improper gians for their own benefit degraded the highest offices in the land. For this they should stand condemned and be seen for what they are. Kevin Rudd fumed when his integrity was impugned by Malcolm Turnbull yet he is part of a ystem that impugns, corrodes and corrupts every day. Not a part, an active leader who lacks the integrity and stamina to put and end to it. Do not be folled by this little man's protestations. He is as guilty of neglect of principles as all the players in this sordid tale. His home state, and governing labor party, lacks integrity and thus he learned his lessons in a cesspool. Politicisation, and corrosion, of the Australian Public Service (APS) began somewhere back in the eighties when a federal labor government decided to harness, and neuter, the Australian public service to its own personal interests, political causes and objectives. It is not enough to have destroyed its base, successive governments have gone further and deskilled it making it ineffectual and a poor service provider leading to the employment of consultants, contractors and others lacking the ethical base of a strong service. " In practice 'new public management' has led to (a) politicisation of administration (b) emasculation of Public Services; (c) and ineffectual governance with symptoms including: unbalanced economic gains; consequent social stresses; and chronic weaknesses in infrastructure, service delivery and regulatory roles. The dominant goal of Public Services shifted from helping the public by ensuring good government, to 'helping' the government of the day to retain political power. Ironically this model often led to unexpected electoral backlashes against state administrations who were seen as 'autocratic' after 5-6 years incubation, probably because they had surrounded themselves with 'yes men' and thus lost touch with the fact that not everyone shared their assumptions. This approach was reportedly being put in place in the federal government in 2000." (source: THE DECAY OF AUSTRALIAN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: A DIAGNOSIS, CENTRE FOR POLICY AND DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS, Queensland) A google reference: [PDF] Public sector corruption and its control.... File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML world's highest, corruption has afflicted Australian public life to varying degrees for .... ened with decay, the risk of state collapse can impact on Australia's .... legislation, and a politicised public service. ... www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti143.pdf - Similar - by P Grabosky - 2000 - Cited by 9 - Related articles Once appeared on the Australian Government web site, now in its place: "Sorry. What you’re looking for isn’t here at the moment. The AIC website is being redeveloped and the page you requested is currently unavailable." (Australian Government Institute of Criminology) ,br> The irony is that Kevin Rudd pens two essays attacking the nature of capitalism and extolls the virtues of binding social commitment, and values. he walks from the church on Sunday, the epitomy of the Christian man who represents values. He lives in the short term of here and now political advantage using the very tools that he belittles, managerialism. He is a member of the cancer of the modern political movement that will go to any lengths to win. "No long term" is a principle that corrodes trust, loyalty and mutual commitment. The short time frame of modern institutions limits the ripening of informal trust. Strong ties depend, in contrast, on long association. And, more personally, they depend on a willingness to make commitments to others. Short-term capitalism threatens to corrode our characters, particularly those qualities of character which bind human beings to one another and furnishes each with a sense of sustainable self." (Source: Richard Sennett, The Corrosion of Charcetr, The Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism by Richard Sennett (pub 1998 by WW.Norton and Company) ISBN 0-393-04678-8) Departmental Secretaries, long the barrier to unbridled political excess of the exeutive of government, were put on contract. The practice of permanent sinecure in high office was stopped. Departmental Secretaries now owe their livelihood to self interested, sometimes petty, egos. They owe their livelihood to the flippant ignorance of Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who arrogantly, speaks of working public servants harder without too much thought as to the message he conveys. They are not his personal slaves and work horses to do his puerile, and often politically concocted, tasks. Even though he might, as others, think they are. They are supposed to examine issues, and give good balanced advice. How can they when they are subjected to ignorant, self serving, political demands that are often nothing more than window dressing? Kevin Rudd wears his own frenetic working style as if it is a badge of honour instead of a red flag of stupidity. How can he give the nation good service if he lacks sleep and leisure? He cannot. To think that he can raises questions of judgement. John Howard, and the liberal party, took this corrosion of the APS to its greatest corrupting end game, during their eleven year reign as government. They were aided in their absolute "heeling" of the senior members of the Australian public service by an Australian judge who ruled the Defence Minister John Moore could remove a Departmental Secretary at his personal whim. No longer would the APS operate without fear or favour. They are on office at the whim and pleasure (note the word) of the Minister. It is an official term, "at the pleasure". Appointment to the pretigious positions of Departmental Secretary, by the two major political parties, is now entrenched. It has been patently an anti-public service outcome and a further corrosion and corruption of our demiocracy and government. It is one of the practices of the modern Australian government across Australia, that creates bile, distaste and derision, in those who cherish democracy, and government, as something with a higher purpose than the prurient interests of a few flakes who acieve high office in the political party wing and the government executive. States and territories have followed suit. The APS, like other bureaucracies in the nation is a hierarchical, class oriented, structure mired in hubris and the snout in the trough of executive privilege. There arethose who work hard, treat their staff with respect but still enjoy privilege. They obey the government also. Secretaries enjoy the perks of their office, free membership of the ultimate airline lounges, such as the Chairman's Lounge of Qantas, the business, and first class, cabins and the five star hotels. They eat the finest food and drink the finest wines rubbing shoulders with the elite. They never meet with the lower ranks of community and business. That is for Assstant Secretaires. Their status is unquestioned and they are allof to the general public. They enjoy salaries higher than our elected parliamentary members, including the Prime Minister and Premiers. Salries decided by an idenpendent tribunal, on spurious justifications that they are senior executives much like corporate bosses. The Senior Executive Service criteria, for appointment, is gobbly gook nonsense of etherial, unmeasurable, dimensions. They are there to be the Minister's feel good, and look good servant, regardless of the Minister's talent and capabilities, recruited to serve the political interest. Never mind the higher aspiration to serve the public. Today the senior executive of the APS serves the government sycophantically. It gives hypocritical credence to something called the Public Service Code of Conduct. It is politically partisan to the government regardless case and merit carrying on a charade of advising without fear or favour. The Australian Senate is going to have a Privileges Committee hearing. This is another farce of the Australian bi cameral system. The notion that the Senate exercises independence, has teeth and is a house of review. If were not for the independents, the Greens and the National Party, the labor and liberal political machines would have fully corrupted this institution to its own interests ages ago. Part of the squeeling rubbish, August 6, 2009, is that a public servant leaked information, someone coached someone and the Senate may have been contempted. It cannot be held in as much contempt by this concocted situation than the thinking people of the nation who wonder at its hypocritical tripe expressed as sanctimonious, mock outrage. many of us despair that we have lost our democracy to thugs and sometimes criminals, sycophants and some (not all) highly paid stooges. Not only do politicians coach, as Senator Conroy, has been exposed doing during the Senate questioning of Mr Grech, when he tells his Queensland colleague what questions to ask because the Senator appears to lack cognitive reasoning abilities of his own and is a puppet of his political colleague. Senior officers of the Australian Public Service accompany lower level members of the APS, to Senate Estimates and other hearings, coach them and intervene at will with their Ministerial minder sitting near by. What a joke this is. Godwin Grech is the public face of a system that is defiled by political appointments at the highest level of the APS and by members of the political class, whose ethics and moral character are beyond description in pleasant language. The Senate should have its Privileges Hearing, since the players of constant low grade theatrics are the privileged class. The dedicated, and caree public servants who believe in the public service principles are overshadowed and abandoned to their own fate by the decrepit few above them. ("The end of public service", Kevin Beck) |
|
July 2009: A colleague described Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, as the ultimate fraud. Among other things as justification he said that the Prime Minister walked out of a church on Sunday extolling christian virtue but behind the walls of the poliitical office he reportedly used the foulest of language and unchristian like behaviour. My colleague went on to say that prior to the election Mr. Rudd described himself as a fiscal conservative but now in government he was a full on Keynesian, throwing money at problems. It is a compelling summary which I find attractive. Such character analysis however does not actually enlighten as to the performance of the Prime Minister beyond personality It might, however, go to credibility and sincereity.. The national Australian Labor Party conference, in Sydney July 2009, tells us nothing of the capacity of the government other than the tendency to wax lyrical about each other's greate abilities, and traits, as the Deputy Prime Minister did of the Prime Minister. The labor party is exuberant that it has climbed the Everest of Australian politics to dislodge the conservative government of John Howard. The performance of new Minister for Employment participation, Mr Mark Abib, tells us that appointment to ministerial portfolio may have a lot to do with factional numbers power and relationship with the Prime Minister rather than ability. Mr Abib was oblivious as to the substance of the announcement of the Prime Minister, regarding 50,000 new jobs, falling within Mr Abib's portfolio. He unceremonially outed the Prime Minister through this neglect since there were no 50,000 new jobs. It was instead a snow job. Similarly we may question the performance, and worthiness, of Senator Penny Wong, as the Minister for Climate Change, who talks populism, and rampant ideology, rather than coherent and provable scientific facts, not entertaining any contrary views, a single minded Minister refusing to give ground. Australian Steve Fielding has more credibility on climate change science, having spent hos own money and carried out hos own extensive research, and should reap a greater number of votes at the next election. Senator Penny Wong swallowed the hook, the line and the sinker with little evidence of personal examination and research on the public record. She has been conned. The Australian government is going to hand the energy companies, the coal industry and the polluters a gift of billions. Free permits, price rises, a trading scheme like a casino where the house wins 9and its not the government) and unending justifications. Many of them, such as the Latrobe Valley generators, were nearly broke if not broke. They have put together a cunning, and shrouded, plan and extracted themselves from financial collapse. Minister Penny Wong is being roasted slowly by powerful forces and the kings of money with power. As she burns her new department, Climate Change, preoccupies itself with drivel doodsday documents predicting the demise of heritage buildings in the heart of Melbourne. Fear not, my Minister for Climate Change, the opposition of Malcolm Turnbull, but the collective forces beyond the horizon, of which you are oblivious. The game is affot. The labor has not realised that it is playing and end game. orces that can create barriers, hide their true intentions and con with aplomb, are rallied against whatever objective of government they so choose. Come in suckers, Ministers Rudd, Wong and Garrett. The language of the federal labor party is biblical and religious, bordering on evangelical. A deputy prime Minister who is judged on her political abilities and oratory manner rather than the depth of her portfolio performance. Mr Gillard is in charge of the government's "education revolution" which, like Kevin Rudd's dissertations are nothing mor than rheortic and government spending for economic purpose dressed up as something else. The building of new gymnasiums and the like does not enhance education performance. The Commonwealth is throwing billions at building (construction) projects across Australia via moribund, corroded and inept state and terriory public services. The objective is to keep local construction companies, tradespeople and apprentices in work. It is dressed up as a major education reform agenda by the Rudd department spin doctors. In Queensland, a labor state regime mired in corruption, the Queensland education department has placed a ban on principals talking about the expenditure and where it is going and their thoughts and views. This despite Julia Gilard stating that she wanted a rigorous debate. So much for democracy under labor. The federal departmeht of education, under Ms Gillard ministerial hand, is a bloated multi - portfolio, bureaucracy managed by senior officers with a clear lack of innovative thinking and action. Where is the Australian policy platform for "life long learning"? The department's web site does not mention life long learning and instead focuses policy on economic and social engineering objectives. Extracts from the home, and subsequent, pages of the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations "Several programs have been migrated into the new site: Digital Education Revolution Forward with Fairness New Employment Services OECECC (Office Of Early Childhood) Office For Youth Productivity Places Review of Australian Higher Education Social Inclusion Trade Training Centres Training and skills summary " The training and skills sector, also known as vocational education and training or VET, gives Australians the opportunity to gain the skills they need to enter the workforce for the first time, to re-enter the workforce, to retrain for a new job or to upgrade their skills for an existing job. Australian Apprenticeships are available in traditional trades, and in a diverse range of emerging careers, in most sectors of business and industry." "There is growing recognition that career development skills can help individuals to meet the constantly changing needs of the labour market and maintain their employability so that they can achieve their aspirations and participate in the community." The policy, issues and reviews page (http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/career_development/policy_issues_reviews/policy_issues_reviews_menu.htm) does not mention life long learning. Policy Career Education Quality Framework Career and Transition Services Framework Employability Skills Framework Framework for Vocational Education in Schools OECD Review of Career Guidance and Public Policy - Australia Country Note National Youth and Careers and Transitions Advisory Group Stepping Forward The Adelaide Declaration on National Goals for Schooling in the Twenty-First Century Issues Feasibility Study into the Establishment of a National Institute for Career Leadership Professional Standards for Australian Career Development Practitioners The Australian Blueprint for Career Development Vocational Education in Schools Reviews Review of Career Development Services in Tertiary Institutions Career Guidance and Public Policy: Bridging the Gap Footprints to the Future House of Representatives inquiry into Vocational Education in Schools OECD Review of Career Guidance and Public Policy - Australia Country Note Senate Inquiry into Skills Shortages Structured Workplace Learning Student Destination Survey, 2003 Young Visions 2003: A follow-up study of Young Visions participants and their destinations one year later Most people need support to help them take advantage of opportunities that present throughout their career. Higher education summary The Australian higher education system is seen to make a fundamental contribution to the future of Australia and plays a vital role in Australia’s intellectual, economic, cultural and social development. The higher education sector educates our future professional workforce, creates future leaders, provides jobs for Australians, drives much of our economic and regional success, and facilitates cultural and trade links with other countries. The sector plays a key role in the growing knowledge and innovation based economic health of Australia. It enriches our social and environmental landscape and promotes the tolerance debate that underpins Australian society." End of extracts Commentary by Kevin R Beck: Isn't that just dandy. A focus on being employed. Why is it that a person who wants to continue study and learning, in an Australia, higher education institution, has to pay exhorbitant fees to further their learning? Where is the rigorous debate that should be nurtured by a proactive bureaucracy and a penchant for engaging inl,earning for learning's sake? Is learning, if not for work, a hobby under Kevin Rudd or for that matter any government before or after at state or federal level. Well, folks, in this federal department of education and employment it is employment and career that is the focus and it is highly unlikely that the senior management are going to challenge the government on anything. Well, yibbity yibbity, that's all folks. (For those who have had no dalings with te department and the Secretary, staff messages and audio viduals carry the openning "hi folks" as the signature of the Secretary.) |
|
JON FAINE - He’s not exactly Joe [inaudible], he’s not exactly a beer-mat-mum in Thailand is he? He’s got Rio Tinto and all the resources, the money, the influence and connections that Rio Tinto can bring to bear which in fact, in my estimation, could well be more than the Australian Government brings to bear, that’s all going into bat for him. JULIE BISHOP - Except that he was denied access to his family, his employer or any lawyers. And it was deeply concerning that the Rudd Government was describing it as a consular matter, like a tourist in trouble overseas. Now it’s clearly more serious than that." (Source of extract: ABC 774 Mornings with Jon Faine Friday, 10 July 2009, Subject: Detention of Stern Hu in China - http://www.julie-bishop.com/transcripts/132-abc-774-mornings-with-jon-faine.html) Commentary by KEVINRBECK: What humbug Ms Bishop goes on with. Why is it clearly more than a consular matter? What makes the internment of one particular Australian, over another, so different and warrants a phone call to the sovereign government, of another nation, by our Foreign Minister or Prime Minister? What merit does Mr Hu possess that he should be singled out for special treatment by the Australian government? As ABC journalist, talk back host broadcaster, John Faine, says, "He’s got Rio Tinto and all the resources, the money, the influence and connections that Rio Tinto can bring to bear which in fact, in my estimation, could well be more than the Australian Government brings to bear, that’s all going into bat for him." What is it that the Prime Minister, or any other government politician, can do regarding law practices and processes in a sovereign country? The most annoying thing about Ms Bishop is the trait of the modern professional politician to detach themselves from the reality of their professional training, and knowledge, to adopt without any compunction populist statements designed to impress the uneducated of the Australian population. Maybe the liberal leaders' political, and media, advisers are not all that bright in proposing she take this spurious line of argument? Ms. Bishop and Mr. Turnbull, both lawyers, know very well the constraints, and limitations, of the Australian government's powers and opportunities, in this matter, but would have us believe that there are special powers conferred upon the person who becomes Prime Minister. Mr Turnbull, and Ms Bishop, may want to read something into this case and may have conspiracy theories, and perceptions, and all sorts of prejudicial views yet the facts ares imple. China has arrested Mr Hu under their powers and apparent laws and will do with him as they see fit. Mr Turnbull and Ms Bishop were not all that flash in relation to China when they were in government. The call, by Ms Bishop to have the Prime Minister ring someone high up in the Chinese government and circumvent the country's due process is an insult to a thinking person's intelligence and to the Chinese government. One might well question the Rio Tinto Board, CEO and legal counsel about what efforts they are making? Has their Chairman rung the Chinese Premier? ("Humbug and Australian Politics" Kevin Beck) |
|
The Australian federal Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, is examing a report prepared by the Preventative Health Taskforce, which apparently, amongst other things, recommends a ban on liquor sponsorship of sport, limited, or no advertising, of alcohol and a diet, and exercise, regime for fat people, new labelling laws for food and associated products. Like tobacco, the governments of Australia are hypocritical about alcohol. Ignore the taxes, these are legal products yet wowsers, and do gooders, who would have us live in a world of abstinence, based on the proposition of reduction in health costs. We have entered the maternal/paternal era of governments, in Australia, paricularly labor governments. Extract " Call to ban alcohol sponsorship of sport, By Steve Lewis and Ben Packham July 17, 2009 12:01am, Herald Sun, Melbourne Australia Health task force wants end to alcohol ads Would stop sporting sponsorship deals Massive loss in revenue for codes PREMIER sporting codes would be stripped of up to $300 million a year in alcohol sponsorship under a radical blueprint for fighting disease and increasing life expectancy. The National Preventative Health Task Force, handpicked by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has also called for an end to alcohol advertising on the internet and in youth magazines. Under the shake-up household names such as Bundaberg Rum, VB and Tooheys beer would disappear from TV screens and sporting arenas, The Daily Telegraph reports. It would rob Cricket Australia, the AFL, National Rugby League and Australian Rugby Union of a massive revenue stream. And it would pit the Rudd Government against the powerful TV networks, who stand to lose lucrative alcohol-related advertising... If Nicola Roxon believes that she can implement any section/s of the report then she is politically naive. She may be a Minister in the government but corporate interests have far more resources and money than she does. If she recommends to the Australian government cabinet aspects of the report for implementation then she best understand that she is asking the Prime Minister, and her Ministerial coleagues, to spell the end of many a political career. Perhaps the Rudd government as a whole. This may not be a bad thing looking at performance to date across the balance of portfolios. One grows extremely tired of wowser, paternalistic governments, public services and committees full of bleeding hearts, hangers on and those who would have us all march in line to the same tune. It has taken the younger, and inexperienced, political staff members of the labor government over a year to realise that the government is not all powerful simply because it says so. Some have not yet ralised this and fail to see "beyond the horizon" of their narrow perceptions of power, politics and reality. ("One term for Kevin Rudd", Kevin Beck) |
|
|
|
WAKE IN FRIGHT
RAINING ON THE RUDD - SWAN PARADE:
What is coming in 2009 - 2010
for the economy, government and every Australian. ("End of days, for Kevin Rudd's Prime Ministerial role, tick on", Kevin Beck
|
|
SPIN BECOMES QUESTIONABLE, BECOMES LIES AND WE SEE BEHIND THE CURTAIN OF POLITICS June 2009 marks the end of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct 23, June 2009: Below in this site I made the comment, some weeks back, about the maturity, and experience of people advising, and supporting, the Prime Minister, and that that the propensity of the federal labor governments' staffers to mislead would damage the credibility of senior politicians of the Australian federal parliament. A senior member of the Australian Department of Treasury sat before a Senate Committee facing questions from Senator Abetz. This was a game of cat and mouse where the Senator knew that this particular public servant had close relations with the liberal government. The Senator already knew the content and thought he knew the answers to his questions. Instead of investigating the ethical relationship of the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and Treasurer Wayne Swan, with specific car dealers the Senator pursued the legal inquisitorial line. Similarly in the House of Representatives Malcolm Turnbull sought to trap the Prime Minister and Treasurer legally. This is not a legal issue it is an ethical one. Should any senior government Minister or public servant, in any government of Australia, lobby (take a specific close interest) for the benefit of a particular person, persons or a sector? Should a wealthy Prime Minister accept gifts (in this case a vehicle, on road costs and other benefits) within his electrorate even if he declares them? The principle should be no. However the modern politician, particular labor leaders, seem to lack both principles and ethics that might define them as true leaders of the communities they govern. This particular senior treasury official has no place in a public serviuce that prides itself on its high standards and independence. Though he has had little leadership in maintaining distance and impartiality from his management. There are questions about the close even sycophantic support of the Rudd government by the head of Treasury, Dr. Ken Henry. These are serious issues and there is a need for an indepoendent arbiter and steward of the public service ethical behaviour. Today the public service is at the behest, and cultural management style of the head of Prime Minister and Cabinet, and the Secretaries of Departments along with any other two bit political power broker from a Minister's office. The Australian Public Service Code of Conduct is mere words on paper and nothing more than motherhood and perhaps a fantasy. "APS Code of Conduct APS employees are required, under the Code of Conduct, to behave at all times in a way which upholds the APS Values The Code The Code of Conduct requires that an employee must:
not make improper use of:
Source:http://www.apsc.gov.au/conduct/ Australian Public Service web site. We are seeing the creation of fake records, attempts at fraud and activity bordering on the criminal. Public servants briefing members of parliament secretly behind the scenes in order to assist political advantage and personal interest. We are seeing duplicity within the Australian Public Service and a breakdown in the fundamental nature of trust, integrity and honour. The two senior politicians in question here, the Prime Minister and Treasurer have corroded good government and defiled it for political purpose. They employ people to assist them in this regard. The role of political staff in the day to day government activity and their interaction with the public service is something that needs deep examination and clear rules. Currently the political staff modus operandi corrupts, and corrodes, democracy, government, parliaments and the public services across the nation.The ute gate (Oz Car) eopisode demonstrates what can happen when this corruption gets out of hand. The episode that has been dubbed "ute gate" has opened a window into the tawdry and false world of government. false because millions of dollards of taxpayers money is spent \presenting a facade. The Government of the day would have us believe that they are above prurient interest, personal interest and corruption. But history, states like NSW and Victoria and current events show us, that that is not true. There are many who know how the political system, and reward, works. Donors to the party, special people and special relationships are looked after in the back rooms. Political staffers, the parasites of democracy (unelected and paid from the public, not political purse,) have amongst their many dirty tasks looking after the privileged. If you talk to any mid level public servant or any of them who have integrity they will tell you that the advisers and the staffers lean on them. They make it clear what the Prime Minister, and their Ministers, want. They write emails, they ring and they visit. They threaten, cajole and twist the wrists. Every day someone from Rudd's, Swan's and most senior Minister's offices corrode and corrupt democracy. So now we can surmise on the balance of probability that someone within the Prime Minister's office made contact with a Treasury public servant. He would ahve discussed the contact with his boss and they would have as all good public servants do, follow the handbook. Obey the government, obey the mouthpiece of the Minister especially the Prime Minister, unless you are senior enough, like Ken Henry, head of Treasury, to argue an alternative, Ken Henry did not. t would be the expectation that good people would think that henry did not know. I have a view that all Secretaries, of longevity, know when a request comes from the Prime Minister's, or a Minister's office. Thus the Prime Ministerial staffer set the freight train on its way. The assertion is that the request went from Prime Minister's office to Treasury and of course to the Minister, Wayne Swan. If this is the case then the motions were put into play to reward the loyal. Albeit they would have a look and see what they could do. Did a request emanate from the office of the Prime Minister? I think so though it was probably verbal rather than written. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, took up the cause and became custodian. This is the way that the special are protected. One thing is prominent, politicians know how to technically avpid lying and misleading parliament. The problem here is that Kevin Rudd's staffers may be incompetent at the art of the inetraction with public servants using too much smoke, mirrors and invisible manipulation. The email was issued, by whyom to where and for what purpose and someone removed it? What was its source? If as Mr Rudd says it does not exist then one wonders how Mr Garnt came to be in discussion with Mr Swan? Did Mr Grant have a conversation with Mr Swan? If so who initiated it? Now everyone is caught up in the affray and the public's money will be wasted further as the Prime Minister, and Treasurer, slither around tring to extracate themselves. Agencies will be called in to investigate. This is a method of sanitising the situation and clouding the issue. The majority of senior politicians, and their staffers, of both sides of politics (particularly in the labor and liberal parties) should not be allowed in parliaments across Australia. Arrogance and hubris along with inexperience and stupidity of staffers and perahps Wayne Swan himself, intertwine to create a sordid pot of intrigue that like the Sun drags things inwards to melt and swirl. The politicians, staffers and public servants get burned. As is typically mandated, by the modern spin doctorate and political handbook, denial is the first tactic. Everyone denies everything and then says that they cannor recall. Treasurer Wayne Swan came out of his box barking that the opposition leader's attacks regarding the "Rudd car gate" issue were outrageous. He further denied any real knowledge, or interaction, with the person at the centre of the government's self made fiasco. later it emerges that there is a taril of communications and documents regarding the issue have been faxed to the Treasurer's home from Treasury and elsewhere. "Steve Lewis and AAP June 20, 2009 12:00am, UPDATE: 1.30pm WAYNE Swan has hit back at Malcolm Turnbull over allegations of political favouritism to an Ipswich car dealer. It's been revealed the treasurer's office allegedly lobbied on behalf of John Grant, a friend of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd who was seeking a government-backed loan." (Source:Herald Sun, news.com.au, http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25662377-661,00.html) Public Servant, Godwin Grech, found himself at the centre of the wtorm when questioned in Senate Estimates. The government and the role of the Senate could again be seen as questionable and damaging to our nation's democracy as both a senior public servant, and labor senators, sought, to stop Mr Grech from truthfully answering or answering at all. For decades the Senate has been treated with contempt by both major parties, by senior public servants and others within and without parliament. Mr Grech stood his ground and in doing so demonstrated that he is a public servant of integrity and substance. " Lachlan Heywood and Malcolm Farr, June 19, 2009 07:48pm: UPDATE: KEVIN Rudd has continued to deny that he or his office tried to help Ipswich car dealer John Grant secure a government-backed loan. Speaking to reporters late on Friday, Mr Rudd disputed evidence given by a Treasury official to a Senate inquiry that his office had contacted Godwin Grech regarding Mr Grant, who is a friend and nighbour of the prime minister. However, Mr Rudd has asked the auditor-general to investigate the matter. Restating his previous denials to parliament, Mr Rudd said: "As of now, I have no basis before me which changes that position..... ..Earlier, a senior public servant has contradicted Mr Rudd's claim there was no request from the PM's office to help a car dealer friend and neighbour. The public servant, Godwin Grech, told a Senate Estimates hearing this afternoon that the initial contact seeking assistance for Ipswich motor dealer John Grant from the Government's Oz Car scheme came from Mr Rudd's office. He said to the best of his memory, he had seen a brief email from the Prime Minister's office. But Treasury said searches had found no evidence of the email. The hearing was repeatedly interrupted as Government members sought to stop Mr Grech answering Opposition questions about the Utegate affair. Earlier, outside the hearing, it emerged that Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull lectured an adviser to Mr Rudd over the affair at a Canberra function. "You should not lie to protect your boss," Mr Turnbull said, according to a statement today by Andrew Charlton, Mr Rudd's economic specialist. "This OzCar issue will be very damaging for you," he quoted Mr Turnbull as saying. OzCar is the Government's finance body for car dealers, established when credit was tight earlier this year. "You know and I know there is documentary evidence that you have lied." Treasurer Wayne Swan today said Mr Turnbull was attempting to bully and threaten the adviser. " (Source: Courier mail, news.com.au, http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25659339-953,00.html) The latter tripe from wayne Swan regarding threatening the staff members demonstrates the peurile minds et of the people who occupy position sof power in the rarified atmosphere of parliaments and government. On balance I think that the Prime Minister was not approached about getting access to thes pecila fund, but I think on balance he knew and knows most of the details of the events, being advised by a third party. I think wayne Swan and his staff are up to their ears in it. Where the documents are may be any one's guess. Maybe theye are in thes pecial repository used by public servants to ensure retenetion. In the Department of Employment, Education and whatever (Julia Gillard's department) this special receptacle is known as "TRIM". One can put stuff in and recover it, but not delete it. Does Treasury have such a facility, yes, and so does Prime and Minister and Cabinet. Does the email in question indicating the approach to the Prime Minister's office by the car dealer exist now or in the past? It existed at some time, most likely, in my opinion. An alert, and very experienced public servant, would receive a short email pointing out that "x" wants a benefit, or favour, and the public servant would probablty keep that communication where no one can delete it, waiting the moment they need it. Mr Grech would be such a public servant, I think. He waited at the last moment of the questioning, and blocking, to drop his qualified "bomb" on those who would seek to under,ine his integrity and reputation for their own survival. As he says, no public servant should have to be subjected to this. The fact that the government allowed it raises questions of their ethical compass. Kevin Rudd, and others, who employ inexperienced political apparatchiks in their offices and in some cases people of questionable integrity, deserve what they get. Despite the motherhood emanating from their mouths about the government existing for the people, these exercises show that it truly operates for the few. Political interest first, partisan interest next and the public interest a poor last. Hopefully the email will emerge and show us clearly the level to which government, political and business, integrity and ethics, has plummeted in the nation in the last twenty years. ("Governmment by thuggery in Australia", Kevin Beck) |
| |
|
June 2009: Kevin Rudd, and his personal staff of manipulators, risk a pandora's box A lack of depth in the government's mantra and the skill base of Prime Minister's office Back in the late eighties, and through the nineties Australia's federal, and state, governments implemented sophisticated media, and communications, management cells within the offices of the Prime Minister and Premier. Whilst Paul Keating's labor government was the first real manipulator the practice has been honed by the likes of media savvy, Bob Carr (labor Premier NSW), Peter Beattie (labor Premier Queensland) and John Howard (liberal (coalition) Prime Minister). It is now fully operational under Kevin Rudd. "Rise of Rudd's sentinels of spin, Greg Callaghan and Drew Warne-Smith | June 06, 2009 Extract - Article from: The Australian "IT'S important to be who you are," Kevin Rudd was fond of telling journalists during the election campaign when asked about his leadership style and his freshly minted image with the Australian public. Twenty months after Kevin '07 swept to victory, the PM's burgeoning media machine has become so practised at controlling his image and massaging his message that some political analysts liken it to a PR state, one exceeding the sheen of former prime minister John Howard, whose renowned National Media Liaison Service (nicknamed aNiMaLS) set a new benchmark in spin. While ostensibly serving as a liaison between the press and the Prime Minister, Rudd's media advisers serve one principal function: to boost their boss's image, say observers. "He (Rudd) is a micro-manager, he doesn't know when to stop, and that flows through to everything he does, including trying to control the media," says one member of the press gallery. Largely invisible to the public, the Rudd Government's growing force of press secretaries, media advisers and consultants is nearly double the number employed during the Hawke and Keating eras. After initially vowing to slash ministerial head counts, including media, across all departments, the Rudd Government employs 40 communications staff in the Department of Agriculture, 30 in the Department of Innovation, 23 in the Department of the Environment and six in the PM's office. Communications spending on consultants is also rising. The departments of immigration, broadband and innovation forked out $7.4 million for public relations experts in 12 months. Yet figures alone can't convey how the media machine is controlling the day-to-day discharge of information..... "Keating would bore the bejesus out of you to make his case and Howard's office was willing to brief senior journalists on policy background. Now the PM's office is ruled by 12-year-olds," says one 20-year press gallery veteran, referring to the ages of Rudd chief of staff Alister Jordan, 29, senior press secretary Lachlan Harris, 29, and at least one other 20-something in the PM'soffice." (Source: as cited, the Australian) The apparatchiks in the Prime Minister's office have taken the media massage to the "nth" degree making it an insidious tool. They manipulate the news and information flow to the extent that democracy, and access, is being damaged. They corrode, and corrupt, the peoples' government. " How Rudd spins the gallery, Andrew Bolt, Tuesday, May 26, 2009 at 05:00am Media Watch details one of Kevin Rudd’s trickiest techniques of spin - telling senior reporters of press conferences too late for them to attend and ask him awkward questions: It’s a recurring pattern, the bureaux tell Media Watch. Specialist political reporters, and their pesky questions, aren’t welcome at the PM’s photo-opportunities. In fact, Rudd will even refuse to bring along a pool reporter to cover a pretty-pictures press stunt he’s announced last minute at the other end of the country: Once again, one TV channel in Perth - this time Ten - was told there were seats on the PM’s plane for a camera operator and a sound recordist. Ten said it didn’t need a soundo. Could it send a pool reporter instead? The answer was no. Ten camera operator Claire Leeman tells Media Watch: There was at least one spare seat on the plane. Then there’s Rudd’s technique of making big announcements to divert attention from reports that might be critical: … media people from the PM’s office have taken to dropping round to the press gallery at around 10am to find out what stories they’re working on. If the office doesn’t like the news agenda, it quickly finds a new story to feed the chooks. The ABC’s Political Editor Chris Uhlmann told us: The PM’s announcements are driven not by policy but by the media cycle." (Source: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_rudd_spins_the_gallery/) Extract - " PM’s media manipulation beyond a joke, by Bernard Keane (Crikey.com) What a Jekyll and Hyde mob this Government is. While John Faulkner is commendably leading the charge toward greater transparency and accountability, the Prime Minister is engaged in a deeply cynical and unashamed process of manipulation. I suggested on Budget Night that Wayne Swan was purposefully avoiding mentioning the deficit figure in order to deprive the Opposition of a grab for future advertising, but foolishly thought that game would end once it became apparent what they were up to. In fact it was merely the start of an ongoing effort by the Prime Minister and Treasurer to avoid saying any numbers that could be used against them, right down to persistently refusing to say “billion” after numbers. Yesterday The Australian’s Matt Franklin asked Joe Hockey at the Press Club if things were reaching the stage where we couldn’t even have a decent public debate if both sides were scared of their words being used against them in election advertising. I suspect the Government also does not want any grabs on nightly news bulletins of them uttering the numbers. It gets more blatant and more cynical, however. Last week Crikey ran a tip that the Prime Minister’s office, which is usually excellent with churning out transcripts, had failed to put out the transcript of the Prime Minister’s rather robust interview with Neil Mitchell the day after the Budget. The transcript remains unavailable. The transcript from Monday’s Lateline interview ?—?one of the Prime Minister’s worst?—?is also unavailable. Then there’s the Prime Minister’s Office’s predilection for trying to manipulate media coverage. In late April, the PMO changed the way it advised the media of Rudd’s appearances. Instead of stating a time for the commencement of a press conference or media event, which had been the typical approach until then, the time of the event is now advised as “Media please assemble by …”, even for press conferences in the courtyard in Parliament House, meaning the Prime Minister is never late." (Source of extract: http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/05/21/pms-media-deceptions-treat-voters-like-children/) I (Kevin R Beck) personally view the employment of political staff within Ministries, paid from the public purse, as a misuse of public funds. These people, to my thinking, are parasites on the public purse and on democracy because of the damaging effects outlined above and the fact that they are not elected, assimung various roles and powers undefined by constitution or legislation. The majority are unable to actively participate in the government of Kevin Rudd, except by managed means, the town hall cabinet meetings, included. Mr Rudd's advisers, and strategists, now risk a backlash and campaign on unforeseen fronts by both conventional means and political and citizen activists, who collectively have more combined resources (technological and human) and unknown networks than the Prime Minister, Minsitries and the Public Service, employ. These disparate groups are now coming together, not only in known entities such as Get Up, but in loose coalitions of information, and web technologists, private and business people, who are out and about, and a plethora of others, beyond the horizon of the Prime Minister's manipulators. These hidden respondents can turn their attention to specific issues such as Emissions Trading Scheme which has been soundly attacked bu such colaitions, to othjer portfolios, e.g health fund insurance rises, benefit fraud, consumer issues, local electorate issues, intelligence gathering and dissemination of material to others for their use, government performance critiques, national security, defence, spending, budget, immigration or whatever takes their fancy, according to their whim. In doing so they trigger more than publicity. They trigger action in their own right or by selected interests taking up goverbnment resources and time, diverting attention, creating abrriers, ultimately enacting their strategic actions across a breadth that Mr Rudd's manipulators never dreamed of. These people may, or may not formally, or informally, join with media, lists, action groups and any other interest that is disenchanted with the level of manipulation of the current regime. They may turn their attention on the work horse of the government, the Public Service. Put bluntly the operatives in the Prime Minister's office do not have the experience, breadth of talent, lateral thinking and the smarts to handle what is now underway. Conventional responses such as selective retaliation by the PM's staff will merely engender an even greater response. This is going to be real problem for the Prime Minister and his fetish for micro management. |
|
I have a question. When the federal government Health Minister approves a rise in the private health isnurance rates what is the level of acceptable fraud
that the Minister tolerates, and perahps unwisely, or unknowingly, includes?
Under what provision does this fraud get passed on when the Minister/s have been advised through communication to their offices and a request to outline the fraud has been declined?
The cost of providing health cover in Australia, both public and private, across all of the disciplines includes a level of fraud. The relevant public service agency, here the Australian Health Insurance Commission, or some department under Huamn Services, calculates a level they think is reasonable, or happening. I have the feeling, like Treasury on their assessments of anything, are way of the mark. They have instigated anti-fraud measures within Medibank and other agncies, as their justification for opposing the Access Card or as their way of supporting the government's spurious arguments before the election, and to have them proven to be ineffective would be a blow to pride. The problem they have is that the evidence, set out generally in the correspondence, is not theoretical. Probably their estimate is 1% - 2% of the total annual cost of the health rebates paid out by the private and public sector remembering that the govermnment ownes Medibank Private and it has what 50% of the private health insurance market. Then add Medicare and fraud is a very big number. Discussions I have had with people during the past three years indicate that a low figure like the above may be way off the mark, more likely say 7% or even in the teens. The former liberal government, during its Access Card project, had a fraud level calculated that varies greatly with what labor believed, or put about, prior to the election. Perhaps it suited labor at the time to belittle the claims of the former government, ably assisted by some in the Australian public service and other interest groups. To stick to tis false assumption now they are in government will pose problems down the way. I think labor cherry picked what they wanted and made an augument to suit and now regerdaless of evidence or contrary opinion will persist. When an enquiry was recently made to the Health Minister, and others in the Rudd government, to meet and discuss this issue, the communicator was summarily dismissed. The reason for dismissal was probably that the communication, and request, for a meeting was looked at by an inexperienced, unaware, perhaps sometimes unthinking staff member in the relevant Ministers' offices. It could be that the matter was seen to be of low importance. It would be a very bad judgement indeed, on the part of senior staff within the Ministries, that received the communication to misjudge what would be a follow up to the declination. The evidence, set out generally, in the communication, indicates a substantial fraud is taking place and is condoned, and passed on to the consumer and tax payers of Australia. Since it has been brought to the attention of the Ministers' satff members (more than one Minister) it could trigger independent investigations and a claim that a Minister/s of the Crown has/have breached his/her/their fiduciary duty, albeit via the inadvertant actions of a political staff member, under their parliamentary oath. To allow any fraud to be committed, to be allowed to continue unabated and not addressed carries a wide range of actions under many umbrellas not only within the parliaments but within the commercial sectors of the community. Let's see where this goes and who it bites? "The Corrosion of government in Australia", Kevin Beck, June 2009. |
| It is a document that currently may be hardly worth examining in its wider scope. The underpinning base assumptions, are questionable. They are predictions provided by Treasury and government advisers who have no credible record. It is now two, and a bit, weeks since Wayne Swan's less than inspiring presentation in the Australian federal parliament, on Tuesday May 5, 2009. The first ten minutes was, in my opinion, pure rubbish. The Treasurer said nothing of substance. The final segments of his speech lacked detail and vision. He rattled off a list of road and infrastructure funding projects as if that is the stuff of economic foundation. wayne Swan had returned tp the leight weight presence that denoted his first year in government. Then followed the spin and manipulation. The Prime Minister, and the Treasurer, have become captive to advisers whose inetellectual rigour and under standing of governmment is at best infantile and immature and at worst quite ludicrous and dangerous. The public are treated with scripts penned to limit complex issues to thirty second logos, symbols and perambulation around labor traditional grounds. The figures upon which Mr Swan and Mr Rudd have founded their assumptions are suspect. Describing the modelling, and assumptions, as "suspect" is being kind, given the record of Treasury and the quality of the performance of the Prime Minister's and Treasurer's offices and their media advisers. The offices of senior politicians, in all Australian governments (state, federal and territory), are infested with parasites. Unelected, they are paid from public funds, and devote their time, and role play, to corrding, and corrupting democracy, degrading the processes of communication, obstructing open, and transparent, government and in some cases assuming the persona of the Ministers they represent. These people, being political appointees, should be paid from the purse of the political parties they serve. The Rudd lead government is in trouble. They do not do their homework and seem to rely upon some crude, and ill founded, perception regarding the real world and effects of careless policy propositions and the implementation outcomes. "Blunder turns into national fiasco as more schemes die, Thu. May 21, 2009; Australian Financial Review - Damon Kitney. with Ashley Midalia, Patrick Durkin and staff reporters The employee share scheme fiasco is for many yet another example of the government neither consulting nor listening, writes Damon Kitney." The employee share scheme refernced above, and the Emission Trading Scheme (ETS) are glaring examples of the propensity of this governmment to rush into areas where the its politicians, advisers and strategists, have little or no experience and a huge serving of hubris. Many policies are the fruit of ideology and "seemed like a good idea at the time" thinking of a young, and perhaps immature (in terms of experience and work diversity), lot. One might look at the profile of the senior staff of the Prime Minister and other Ministers as a guide to predicting the likely performance in the future. "As one close observer notes, Alister Jordan (a confidante of Prime Minister Rudd) has only ever held two full-time jobs, both with Labor MPs." Those concerned about the apparent emphasis of the Rudd Government on spin and stunts won’t take much comfort from the make-up of the Government’s staffers. The first comprehensive analysis of the new Government’s advisers shows that ex-NSW ALP staffers and senior bureaucrats are playing a strong role in shaping the new Government’s policy and political direction. Crikey has looked at the backgrounds of over 100 of the 200-odd ministerial advisers in the new Government and found that 22 of them are Carr or Iemma Government veterans, or were senior bureaucrats in the heavily-politicised NSW State Government Public Service. This includes nine of the Government’s Chiefs of Staff, about a third." (Source: Crikey.com - The who’s who of Rudd’s spinners, sorry, staffers Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane,Monday, 28 April 2008) In 2009 we are seeing the effects of the selection process. ("Government in Australia, a private club", Kevin Beck) |
| They are obviously not to be found in Victoria. Prediction - May 2009: The Minister for Local Government, in Victoria, Justin Madden will be sacrificed to protect labor state and federal members of parliament. ("Bbye bye to Minister Justin Madden, Kevin Beck) |
| Yesterday (Thursday 16, April, 2009) a small craft appeared 600 kilometres of the Australian coast line, near Ashmore Reef, carrying Afghans. "3 ‘Afghan’ boat people dead after explosion off Christmas island; 34 being treated for burns by: ashok Thursday, April 16th, 2009 Thirty-four suspected asylum seekers, some in a critical condition with severe burns will be treated in Australian hospitals, reports AAP quoting the West Australian health department. Puffin, an offshore oil rig, 740km west of Darwin is being used as a triage centre for the injured, which include a number of children. According to a report in Melbourne based South Asia Times, three refugees have died after the explosion on the boat they were travelling in. The asylum seekers are reportedly from Afghanistan. Asylum seekers doused their boat in petrol before a fatal dawn explosion off the north-west Australian coast, West Australian Premier Colin Barnett says. Mr Barnett said it was unclear how the flames ignited. “It is understood that the refugees on the boat spread petrol and that ignited, causing the explosion,” Mr Barnett told reporters in Perth. Mr Barnett would not elaborate on the claim when questioned further. At a heated press conference in Canberra this afternoon, the Minister for Home Affairs, Bob Debus, said that the Government did not want to speculate on the cause of explosion due to ongoing investigations." (Source: The IS Times, http://www.theistimes.com/3-afghan-boat-people-dead-after-explosion-off-christmas-island-34-being-treated-for-burns/) Boat people coming to Australia, seeking sylum, has a special trigger and sends conservatives into a lather. Melbourne "light article" columnist, Andrew Bolt, pontificates from his desk surmising all sorts of things. Media, politicians and the guardians of the nation break into chatter, hooting and after a time may incur aphonia. Others drop apophthegms. Their recollections of history, and assumptions as to what these boat people may harbour are apocryphal. "Opposition quick to blame Kevin Rudd for loss of life, Paul Maley | April 17, 2009 Extract Article from: The Australian "THE Federal Opposition has gone on the attack on the issue of border protection, blaming the Rudd Government for indirectly causing the death of at least three asylum seekers and likening its softening of immigration processing practices to putting up a welcome sign for people-smugglers. Within minutes of news of yesterday's tragic explosion aboard an alleged people-smuggling vessel off Ashmore Reef, Opposition immigration spokeswoman Sharman Stone began the recriminations, squarely placing the blame for the deaths on Labor. "You can't slash funds, you can't take your eye off the ball, you can't announce a softer policy and then expect people not to lose their lives through people-smuggling," she told Sky News. "Which, of course, is all about cash, nothing to do with getting an individual, a young person, a family safely to Australia." Dr Stone's strongly worded attack drew a sharp rebuke from the Government and caused her leader, Malcolm Turnbull, to tone down the Opposition rhetoric by insisting that the Opposition did not want to make political points over the tragedy." (Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25345169-5013871,00.html). The number of boat people is by comparison, to Europe, a few. Surely a nation of 20,000,000 with modern warfare capability, a rich nation, is not scared of a few homeless people? What would Andrew Bolt, Sharman Stone, et al, be saying if we had 36,000 coming across our borders? They would be apoplectic, prone to aposiopesis and in the case of Graeme Campbell prone to apostasy. Malcolm Turnbull's pronouncemenst are in the category of apostils. The herd clucks like Australian apostle birds, a greysih brown nesting communal flock in the interior. They engage fitfully in the apostolic succession of Howard's beliefs as to whom may decide to come here and under what circumstances. Watch out if the boat catches fire or the chidren are thrown overboard, it is surely a sign of the impending doom and the devil's curse of those who are illegals. Emotive rubbish and hyperbole spills from the mouths of critics devoid of common sense, care and ethics. Everything presents an opportunity for spin, gross exaggeration, or even lies, in our political system. People who would, otherwise, be largely irrelevant get a voice and take a stand. They are outraged. They want Kevin Rudd, and his policy of being nice, to asylum seekers and the less fortunate to be handled by Appollyon. Who will rise from the tombs of the parliament house to flagellate and scurge the desecrators. They pray but Appollyon does not come. They sulk and are prone to becoming apochromatic, perhaps muttering apologues. We should remind Sharman Stone, Malcolm Turnbull, and hysterical supporters of the former Howard government policies and of their cardinal sins. Look at those sine against humanity through the images of those the former goverment locked up and mentally tortured for having the audacity to try and better their lot in the world. I do not respect, nor want the politicians who thought this was the right thing, to be in any government in Australia. ("The fixation of the liberal party with rickety boats", Kevin Beck) Images that redefined Australia. Should we go back there, hand in hand, with the immoral labor and liberal parties? 
 |
| April 2009: Australia has long suffered from a protectionist policy where successive governments have allowed the nature of our communicatiuons to be dictated by a few. This includes the former publicly owned Telecom (now private Telstra), and the commercial television network owners (3). Simulated, and bureaucratic contrived competition models, managed by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, have dominated planning and policy. For all the spin every government up until 2009 has failed to deliver the full capability of technology to Australians. The mantra for every good idea has been we cannot afford it. For some reason every question that arises when a plan is proposed for anything is how much will it cost and how will it be paid for? This ludicrous, and presumptious reaction, has been adoptede not merely by politicians seeking to shoot down everything but by radio and television reporters subjecting interviewees to a grilling. Ipso facto we cannot afford it. Malcolm Turnbull, the leader of the opposition, was first off the rank. He claimed, in a vacuum of knowledge that it would cost $A150 - $A200 per month and no one would subscribe at that price. Good on his crystal ball, may be can borrow it. Everything must come out of the surpluse, a concocted number devised by a unique accounting methodology that makes all governments of Australia llok good. We must not ever borrow, go into debt, invest or take any action that might cast doubt upon out nation's fiscal rectitude. We must not attract a negative rating by agencies that have demonstrated the full extent of their credentials, and rating capabilities, during the financial fiasco of 2008-2009. It is not enough that everyone runs scared of proposing anything to the nation's voters. When something like this policy (apparently costing $A49 billion) is announced the detractors move to misleading, fear mongering and irrational arguments, based on spurious facts, strange assertions, too often from people who lack experience and knowledge. We look in the rear view mirror constantly having swqallowed the single mantra - "it's about the economy stupid" - when in fact it is much more. The nation advances backwards under the dead hand of the herd mentality and inept policy makers. Australia's largest telecommunications company, Telstra has the widest reach copper cable network and focus has been on that barrier to enabling high speed broadband. It inherited its assets, not from purchase but by bequest of the nation and the federal government. For decades Telecom, now Telstra, has manipulated its monopoly position to block development and to control the availability of products, services and technology to the Australian nation. It has sought to frustrate at every turn conducting guerilla commercial, and political, warfare. Telstra should have been broken up years ago. It is of note that a past government that failed to deliver should now, in opposition, snipe at any one who might support a broaband nation. What the Rudd labor government, and Australia, now faces is not dissimilar to the problems facing Europe, and their experiences, for example Italy. The research for brodaband in regional Italy is a useful example since it is taking place in an environment of low technology understanding, use and up take. Here in Australia the population is a mature user of technology. "In residential markets, all couriers shared the opinion that the availability of broadband services did not represent the principal issue. In their opinion, the main barrier to adoption was that service costs are still too high for the average household budget. In this respect, competitive players see the high influence that the ex-monopolist still exerts on the industry cost structure, and considers this a limiting factor. All main national operators serve the metropolitan area; however, market segmentation has considerably dampened the effect of price competition. The only courier operating on proprietary networks has positioned itself in a high-end user niche, thus not invading the incumbent’s mainstream market. All other players targeting middle or low-end users do not own a proprietary network. As a consequence, the ex-monopolist exerts a deep influence on its real competitor’s cost structure, can maintain higher prices levels and avoid a fierce price reduction competition. Many competitive players thus viewed the role of the regulatory authority as key to a decrease in retail prices. Although this may be true, it should not be forgotten that a reduction of retail prices may also be obtained by competitive players through the acquisition of efficiency gains. Another barrier to the diffusion of broadband among residential users was the immature use of the technology due to limited computer literacy, on the one hand, and to lack of multimedia content, on the other. To overcome these barriers, investments to guarantee a wide availability of Internet connections within all levels of education were reported as important factors, as well as the switch in the distribution of the television programmes from analog to a digital mode. For business users, operators still perceived high infrastructure investments as a hurdle and demonstrated very cautious attitudes towards the profitability assessment of infrastructure expansions aimed at acquiring new business customers. In this respect, an interesting business model was adopted by a utility company that recently entered the business segment in the main metropolitan area. This company, by bundling its fibre to the building offer with the applications provided by other operators, eliminated the risks related to infrastructure related investments. In fact, if a client decided to change providers, they would simply need to change the courier they were bundling their offer with. Although this business model represents an interesting method to foster infrastructure diffusion, further research should be conducted in order to investigate whether it could be extended on a nation-wide scale and across all market segments. " (source: Broadband diffusion dynamics: a systemic analysis, Enrico Ferro, Technology to Business Intellingence Unit, Istituto Superiore Mario Boella, Int. J. Electronic Business, Vol. x, No. x, xxxx, www.enricoferro.com/IJEB_4204_Ferro_FINAL.pdf)(http://www.enricoferro.com/html/research_.html) Mr Turnbull cites figures of $A150.00 to $A200 per month for subscriber charges indiacting that these are too high and will not be taken up. He seems to exlude the "bundling" of complementary services - telephony, pay television, pay radio, internet, business and home services, fixed and mobile, plus other as of yet undefined service offerings. What does it cost the average household to have all of these now, in disparate form? Well above $A200.00 per month. Many Europeans buy their home telephone service from one company, Internet access from another, mobile-phone service from a third, and cable or satellite television from yet a fourth. The result—a blizzard of monthly bills and customer service channels—leaves many yearning for a simpler arrangement. About 80 percent of European consumers would prefer to buy all of their telephone services and Internet access from a single provider, according to a recent survey of more than 7,000 people in eight countries. Given the option, about 40 percent of consumers would purchase everything, including media services such as television, from a single company." (Source:Bundling Europe's broadband, When it comes to phone and media service, a lot of consumers want a package deal. FEBRUARY 2005 • Josep Isern and José Perdomo, the McKinsey Quarterly) For the first time in recent history the Rudd Labor plan is to provide a nationally owned open access infrastructure for all competitors and content providers. Thus on the first glance of the material above, Mr Turnbull's argument is flawed economically speaking. Mr Turnbull, in focusing solely on end user cost, which he is guessing. He has obtained a figure from some source that bears no relevance to reality or fact. He narrows the exercise to how much will it cost the average Joe, the Aussie battler, when it should the justification should be expanded to its social and economic contribution to the nation. His is a myopic, and politically contrived argument, based on the Australian political tradition of fear mongering. It focuses on home use almost entirely. It also is based on some historical data, that does not exist here since there is no comparison technology available other than the manipulated prices of the current market. He has based his argument, I presume, on the case where the market is not fully covered. That is a market where there is no real competition, in which there is only one provider or at best two dominant players, some minors trying to eek out an existence where a monopoly in some segments applies (Telstra copper cable) and what amounts to a duopoly in the other areas such as mobile, internet and telephony(Telstra and Optus). This situation, and its challenges, for policy makers is examined in detail in, "Service Bundling and the Role of Access Charge in the Broadband Internet Service Market, SHIM, Sunghee and OH, Jungsuk COMMUNICATIONS & STRATEGIES, Septemb er 2006", and Mr Turnbull and goverment policy makers would do well to read that research before they bvurst out assertions, as fact, as Mr Turnbull and the telecommunications spokesperson for the opposition, Senator Minchin have done. The competitors, aspirants and others in the Australian market may well desire another scenario than the rejection offered so emphatically by Mr Turnbull. Enrico Ferro says, "all operators shared the belief that policy makers should design policies to encourage the use of telework. As a matter of fact, this practice would significantly contribute to boost broadband needs of both residential and business users. Moreover, it would help in reducing mobility’s aggregated costs and the costs due to the negative externalities that mobility entails (i.e., environmental, social and health related costs). " .... The influence of household size on adoption could be linked to the amount of total traffic generated. As a matter of fact the higher the number of people living in a household the higher the likelihood of having one or more internet users generating traffic. From both the descriptive statistics and the multivariate analysis, the presence of three to four people in the household seems to be the minimum threshold for making the adoption of a broadband connection economical. To further test this hypothesis, data concerning offer prices and internet usage were analysed... in order to make use of broadband connections as a mainstream phenomenon, progress along the usage evolution path must be made by society in order to raise the volume of traffic produced. This, coupled with a physiological reduction of bandwidth prices, should allow usage patterns and connection costs to meet, thus resulting in higher penetration levels." (Enrico Ferro, ibid) "The UK city of Cambridge is essentially a high technology island in the middle of rural East Anglia. The surrounding countryside is relatively sparsely populated and the population is concentrated in villages with a thousand or fewer inhabitants. Many of the villages within about 20km of Cambridge have small technology-based businesses and they also provide homes for people working in Cambridge’s industries. As a result there is a significant demand for broadband services. Unfortunately this demand is not usually high enough to justify equipping the small telephone exchanges that serve these villages with ADSL equipment. The standard ADSL interface unit supports 300 customers 1 and it is highly unlikely that a village with even a thousand telephone lines would have enough broadband customers to use most of its capacity. Cable TV coverage outside Cambridge is very patchy and, given the current financial state of the UK cable industry, the cable network is unlikely to be extended significantly in the next few years. Broadband access using cable modems is therefore not an option for most Cambridgeshire villages. This means that, although people and businesses in Cambridge itself have good access to broadband communications, there are villages as little as 5km from the city boundary where the mainstream communications companies are unlikely to offer broadband services in the near future. The situation is the same throughout most of East Anglia and other rural parts of the UK. A broadband access solution for such villages needs to be viable with a few dozen customers, be scalable and involve low up-front infrastructure costs.... The ‘Cambridge Ring’ projects demonstrate how affordable broadband services can be delivered to medium and small rural villages using Wi-Fi (IEEE 802.11b) technology. An important element of the business model is identifying and stimulating demand by means of an active marketing campaign within and involving the local community. The technical solution uses widely available, and hence low cost, equipment and is scaleable from dozens to hundreds of customers." (Source: Community broadband networks in the east of England) Thus an effective broadband network across Australia is likely to be made up of cellullar components feeding off a backbone. The closer the backbone the better will be the remote service delivery. Now let us look at the possible impact on the Australian economy overall with ubiquitous access. "On the national level, one study found that ubiquitous broadband deployment across the U.S. would produce as much as $460 billion in economic growth per year. Estimates made by Accenture in 2003 suggest broadband could contribute $500 billion to GDP in the United States and as much as $400 billion in Europe. The nationwide impact of broadband begins in communities and individual businesses, where research has repeatedly identified positive effects including greater productivity and rapid employment growth. One study estimated that for every percentage point increase in broadband penetration in a particular area, employment would increase 0.2 to 0.3 percentage points per year. Another study found that from 1998 to 2002, U.S. communities that were among the early adopters of mass-market broadband experienced more rapid growth in employment and number of businesses in IT-intensive sectors. Internet business solutions have enabled private companies in the U.S. to save $155 billion and have helped companies in France, Germany and the UK increase revenues $79 billion. A survey of more than 2,000 businesses across the U.S. found that Internet business solutions had already resulted in a net gain of almost $600 billion by 2001 and would add .43 percentage points to future productivity growth through 2011...." (Source: The Economic Impact of Broadband in Developing Nations, Best practices enable developing nations to reap economic benefits of broadband. Intel Corporation 2009) Broadband networks can also be used to bring more citizens and businesses from rural and remote areas into the formal national economy. Transitioning more people into the formal economy can enable governments to strengthen the basic infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, etc.) in rural areas. Connecting the nonmetro population via broadband also enables access to e-government for citizens and businesses, and better educational opportunities for students who can be introduced to the technology necessary to compete and succeed in the 21stcentury global economy. ( Source: The Economic Impact of Broadband in Developing Nations, Best practices enable developing nations to reap economic benefits of broadband. Intel Corporation, 2009, download.intel.com/intel/worldahead/pdf/economic_impact.pdf) Conclusion: For personal users, it is the product offerings that will attract the user and also the household demographics, not merely the price. For business, institutions and society overall, the gains are enormous. Today, low-cost broadband and information technology are creating new kinds of businesses and entire new industries. They enable companies to be global exporters – including the export of skills, knowledge and culture which were never portable before. They can ensure that schools in remote regions and inner cities have access to the latest information tools. They link rural healthcare providers to leading medical centers and local law enforcement to national information grids. Individuals and local businesses can go global in search of low-cost, quality vendors, and Web-based tools can increase community involvement. By boosting the economic and social well-being of communities, broadband and IT can reduce the incentives for their young people to move away in search of opportunity and a better quality of life – but only if communities know how to put them to effective use. There are some factors should be considered as main factors while implementing broadband economies. Those are : 1. Community involvement 2. Technology Development 3. Income creation 4. Social cohesiveness (Source: Broadband Economy, Muhammad Awaluddin, http://mawaluddin.info/2009/03/broadband-economy/) Washington, DC, January 14, 2009 – The Aspen Institute Communications and Society Program today released its new report “ICT: The 21st Century Transitional Initiative.” The Report calls for bold and broad measures by the new Obama Administration to promote widespread diffusion and adoption of broadband communications, promotion of new applications in government and private industry using communications, and the use of communications to save energy costs and reduce carbon emissions. View the report "High speed data infrastructures are vital for the widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in public services, SMEs and households. They should be considered as important to the development of the Knowledge Society as (rail)roads, canals and roads were for the Industrial era." (EUROCITIES Broadband Manifesto, EUROCITIES is the network of major European cities. Founded in 1986, the network brings together the local governments of 129 large cities in some 33 European countries. EUROCITIES represents the interests of its members and engages in dialogue with the European institutions across a wide range of policy areas affecting cities. These include: economic development, the environment, transport and mobility, social affairs, culture, the information and knowledge society, and services of general interest. EUROCITIES website: www.eurocities.org) So what is the economic equation? There are a lot more players in this potential market than a few million potential subscribers, and a handful of telephony companies. Whilst the capital cost of the physical infrastructure may be $A49 billion what will be the aggregate value of all of the content carried on the network and what fees will the network owner garner from all of the participants over and above subscriptions? Will the subscriber base be Australian only or global? Not only television operators will pay, but education providers such as schools, colleges and universities, governments, enterprises of all type will want to create content offerings. These buyers of access for their content will be here in Australia and from overseas. They will want to be on a state of the art broadband network. They will pay the owner of the network and what will that annual income be? Hundreds of millions or maybe billions? If the income for the content is very high then why would the consumer be paying $A150.000 or $A200.00 per month. Prices will range in value according to content accessed and the type of access. Much like pay television but a lot more economical and configurable. The user is not the only source of income to cover the capital build and is by far the lesser contributor. The providers of the content will be world wide and they will pay a premium. The potential is limitless and the only barriers are our imagination and that of the members of our parliaments and bureaucracies. Perhaps no one has informed Mr Turnbull of the inclusion of television, data providers, public and private enterprise and a plethora of other as yet unidentified potential contributors? Whilst Mr Rudd may have embellished the description as "Australia's greatest nation building proposal" he may be far closer to the mark than Mr Turnbull. If the opposition leader continues with his current argument then he will be proven to be not only incompetent in understanding and effectively analysing public policy in detail, with relation to ICT, and without prejudice but very wanting in his vision for Australia and its future. ("A vision for the future: labor brodaband is it" Kevin Beck) |
| Foundatioons for rational policy making and action plans An asset's assessed value should no longer be used to determine market value in 2009 and beyond. The growth of values fro almost everything (except consumer goods) in the past five years has been abnormal and eveything was, and much is still, over priced. This is particularly so with housing prices in Australia. In the USA they are plunging as in Britain. This effect has not hit here yet and will be exascerbated when unemployment climbs in the second half of 2009 and defaults rise. To determine the likely value find a point back in time where the normal growth compound per annum was about 2% - 3% and extrapolate that forward to today. That will be the likely value of property in Australia in 2009 - 2010. Real estate agents are looking at demand and supply and that is a false indicator in this financial climate. They must look at the spread, and type of debt, and income, across the Australian community. The government should immediately engage the Australian Bureau of Statistics to undertake a census. Another wil have to be undretaken in 2010 to provide assessment points. Only then will the hidden effects be exposed, enabling policy makers to plan with some reliability. The current methods used by the Australian government Treasury Department are discredited. ("Exorbitant house prices, in Australia, are a direct consequence of local, state and federal government greed, instansigence, incompetence and market manipulation", Kevin Beck |
| |
| PREDICTING PUBLIC OPINION. GO FOR THE GAZUMP! SET THE INFRASTRUCTURE BOND RATE ABOVE 8% ANNUALLY AND SELL OUT IN A MATTER OF HOURS!
|
|
Catching the Opposition (Malcolm Turnbull, Nick Minchin and liberal front bench, analysts and pundits, flat footed For over a year interested parties have been watching Minister, Senator Conroy, and the federal Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, grapple with a recalcitrant, and anti-public interest, telco company, and the delivery of the election promise, of Australian labor, to build a high speed, to the node, broadband network across the nation. It was always logical to build a second major open access, open architecture network to enable true competition. The privatisation of electricity in Australia is a contrived model requiring mandated access on common transmission lines. This was okay because the State Electricity Commission of Victoria was a public entity. The telecommuicatons backbone in Australia was a public entity but without deep aforethought the government sold off the entity making a rod for its own back. Thus Telstra came into a monopoly. They were always going to make it difficult. If we look at the return on the asset base, for Telstra, it makes a monza from its copper cable. This is a nation of 20,000,000 people and the number of consumers that make an electricity company profitable here pale into insignificance against the Telstra market domination. An 8.2% government issued infrastructure bond, with a maturity date eight years out would be a high quality investment. The actual earnings of the entity would be between 20% - 30% after costs and and 15% - 18% after taxes. It is a brilliant equation. The opposition parliamentary parties and the small independents would be neutered on their criticisms. Telstra wants in. Why? Because they know that what I am writing here is the future. Again the commentators, and experts, who profess a political canniness about waht government may do, about the economy and about most things of importance, have been found to be off the mark. As usual they are all focusing on the money. Radio talk jocks, with demonstrably limited experience, awareness and knowledge, and those seeking to gain notoriety, and a voice, in the debate, demand that the government convince them. As if they are within that select group destined to be the appointed protectors of the public interest. Many are barely able to conceive the technology let alone assess viability. Where were they when the recession was knocking loudly? The mass record of analysis, of experts and critics, across the spectrum, is quite frankly very poor in comparison to mine. However that is another issue. The government's proposal will gain both credibility, and support, provided that the underlying intent is to open up the communications market and break Telstra's damaging, and anti public interest, monopoly. To add an investment sweetener would be another fillip. If, as a supplementary outcome, it was to get rid of the company's senior management, and current Board (as at April, 2009) along the way, that may be a benefit to, and please, shareholders and raise value, or not. I am long time Telstra customer and I could care less if they disappeared. They express little regard or communication with me perfering to be hidden on the net. I am an Optus user also and they by comparison are talking to me quite regualraly. They give a better service. Yet again that is another issue. It depends on your personal view, and experience, of their performance and capacity. You may not have been ridiculed by an unknowing, unaware, Telstra spokesperson in a parliamentary forum like I have been. Am I bitter not in the least. When they were booted out of the tender I noted it was because they thought they were above the process. I complete tenders everyday and I have to slave through and present a full complying document numbering thousands of pages, not a handful as Telstra presented. Good riddance to bad rubbish and on ya bike amigo. Off the blocks, and fast away, in the critiquing, and carping, was the Opposition spokesperson on telco stuff, The Honourable Senator Nick Minchin, denigrating the proposal, with not too much aparent thought and deep analysis as to the veracity and substance of their argument. Senator Minchin is the former Minister who spruiked the wonderful benefits of developing a light metals industry in Australia including the failed magnesium support, and investment, strategy of the former Howard liberal coalition government (2000 - 2003). Wasn't he thinking of putting $A200,000,000 up to a magnesium company in Queensland back around 2003? The sometimes odd Senator Fielding entered the argument, with typical disconnect between intellectual, and sustainable, economic analysis, theory of the ill informed and shallow drivel. He likes to get into an argument eraly to maximise his profile and that of his 1.6% or thereabouts, member of the Victorian state electorate. What the relevance, and linkages, between the Family First policy platform and that of this debate, and proposition, is not clear. The Greens are yet to raise their demands and tru to link the whole thing to climate change, environment, sustainable cities and blue sky. Nick Xenophon the other independent Senator was more circumspect. He will look at the debate carefully and pose probing questions. The government knows that he is a credible player in the debate as is National Senator Barnaby Joyce, who can do the numbers. Brnaby wil be on board all he wanst is the service at his constituents' doors. Then out popped Malcolm Turnbull, reinforcing the perception that he is not up to the challenge with his poorly framed response and typical reliance on a bygone era and reputation. A reputation now shredded by the greed, stupidity and afilures of others. He asserted, without any proof, that the government's proposal for a commercial vehicle to build and operate the fast speed network, with open access, would require a very large number of users to pay rates per month north of $A150.00. On this basis Malcolm, and the liberal party, would oppose privatisation of the nation's electricity system, lead by the state of Victoria, in the nineties. On that logic there would be insufficient users as customers to all of the competitors. The electricity transmission grid would be too expensive to provide the network supply infrastructure to the participating electricity distributors and retailers. Then we have the discinnect between current date and the history of their pronouncements. There are plenty of examples of malcolm, and others, jumping on the Internet value argument cliaming that Australia needs a high spped broadband to enhance its competitive position in the world. There are examples of them soothsayng how many small businesses could arise, and grow, little entreprenurs beavering away out in the bush and regional areas. People conducting business from anywhere in the nation. They have sparse, and selective, memories. Apparently Australia can only ever do anything innoavtive or mildly logical if its cheap. Thus the Snowy Eelectricity Scheme, the State Electricity Commission of Victoria and telecom, as examples would never have got off the ground on the current thinking. $A48 billion, woe betide us all and shock horror. What if the radio talk jocks, and the other poundits, were to actually develop another method of objection, and critique, than the expedient, and evocative, response - what about the cost? What about it? It is a commercial vehicle and investment proposition. We shpuld never build another power station, another mine, another rail line or any other blooody expensive thing. Politicians and their advisers have a record of failing to connect the dots of a nation's activity, and policies, and translate arguments across similar sectors. Eelectricity and telecommunications are similar in their behaviour, cost and outcomes. They both power everything. The Opposition argument, of Malcolm Turnbull, will be found to be spurious and all the labor government has to do is use the electricity privatisation as a foundation model and guide along with good design, commercial acumen and evaluation. In the next eight years technology will change just as the cost of the PC has dropped to small change. People need to be aware of this. When Malcolm Turnbull was challenged with the claim that Optus stated that he, and Senator Minchin, were wrong he resorted to (a) denigrating them as having an interest and (b) referred to his business qualifications, and success, and the expertise, and so very reliable, and skilled merchant banking industry analysts. We know how good they are. They now require the governments of the world to save them first least the financial foundation of the world as we know it, ends. The government should, and is, go for it. They should disregard the demand that the talk radio hosts be convinced and the pthers who have very little intelelctual property to contribute. It will, in the long run, be a far better investment, and economically valuable asset, than the claims made, and decisions, by the former Prime Minister for selling off ownership, and the public (Mum's and Dad's) investing in Telstra. John Howard, and his liberal coalition colleagues, paied 100% of public funds, to build a railway from Adelaide to Darwin as one of his nation building legacies. That was a wonderful investment, was it not Senator Minchin, Malcolm Turnbull? Let us have something other than humbug to chew on in this debate. ("Interpreting the Australian public mood and the future" Kevin Beck) |
|
Australian politicians and their staff, lying and misleading, the public " Trip denial 'a lapse in judgement' Leo Shanahan, Canberra, March 30, 2009, ACTING Prime Minister Julia Gillard has dismissed Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon's failure to disclose trips to China paid for by businesswoman Helen Liu as a "lapse in judgement". With the Government continuing to defend the embattled minister, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's office has denied it had any knowledge of an internal defence investigation into Mr Fitzgibbon, but is refusing to say if any other minister's office had concerns raised with it about the minister." (source: Fairfax: The Age, Melbourne, Australia, http://www.theage.com.au/national/trip-denial-a-lapse-in-judgement-20090329-9fkj.html "And if the Prime Minister’s chief spinner Lachlan Harris denied the story when initially put to him by Steve Lewis, it’s a remarkable act of self-directed stupidity." (source: Kevin Rudd: the PM who can do no wrong,FRIDAY, 3 APRIL 2009, Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane, Crikey: http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090403-Kevin-Rudd-the-PM-who-can-do-no-wrong.html) "A fireside chat in the Oval Office. A visit to Number Ten. An audience at Buckingham Palace. And one of the biggest headline from Kevin Rudd's two-week trip abroad is a "mile-high meltdown" from when he tore into an air hostess on board his VIP flight to Papua New Guinea earlier in the year. The "hostie" could not provide him with a special non-red-meat meal, apparently, so he reportedly spat out the prime ministerial dummy and reduced her to tears... Perhaps there's a nagging sense that he sometimes seems more energised by his job when he is outside of Australia rather than within it - the feeling that Australia is not really big enough to accommodate his talent. Your comments please. As for the mile-high meltdown? We all have tempers, but his is particularly interesting because it stands at odds with the public geniality which he tries to project, and which partly explained his political rise (those chummy, regular early morning appearances on Channel Seven's Sunrise programme were vital in showing that he could appeal to middle Australia). A while back, a Labor insider described to me a meeting with the Prime Minister at which he erupted into a "child-like tanty" [a tantrum] when someone crossed him. The episode speaks of a politician who has always found it easier to command respect for his intellectual prowess rather than attract genuine affection... 13. At 3:24pm on 04 Apr 2009, TheFirstRalph wrote: 5: Dennis, yes we do all have bad days but to bully a person that can't fight back in a way that would get you arrested on a commercial flight is a different matter. It would also be easier to excuse if Lachlan Harris, the Rudd?s spin doctor hadn't denied it happened, and been forced to change his story it only after the RAAF brass contradicted him. (Source: Nick Bryant, BBC - Nick Bryant's Australia, Mile-high meltdown Nick Bryant | 01:44 UK time, Friday, 3 April 2009, http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/nickbryant/2009/04/milehigh_meltdown.html) Rudd short with the truth: Turnbull, Lenore Taylor | April 04, 2009 Article from: The Australian MALCOLM Turnbull said Kevin Rudd's initial denial of a mid-air outburst towards a female RAAF cabin attendant, before his eventual admission that it happened, was further evidence the Prime Minister "only tells the truth when he is forced to". The Prime Minister's office initially denied Mr Rudd had berated the attendant on a trip from Papua New Guinea to Canberra because his requested meal had been unavailable." (source of extract: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25287004-5013871,00.html") These are just some of the recent examples (March - April 2009) of the manipulation and denials that now permeate every crevice of Australian public life. When the most senior people in our institutios and business lie and mislead they say to the rest of Australia, and its people, it is pokay for you to lie and misrepresent the situation. We should have little respect for anyone who acts in this fashion and those who have to deal with these people should consider being very careful about trsuting them. The decline in ethics permeates the nation no moreso than in the parasites' nests of Australian political office. Footnote: A parasite, used in the above context is, to my mind, an unelected person, working in a political office, paid from the public purse, who is not subject to the codes of conduct of the public services of the relevant jurisdiction and who places their political masters' well being, or their work role, above the public interest, above ethics and the nation's democracy and parliament. ("No ethics here - governments and political constituency in Australia", Kevin Beck |
|
The labor government has begun its social and thinking re-engineering and Kevin Rudd is seen for what he actually is The fact that the Chinese attempted to comprimise his communications, mobile lap top and presence at the Olympics he resorted to the bureaucratic response. He quoted verbatim a security document as if that is substantial evidence and indisputable fact and a protection. In the world of bureaucrats words are comfort, and powerful instruments, to be quoted. Kevin Rudd is a bureaucrat not a Prime Minister of individual, persoanl substance. He relies on oratorial eloquence and is not all that good at it. He is not compelling. The worthless cant he put forward, in his diatribe about how he is not worried about China spying on him, about a focus on security and best effort is hollow. Mick Keelty, the federal Police Commissoner, had ensured that anything the Prime Minister or government may offer is trite against the fact that a person was beaten to death at Sydney Airport. The Prime Minister has failed to act and is a contrived political persona, who resorts to the weasle words of bureaucratic thinking and motherhood. Here, look is the published words, the policy, the mantra, the gauarantee, he runs it off at will. The media are obviously incapable of seeing what Kevin Rudd sees, the critics are off the mark, here it is he says -in black and white on paper. We wrote it, and it is therefore substantial and effective. It is evidenciary and self fullfilling because we wrote it and published it. Never mind that a man died in front of people in Sydney airport, The Prime Minister and his minions take safety, and security, very seriously. Mr. Rudd, I feel, is full of it. It will notv take the electorate too much time to come to this conclusion. In his world that is the evidence words on paper. he has no orther resort, he waits for each enquiry to print its report. He will alter his spiel, and quote from new sources. His thinking is ordered and academic. It is a deep understanding of the system. It is humbug dressed up. It is about resaerch and having information, it is about analysis, It is subject to conditions like the advertising small print that cons us all. It is sad that a great place like Australia should endure mediocrity in its political leaders and now be captive to perhaps nothing more than a twat. History will tell but that is too late. Every government in Australia could actually be a oncer, except that hubris, and self interest, precludes the two major parties from stitching it up each time. The rule of George Bush proved this concept. Winning political office, in any individual or holistic electorate, is a product of money and external talent, not the quality of political candidates. Malcolm Turnbull should know this given his background. Yet he is not indicating that he gets it. We can put anyone, with a reasonable personality, communication skill and presentation ability, into any parliament or a whole party into government, anywhere in the nation, at any election. It is quite simply a product of money, lots of money and reach into the voter's world. There is a company caled Horizon that has a a research methodology that can assess electoral suport for a candidate without the need for expensive, and often, inadequate conventional polling methods. This information coupled with the communication's strategy delivers the outcome. It is just a matter of how much money the aspirant wants to spend. For this reason independents, and small parties, rarely achieve success. However human foibles stymie achievement. Individuals within political parties, large and small, it seems, would rather maintain their personal positions, and power, than risk losing their personal status by winning government or putting the party interests above their own. The NSW labor party is the leading example of this selfish behaviour, in an Australian parliament. Because of this the quality of democracy, here in Australia, is less than it could be and the parliaments are an unrepresentative, engineered, system of self interest and political graft. There are insufficiuent independent oversight bodies to reign in the politicians, who do as they please. The declaration of personal interest, by members of parliaments, as well as donations and campiagn funds, is a sham and largesse is accepted as part, and parcel, of public office. Graft, and the private support of members of parliaments across Australia, is hidden away and used when needed. When the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was confronted with the Minister for Health the Honourable Nicola Roxon, approved (march 2009) a rise in private health insurance charges whilst presenting a justification for increased costs. "Families to feel pain as private health cover fees rise, Article from: Perth Now, (http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23330699-948,00.html,) Michelle Draper, Jeff Turnbull and Jane Bunce, March 06, 2008 04:13pm "AUSTRALIAN families with private health insurance will pay about $100 extra a year in fees after the federal government approved higher premiums. The fee increases announced today were another blow for Australians struggling to meet soaring mortgage repayments after the latest in a string of interest rate rises. Consumer groups said some families would struggle to pay the average 4.99 per cent hike in private health insurance on top of rising grocery, petrol and housing prices. The fee rises, which come into effect on April 1, are expected to cost Australian families an extra $2 or more a week. Federal health minister Nicola Roxon said the government had managed to negotiate the funds down from the average 5.21 per cent rise they were seeking, although one fund was still asking for an "extremely high'' fee increase." This rise allows the funds to continue to pass the costs for the embedded fraud within the Australian private, and public health systems to the public. This fraud encompasses the manipulation of reimbursement claims, through item number manipulation, banking benefits for the future and overt and covert fraud by providers. The patient may or may not be party to these practices which will be exposed in May - June 2009. The Australian Minister for Employment Participation is Brendan O'Connor, appointed on 3 December 2007. The position is within the portfolio of the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Julia Gillard and is administered through the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. This role is a junior ministerial one. There is an irony in the portfolio nomenclature - Employment Participation. It is a spin name, created by the parasites working on the public purse whose role is to mislead, and dissemble, using weasle words, slogans and slick titles. The Minister has announced a renaming of the employment services, again with another spin title - Jobs Australia. The Minister talks of efficient systems. Humbug. There is no substance in this and the amount of money soent by the Department and the government on thinking of this name would boggle the mind. It is a waste of public monies when a government spends effort trying to erase the former governments footprints. These elected officials do not care. Their personal, and party, political interests are superior to the public interest. If you listen to Brendan O'Connor it is apparent that he is a parrot. He trots out the spin lines without any contribution from his own intellect. He is a minion following the senior Minister's directions and the Office of Prime Minister. He cannot substantiate an argument. He is short on detail. Reegineeering employment sevices will, ironically, cause the unemployment of several hundred people. O'Connor when queried on this claims that these people have skills that are in demand and they will get jobs. " Jobs 'at risk' in Network tender, Nicola Berkovic, Dennis Shanahan | March 30, 2009 Article from: The Australian "THE Coalition has urged the Rudd Government to consider suspending its $2 billion Job Network tender, warning that thousands of people would miss out on retraining and assistance in finding work as the dole queues lengthened. Opposition community services spokesman Tony Abbott said many of the 600,000 clients of the Job Network would miss out on crucial services because of government bungling. "A very large percentage of Job Network sites are going to be closing down in the next couple of months," he told the Ten Network. "There will virtually be no Job Network services in these sites in the three months it takes to close the existing ones and the further six months to start up new sites." In the past week, some of Australia's biggest and best-performing job agencies have been told they have lost their government business to provide employment services to the unemployed, as two new British providers enter the market. Employment Minister Julia Gillard yesterday defended the Government's handling of the tender, saying it was being conducted at arm's length and that it would be improper for her to interfere." (source: The Australian On Line, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25260876-5013404,00.html) Jobs being lost but detailed account delayed, Stephanie Peatling, April 2, 2009 AT LEAST 60 organisations employing hundreds of people have lost government contracts to run employment services but the Federal Government has refused to confirm the extent of the job losses. The Minister for Employment Participation, Brendan O'Connor, announced yesterday that the tender process to select which companies will run the revamped job-seeking program, Job Services Australia, had been completed. But he would not provide details about which companies had lost contracts or quantify the number of people who would be out of work, saying further details would be announced today. "What I say to those unsuccessful tenderers and those staff is we need their skills," Mr O'Connor said. "We want them to stay in the sector." He said 72 per cent of companies already running employment services for the Government had won new contracts. But he would not comment on the suggestion that this meant between 60 and 70 companies no longer had contracts." (source: Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/national/jobs-being-lost-but-detailed-account-delayed-20090401-9jre.html) This is motherhood tripe and demonstrative of the quality of the Ministers that govern the nation. Invariably, government is a mangerial exercise within a political straight jacket. So may parrots in public office unable to elocute substance and prosecute a compelling, and truthful, argument. China sells weapons to terrorist nations. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd rails against terrorists. Yet he is silent on this proposition regarding China. Many countries sell weapons including Great Britain. They end up in the hands of terrorists. China engages in torture, breach of human rights and is a communist, authoritarian government that tortures its own citizens. Rudd supports China why? For profit, for trade and for pure politics. He is in this regard ignorant and immoral.Mr. Rudd embraces a more prominent role for China in the International Monetary Fund. This is the immorality, and double dealing, of politics. China rebuffs Rudd over Tibet dialogue, Dennis Shanahan | April 10, 2008, Article from: The Australian "CHINESE Premier Wen Jiabao is ignoring calls from Australia to engage in a dialogue with the Dalai Lama over the question of Tibet. Mr Wen met Prime Minister Kevin Rudd for two-and-a-half hours today for discussions which were described as "good and solid". But Mr Rudd admitted that they failed to see eye-to-eye on the question of Tibet, which the prime minister yesterday described as "quite a significant problem". "It's quite fair to say that the Chinese government in their discussions with me ... their position today was consistent with the position China has adopted in recent times," Mr Rudd said. He said he had a responsibility to put his position and he had done that. "We have a challenging period ahead of us on this question," he said. "We have a different view, that is quite plain." But the leaders have also agreed to ratchet up the relationship on climate change with a new ministerial level partnership agreed upon. Mr Rudd said the two countries would have a semi annual dialogue based on intensifying cooperation on reaching a post-2012 agreement on climate change as well as ways of developing cleaner energy technologies. The countries also agreed to "unfreeze" negotiations on a free trade deal between them." (Source: The Australian, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23515071-601,00.html) The Prime Minister has a strong background in Chinese diplomacy and is well versed in the culture. This may be his archilles heel if he beleives that he has their measure. The situation of Minister for defence Joel Fitzgibbon is not his problem alone. Anyone who is a student of Chinese history and politics knows well that high ranking Chinese citzens overseas are a mine of information for the government. Anyone occupying a position even down to student level in universities is also of interest. A sophisticated human and machine surveillance network encases the world. Obviously the Australian government cannot entertain the crack pots who would have us stop trade, and investment, with China. The proponents of such responses are not unedaucted. The Greens and the Democrats border on the illogical and irresponsible. Yet there is a telling argument that western nations tolerate China's abuse, spying and general nasty, and highly, ignorant behaviour because they want the money. There is no ethics in politics, trade and economy. The proposition of regulation of human nature, greed and stupidity as a means of fixing the economic, and financial, crisis is doomed to failure. Then we come to Mr Rudd himself and his public persona. This has some very interested. What motivates a person who is at the top of their career to abuse, or treat others contemptuously? The Prime Minister is said to have had a hostess, on the RAAF Prime Ministerial jet in tears because she could not fulfill his culinary wishes. He did what one of his federal politicians did, abused people and he demanced that she attend anger classes. Will Kevin Rudd attend anger classes? Of course not he is the boss and bosses can act as despicable at they choose because they have pwoer. Kevin Rudd has no personal power, he derives it from others. Listening to his explanation I gained the impression that he was bored with the episode and dismissive of the whole affair as an inconvenience hardly worth his attention. He is engaged in heady issues and is at the forefront of saving the world's economies. For people in his position such matters are trivial. In response to questioning of his behaviour, he replied that Prime Ministers make msitakes and if he had offended anybody he apologised. making mistakes and being sorry is the new mantra of the political leader which worked so well for former Queensland Premier Peter Beattie. The Prime Minister is also said to have harshly berated (again displaying contempt for) Senator Fielding in front of others who are not members of parliament. The Senator is not well liked by the two major parties. His elocution and analytical skills are deemed to be wanting and his stance and arguments on significant legislation before the Senate does not stand up to deep examination. These glimpses of Kevin Rudd, the man who works hard to create a whole other persona, are telling. It is easy to stick it to the people who cannot resspond. Lapses are to be forgiven. Rubbish. The abuse of a person under any circumstance demaonstares that the abuser is not a leader worthy of respect from others. Pomposity, and arrogance, are too often accepted traits of our political leaders. Academics, sociologists, political commentators and human behaviouralists are starting to take an interest in the managed facade that may be Prime Minister Rudd. This should trigger a warning of a growing, high risk to the Prime Minister and his minders. The federal political arena is not a state political arena and it should be rememberd that Mr Rudd has minimal experience at the federal level having come out of the public service. He is surrounding himself with apratchiks from the states and this will cause ructions, and changes, in the Australian Public Service. On the face of it public servants are a-political, only on the face of it. We can look at the Federal Police Commmissioner as representative of the hierarchy. Mr. Keelty thinks that the response of the federal police at Sydney airport was within the accepted tolerances. A person was beaten to death in front of travellers at Sydney airport but the police response is acceptable to Keelty. This is the same person who spent an enormous amount of resources and police time dwelling on an innocent doctor in Queensland, Dr Haneef, resulting in his deportment. This failed exercise cost the tax payer about $A7,000,000. Now the government will have to pay compensation. Is this within tolerances? Kevin Rudd has failed to show decisive leadership in relation to Mr Keelty who in his role is an ever present danger to the well being ordinary people in Australia. Despite these inconsistencies, and poor record of actually doing something other than giving away money (a powerful aphrodesiac, and pacifier, to the electorate), the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (April 2009) enjoys a 70% approval rating according to the political pollsters. From whom? Unthinking Australians who are void of awareness and prone to off the cuff perceptions with little evidenciary substance? This is a bullshit popularity rating. The Prime Minister I think has an actual approval rating more llikely to be around the 50% - 55% range. This is largely helped by an Opposition political party which lacks a strategy, oratorial skills, has no great debaters, little if any deep, innovative and lateral thinkers, within its ranks. It is not in search of any because the political system is about waiting one's turn. The political polling methods, and selection of who is asked, are flawed and the questions are trite. The polsters stated that the Queensland election would be close. It was not and Anna Bligh was returned to office as this commentator predicted with a healthy margin. Public opinion lags the polls and the Prime Minister is on slide to a hiding regarding China, the economy, social engineering in climate policy, education and employment. During the electioneering Kevin Rudd said that there would be open government and changes to freedom of information. That was a silly thing to promiose and there are many advisers who are counselling against such wild abandonment. Fate will spell the outcome. China will do something that cause major incident and pause. It may be Tibet, it may be in pacific or it may be an avaricious hunt for world resource domination and pricing control. The claim that the OzMinerals take over was rejected because the Chinese could look over the fence at Woomera test range from the mine border on farce but are demonstrative of an underlying mistrust. ("Stumbling out of office - a soap opera produced, and directed, by Kevin Rudd", Kevin Beck, Melbourne Australia |
|
Ministerial accountability, reality and ethics The Australian labor Party across Australia has a problem with ethics, accountability and responsibility. The current Defence Minister Joel Fitgibbon (March 2009) knows the parliamentary rules for declaration and yet fails to register substantial gifts. When questioned by the media on Thursday 26th March 2009 he describes how he failed to register receipt of small gifts (plane tickets to China and a suit), he misrepresents the position in his parliamentary role. He then issues statement apologising. The Minister is lacking ethical integrity, describing how he made a mistake. The Prime Minister says that he is doing an exemplary job. The Prime Minister says that it is right that the Minister apologised, apparently on the oredrs of the Acting Prime Minister. Prime Minister Rudd seems to place political expediency above ethical integrity. He also has a narrow perspective on performance of the Minister'[s role in the Department. It is not all that flash let alone exemplary. The Prime Minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, has held a secret meeting with Chinese officials which raises questions as to reason and purpose for secrecy. Some contend that this was done due to the impending visit to the United States. The reason is known only to the Prime Minister and his confidantes. Extract source: "PM Kevin Rudd keeps Lodge talks with Chinese secret, Cameron Stewart and Michael Sainsbury | March 24, 2009, Article from: The Australian AS far as Beijing was concerned, the discreet lunch held at The Lodge was a case of exquisite timing. With Kevin Rudd about to visit Washington for his first meeting with President Barack Obama, who better to bend the Prime Minister's ear than the propaganda chief of the Chinese Communist Party, Li Changchun. ...... Normally such a meeting would be big news, but it wasn't because the Australian media was not told. ... Yet China's state-owned media was ushered into The Lodge and Mr Rudd was splashed across the Chinese press with footage of his talks on the nation's main television station CCTV. As a result, hundreds of millions of Chinese knew more about Mr Rudd's diplomatic activities than did his own countrymen." The Australian newspaper. Once in the United States, Prime Minister Rudd heartily endorsed the Obama administration's Fiscal Package, relative to toxic assets, going as far as stating that it would work. What if it does not? The theory is that assets will be taken from poor US citizens, property, packaged into securitised invsetment opportunities. Greedy investors from the private sector salivate at getting a house for a few hundred or few thousand taken from the purchaser by the morally bankrupt US banks and on sold to the morally rank and disgusting invsetors who live off the unfortunate. This is typically American capital greed and fiscal enslavement, dressed up as for the benefit of the nation. According to the politicians, and the financial wizards, the neconomic crisis is due to slack regulation and the desire of consumers to at first wildly spend and then to commit another sin by not spending. What about corporate debt and greedy, inept management and boards? The Prime Minister of Australia heartily endorses the process. He also is gung ho on being in Afghanistan with the US. Apart from the US appalling record at overseas military exploits, Afghanistan has a history of defying the most militarily endowed. The body count will escalate and the infidels will triumph. Apparently fighting an unwinnable campaign alongside the US is better than common sense and looking after the lives of our military or is theree a reasonable level of collaterla damage in Rudd's world of diplomacy? He really should look at himself. Mr Rudd takes too many risks. The message behind all of the current financial wheelings, and dealings, is that the wealthy, and developed, nations and the power collective membership are to be protected at the expense of poor countries and peoples. The whole approach is reprehensible and the Australian Prime Minister deserves to be humiliated by the impending failure of this "toxic activity". The Reserve Bank of Australia has its head in the sand and its analysis of the future as at March 2009 is substandard and blinkered. There will be a rise in defaults and drop in property values as the market deteriorates and an Australian bank, local governments and other institutions and financial enetrprises, take a hit on derivates. The debts of the poor people in the United States should have been paid with the trillions given to the US banks. On the military campiagn Australia and the Us would have to invade pakistan and stop the insurgents there to affect the outcomes in Afghanistan. ("kevin Rudd, Australia's High Risk Prime Minister", Kevin Beck) |
|
Malcolm Turnbull says (March 2009) that he is about creating the economic climate whereby people can take advantage of new jobs that will be created. He says that new banks will arise and that once the balance sheets of corporations are restored Australians would be well posirioned to take advantage of the new era. He talks of the sound Australian economy and hopes that Kevin Rudd will learn something from President Obama. What might that be? How to misinterpret the world, and America's place in it? Or perhaps how to adopt an immature and childlike belief and hubris. Mr Turnbull does not quite expand on what Mr Rudd may learn Unfortunately Malcolm Turnbull has either overlooked, or having ignored the signs, not told Australians, what is coming. Then again listening to him he may not even know. A debate about whether a small business is signified by 15, 16 or 20 employees shows us the quality of our policy makers and members of the federalo parliament. A total of 225 amendments by the opposition members in both houses, to the labor industrial relations bill, Fair Work, March 2009, were largely around minutae. A search by some politicians for relevance where they otherwise would have none other than by mere election to the parliament. Senator Fielding demponstrates the paucity of talent and ability to negotiate which are all too often the trade mark of small parties like Family First and One Nation. Fielding claims to have broken the back of alcohol's domination of our society? Another Senator appeasr to be deaf and unable to hear the clanging bells that go on in the house when a vote is imminent. Nigel Scullion says that he did not hear them because he was in a stair well. What rot. The bells permeate the building. Many parliamentarians can be dismissed as crowing about things of which they know, or understand, very little. ("Nice Liberal but wrong on broadband", Kevin Beck) |
|
|
|
Melbourne City Council CEO David Pitchford is listed as one of the big rollers pocketing over $350,000 plus benefits paid for by the City ratepayers and money collected by corrupt traffic officers. More then John Howard and Steve Bracks. Is he worth it? David Pitchford was paid a bonus on top of his salary last year even though the Ombudsman found the City Council under Pitchfords stewardship, with the assistance of ex-City Council legal adviser Allison Lyons, tried to thwart the Ombudsman investigation last year in an attempted cover-up of the crime of ripping off motorists. Maybe this is why he received a bonus. BIG-SPENDING local councils are paying senior staff more than the Prime Minister receives. Flush with funds as property owners pay record rates and charges, at least three Melbourne councils are rewarding chief executives with pay packages that eclipse John Howard's. At least 12 are paying chief executives more than Victoria's Premier, Steve Bracks. Melbourne City Council chief executive David Pitchford leads the list of high earners, pocketing a package worth more than $354,000 a year. Apart from a cash salary of $241,553, Mr Pitchford is also entitled to a 25 per cent performance bonus plus superannuation, a car and expenses. Mr Howard's total annual package for running the country is just over $309,000. Mr Bracks is on $235,000 a year. Monash Council chief David Conran has an annual package of $315,750, including a salary of $250,000. Boroondara boss Peter Johnstone earns more than $337,500 to administer the suburbs of Hawthorn, Camberwell, Canterbury and Kew with a 25 per cent bonus on top of his $232,371 base salary plus a car and superannuation. And Whitehorse chief Noeline Duff earns more than $292,700." (Source:http://melbournecitycouncil.blogspot.com/2007/03/ceo-high-roller-david-pitchford.html, Sunday, March 25, 2007, CEO High Roller) ("Parasites of Australia's public purse", Kevin Beck) |
|
Partisan self interests, questionable public service contribution and idiots in the climate change debate mix The future according to the Rudd Labor government is based on analysis, and modelling, undertaken by a wide range of sources many of whom are tied to the ideological mind set of the government. The Australian Treasury is unable to provide a foundation from which the Minister can bring the public forward. This department has a long history of getting things wrong. The Australian Government Department of Treasury modelling is heavily critiqued. Minister Wong, like Minister Joel Ftizgibbon (Defence) both know what happens when their departments add to the problems through their service operations to government. It intrigues me as I interact with governments, and public services, that their quality and depth of research is narrowly focused. They are aware of forces directly in their face but tend to be oblivious to the myriad of interests beyond their horizon. Most of those interests are not politically threatening since they are not locally based and organised. They become a worry to certain individuals, and interests, when they are annexed by local activists to build on political and social community and other themes and actions, here in Australia. Then there are those who use modern technology, and human networks, to influence international, powerful interests, governments, and corporations, social activists and the like, that can impact Australia's local politics and diplomatic policies and interactions overseas. Minister Wong has released the government's Emission Trading Scheme draft legislation. In the climate change debate is further clouded by the hysterical, and unfounded statements, of Green Senators in the federal parliament, their supporters and delibeate misleading political partisan propositions. The business interests are not likely to examine the benefits in the coldight of public interest preferring to frame their responses for self interest cloaked in emotive spin, like loss of jobs, fear mongering and holier than thou hand on heart take the money and run. We know this methodology from the current behaviour of manufacturers abandoning ship in Australia whilst trying to suck up every last public dollar or demanding public funds to hang around. The greater number of people, in Australia, simply take little interest in anything to do with public policy and government unless it directly affects them. In Victoria we have the government saying that they will invest a $A100 million, provided the federal government matches that amount, to build a solar power station. This wonder of technology will serve 50,000 residences. This is the sort of trite and quasi justified irresponsible propositions put about by politicians who want to get on the climate change band wagon and spruik their credentials. This, like Victoria's energy hungry multi billion dollar, desalination plant is a gross waste of public money. Over, and above, there is the short sighted electoral process where governments do things that are good for their next election prospects. They will drop anything, like a hot potato, if it hurts their individual political control of governments. Thus let's see what they abandon and when. ("Political and Social Commentator, Kevin Beck) |
|
|
|
|
|
The Reserve Bank of Australia says that opening up the ATM market
for charges to consumers would, via competition, reduce the costs. They also kept interest rates high to attack inflation beyond the necessary time frame.
They also failed to
predict
the current economic collapse.
The Australian Reserve Bank, like the Department of Treasury within the Australian government seem to make some
poor decisions
for the public cost, impacting adverseley on consumers and the economy.
They appear to hardly ever get it right in their estiamtes and assumptions. It i9s generally put about that no one could have anticipated what is occuring now
in the global and Australian economies. This is
not the case. The experts are, to my mind, not very good at
asimilating data, events and activity ultimately extrapolating into a set of future scenarios.
Nevertheless neither the Australian Reserve Bank Board, nor the Treasury Head and senior officers, will be held accountable or charged with incompetence for they are part of the power collective. The club that benefits regardless of performance or circumstance. The Reserve Bank, the regulators here and internationally, the past Treasurers of the Australian government since 2000, are an integral part of the network of collapse of the Australian and world economies. ("Can they see the big one coming? ", Kevin Beck, Futurist) |
|
The Prime Minister scores a political coup. Those who have lost their homes in the fires of February 2009 will go to the top of the social hosuing
component of the $A42 billion stimulus package.
The former merchant banker Malcolm Turnbull proposes that the rebuilding be a in aseparate package.
Why?
Visit the Foster Home of the Victorian Bushfire. |
|
Do Senior Executive Service members (SES - not to be confused with the State Emergency Service)
of Australia's public services provide real value for money? I do not think many of them at state, and federal, level are delivering the goods for the salary they are paid. The Australian Treasury has a poor record of predicting the future. Model away you hundreds of keyboard pushers and see if you can at least get somewhat close, once! Surprise us. On the face of it, it many of the public service departments in state, territory and federal government, appear to be unaccountable. They are performing taks with ever increasing failure rates, and offering advice, whilst avoiding any risk of being held to that advice and absolutely no risk of being held personally responsible. My rather caustic attitude has arisen from watching senior public servants in Senate, and other Upper House, hearings. It comes from communicatin with them regularly to receive no reply, an uncomprehending reply or a lot of drivel that misses the mark. Occasionally I get a surpirse. I perceive many of the senior executives to be smug, engaging in gratutious self indulgence in the lime light ofn their own rarity. The public services of Australia are a hot house of their making, gestation and longevity. They rarely demonstrate invaluable public service, but rather mastery of the rarified world of pompous public service, internecine politics and government sycophancy. They are government servants and the public comes well and truly last in the pecking order. Many of them decide what they will answer and what information they will provide to the parliaments. I think anyone who declines to answer a Senator or an Upper House member of a parliament adds to the corrosion of democracy and the denigration of parliament. It is a contempt swathed in the bankrupt proposition of confidential advice to government and arrogance. How do the Australian federal, and state Department Secretaries, compare with Australia's most under paid, most valuable, and most laudable, public servants? Obviously they cannot even come close to the sacrifice of the men, and women, who face Australia's greatest terrorist - the bush fire. They are volunteers or lowly paid, by comparison, public servnats on the front line. Opposing this are the very senior public servants, across Australia's public services, are paid a large salary whilst delivering questionable value in public benefit and manipulating the public process of Senate enquireies and the operation of parliament. They cannot run transport, health, education and community care such as child protection. Yet they remain aloof and unaccountable. ("State governments in Australia are unaccountable, so vote the party out of being a party" Kevin beck |
|
February 2009 government stimulus package and Julie Bishop The liberal opposition has decided to block the Rudd government $A42 billion stimulus package. The opposition spokesperson on Treasury Ms Julie Bishop has ket again demonstrated unsuitability for this important role in parliament. She exhibits a cavalier regard for poutting points forward with care. On radio (Wednesday 4, February 2009) she stated that $A200 billion dollar deficit would bankrupt Australia. This is blatantly false, designed to create fear in people who are not well versed in the value of the Austalian government sector and economy. I marvel at how easy it is to turn a deficit of a massive number to a surplus for a new government. Wunder tresaurer Costello ssemed to have this extraordinary talent. Or did he? Ms Bishop implies that Australia will be in debt for the next generation. Yet the Howard government, according to their own legendary claims, reversed a deficit of near $A100 billion that they inherited from the Keating labor government in 1996. Mr Costello took the budgett to surplus in a matter of a few years. Ms Bishop also disregards that a large proportion of the proposal is directed at asset building particularly in the education sector. This means that the $A42 billion will not be wasted as hysterically being promoted but will be offset by gains in social, intellectual, human and economic capital. The current modus operandi of the modern politician in the labor and liberal parties is one of lying and misinformation, spin and all too often, carelessness. Ms Bishop treats the electorate abysmally as if we are stupid and unable to rember and think. When such tactics are used it is usually because the perpetrator lacks the intellectual depth to argue the case proficiently. malcolm Turnbull was a merchant banker. He worked in one of the major entities that today stands humiliated as a leading participant in the global economic collapse. He is thus tarred with a brush of questionable capabilities and one of the areas where he is suspect is in economic and financial analysis and planning. He says that the government's proposal is wrong but does not celarly explain why. he also states that he has a better proposition but again can not elaborate. He is lucky. He left the financial world to take up a pubic office. If he were still in the field of finance and banking he may well have suffered a different financial fate. Ms Bishop might consider returning to practicing law and one hopes that she is more talented in arguing case law than finance and economics. At last we have thrown of the shackles of always seeking to manufacture a surplus and are engaged in nation development through investment. The scrooge economics of the modern government have held Australia back and the illusion of wealth has been shattered. ("Short term thinking and a fixation with surplus in Australia's political mentality", Kevin Beck) |
|
Waiting for a stimulus package February 2009 Waiting for another failure. Various sectors of the Australian business community and the traditional economists and experts are clamouring for an injection of money from government. The theory is that consumers must be stimulated and that spending must occur. The scond theory is that the economy must grow. If there is credit available business invests and grows and conusmers buy. But waht if the greater number of consumers cannot buy? What if the government spends on infrstructure will that create jobs and spending elsewhere? Yes but with limited effcts. Then there is labor's hoary theory that everytome there is a downturn and unemployment training is part of the required panacea. Never mind that it is a placebo. Shallow competency based training, the fall back, and harping position, of the Australian Council of Trade Unions. This is training largely focused on the people who will not deeply educate themselves. Theer is an associated theory that people undertaking such skill training can be migrated to some other sector of employment. Let us look at this scenario. A large number of people, with incomes between $50,000 and $150,000, mortgaged the equity in the house they either owned or were paying off because the assumed value had risen steeply. Interest rates were cheap so they used those funds and borrowed to buy an investment property or to renovate to a larger scale dwelling. In many cases the debt on the property portfolio was above 100% of the real value. Then they used credit cards to fund the additional lifetsyly, wekly payments, school fees and partying. In many cases the credit card debt ballooned beyond $10,000 to $20,000, $30,000 and believe it or not $40,000. Then it crashed. The interests cannot go back up because tens of thousands will be bankrupted and yet there are a lot of people who earn their living from interest on funds. It is a vicious circle, a trap from which there is but one escape route. Due to the debt trap and the vic ious cycle described above there are not enough consumers with the ability to spend left in the Australian, and probably many other economies. Their debt is too high and their disposable income is gone. The value of their assets is depleted. So creating credit access, and stimulus, will not do the job. So what must the governments of Australia do? They must reduce the debt to a manageable level first and foremost. This is an anathema to the market purists and the Australian Treasury. Pay off taxpayers debt partially? Why not? They did it just before Christmas. Is it better to give taxpayer funds to thieving and robbers in the commercial world? The bankers got themselves into this, let them crash. The governmment can look after the savings in them as it has done through its guarantee. Take all of the savings out into a government bank. laughable as this would destroy the bank base. So there we have it a vicious set of alternatives and scenarios, none of which are palatable. Brought about by crooks, charlatans, greedy fools, the uneducated, the unwary and the uncaring. Governments, regulators and the public service were asleep at the wheel. They bleat that no one could have predicted what we have now. That is quite simply not true. Correspondence flows into government offices and parliamentarians every day. It is read cursorily by people with limited lateral thinking, experience and knowledeg. The governments, their advisers and the public servants and the experts simplt did not look, read or take notice. They still will not. Their egos and positions are blocking the dialogue and the communication. If the government does not reduce debt quickly what will happen? Probably nothing initially. Then the Rudd government will have to fork out the money in a Keynesian world. In public and behind the scenes many will go broke. American empire and European Union will stagger and fall on their knees. ("Tomorrow when the world ends", Kevin Beck) |
|
Why don't they get it? Everything is over priced! However in retail cheap is the new luxury
Read what is
coming? Reality will bite. Australia is over regulated by zealots in the bureaucracy and our major infrastructure is subject to gaming. The bureaucrats are paranoid about competition and access. They create false markets and barriers to investment and growth. They are stifling the nation at state and federal level. That will have to change. |
Economists, politicians and investors keep talking of returning to economic growth when the current(2009)depression ends as if it is quite soon. What if we are still in this mess in five years? The seeds of the proposition (theory) of endless growth were sown in 1971 the Americans and driven by their self belief and massive commercial engines. "The American people have been told by no less an authority than the President's Council of Economic Advisors that, "If it is agreed that economic output is a good thing it follows by definition that there is not enough of it" (Economic Report of the President, 1971, p. 92). It is evidently impossible to have too much of a good thing. If rain is a good thing, a torrential downpour is, by definition, better! Has the learned council forgotten about diminishing marginal benefit and increasing marginal costs?" (source: STEADY-STATE ECONOMICS By Herman Daly, Chapter 5: A Catechism of Growth Fallacies "The part played by orthodox economists, whose common sense has been insufficient to check their faulty logic, has been disastrous to the latest act." (J. M. Keynes, 1936). Consumerism became the centre of the theory and this requitred a focus on monetary policy. The consumer is required to spend forever, rather than save, so the theory attacked the savings and superannuation basics. Some countries such as Australia had politiical leaders who could take a helicopter view, Paul Keating, Australia's Treasurer, for example. The labor government of Hawke Keating brought in mandatory contributions to super. However Keating knew the level of 9% was not enough. John Howard, and Peter Costello, by comparison did not and so spending has outsripped savings. Governments (run by rating agencies who scare them with bogus AAA ratings and whose predictions and assessments were, and are still, spurious) babbled on about surplus. This was, and still is, according to the free enterprise proponents, preferable to investment in public assets. Privatisation cannibalised the asset base of countries in search of never ending profits. Governments embraced the privatisation and "public private partnerships" voodoo put about by the masters of the financial universe - consulting firms and investment banks. They too cast the bones, and spoke voodoo. Underneath all of this sat the theory of developing economies and consumer aspirant demand. Places like India and China with huge populations clamouring to reach the American consumer dream and have the feckless technologies of the Ipod, MP3 players, the latest phone, the talking rock and the ever better devices, cars and symbols of wealth. The poor, well they could get credit and aspire to being rich at least in their minds. The second plank is productivity. There could be no wage rises threatening profits unless there is a countering productivity trade off. Voodoo theorists love this. Public servants, human resource managers and con artists at the management level created measuring systems and did what good staticians do, they created the result that management, politicians, the ratings agencies and the markets wanted. The third foundation was to create new financial instruments because finance, services and trinkets would be the new economic growth machines, not manufacturing. At one instance, in the late nineties fools prophecied that the "www - internet" would reshape us all, replace reality, bricks and mortar. There was the tech wreck, in the late nineties, which might have warned the average but in the convoluted and mosaical structure of the new paradigm the warning was lost. The finance sector grew hundreds of times faster than any other. The world casinos of the stock exchanges were pumping. We were driving our economic machines in the red zone day after day. Then they invented the risk reduction platform. This took very bad debts, investments and the poor credit stuff and sliced each into slivers. These slivers were put with mediocre, and some better performing slivers. The aggregate would thus spread the risk to minimal proportions. The theory was that the risk could never be realised in catastrophic terms. If any failure occurred then only a sliver to two would be affected. massive capital amounts were hoarded (hedge funds) and used to manage and play the stock casinos. Short selling to make a profit was rampant. Justification was that short selling exposed flaws in the value of enterprise and that it exposed porr performers. This was all nice and good if everyone playing the market knew this. Many investors were self appointed personal game players enthralled by their new electronic access to the stock exchanges. Trading became a challenge and a pass time enhancing socila position, conversation and sometimes wealth. Huge bonuses, and the demands of poorly educated, and greedy, investors turned management to the short trem. CEO's and Borads that challenged market theory, the voodoo economics, the mantra of surplus and the driving at high speed and revving were dispensed with. The demographics of stupidity, that is the population is a pyramid, with the brightest and smallest sector at the top, had sway. One could be both rich and stupid on a scale that would ultimatley bring the whole lot down. Today, in 2009, we have all of the above in play intertwined with theories and practices, that are reasonable, or bunkum in part or whole.
So we need to examine all of the above and any I have missed that are pertinent. While doing this we need to challenge the foundations, theories and practices and beliefs that underpin the way we work in society and the mosaic. "To ascertain the state of an economy most analysts rely on a statistic called GDP (Gross Domestic Product). This statistic is constructed in accordance with the view that what drives an economy is not the production of wealth but rather its consumption. In short, what matters here is demand for final goods and services. Since consumer outlays are the largest part of overall demand, it is consumer demand that sets in motion economic growth — so it is held. ... By focusing exclusively on final goods and services the GDP framework lapses into a world of fantasy where goods emerge because of people’s desires. This is in total disregard to the facts of reality i.e., the issue of whether such desires can be accommodated. All that matters on this view is the demand for goods, which in turn will give rise almost immediately to their supply. Because the supply of goods is taken for granted this framework completely ignores the whole issue of the various stages of production that precede the emergence of the final good.... However, it must be realised that at no stage does the so-called “economy” have a life of its own independent of individuals. The so-called “economy” is a metaphor — it doesn’t exist. Through lumping the values of final goods and services together government statisticians concretise the fiction of an economy by means of the GDP statistic. Furthermore, by regarding the “economy” as something which exists in the real world mainstream economists reach a bizarre conclusion that what is good for individuals might not be good for the “economy” and vice versa. Since the “economy” cannot have a life of its own without individuals obviously what is good for individuals cannot be bad for the economy. The GDP framework cannot tell us whether final goods and services that were produced during a particular period of time are a reflection of real wealth expansion, or on account of capital consumption.... We can thus conclude that the GDP framework is an empty abstraction devoid of any link to the real world. Notwithstanding this, the GDP framework is in big demand by governments and central bank officials since it provides justification for their interference with businesses. It also provides an illusory frame of reference to assess the performance of government officials. " (source: Is GDP an economic fallacy? Dr Frank Shostak, BrookesNews.Com, Monday 3 September 2007). FALLACY 1, U.S. Goods Cannot Compete Effectively with Those Produced by Cheap Labor in Countries Such as China FALLACY 2, Immigrant Labor Confers Economic Benefits on the Host Country FALLACY 3, Globalization Acts to Raise Living Standards in the West FALLACY 4, Countries Forming a Common Market Reap Economic Benefits FALLACY 5, Rent Controls are Necessary during a Housing Shortage FALLACY 6, The Fact That Womens Earnings are Significantly Below Those of Men Is Evidence of Discrimination FALLACY 7, A Reduction in Building Costs Will Reduce House Prices FALLACY 8, Jobs Are Lost When a Factory or Business Closes Down, and Vice Versa FALLACY 9, A Competitive Private Enterprise Economy Tends to Produce Economic Efficiency FALLACY 10, A Subsidy to University Education is Justified Since it Promotes Equality of Opportunity and Confers Benefits on Society as a Whole FALLACY 11, The National Debt Is a Burden on Future Generations FALLACY 12, Inflation Is Caused by an Excessive Increase in the Supply of Money FALLACY 13, The Rate of Economic Growth Over Time Is a Good Index of the Growth of Peoples Satisfaction (Source of the fallacies above: Thirteen Persistent Economic Fallacies, E. J. Mishan ISBN: 0-313-36605-5, ISBN-13: 978-0-313-36605-5, DOI: 10.1336/0313366055, Praeger Publishers ("The Fallacy of Endless Growth, Dream and Nightmare, an Economic Titanic", Kevin Beck" |
The world governments will have to buy the debt of a large section of the world population with regard to home ownership, perhaps credit, and other core items which are bankrupting economies. The governments should not buy 100% but they can buy the differential between what the house is actually worth and the unsustainable value they paid less any funds/convertible assets they may hold. The basis of the decison as to how cuh should be the economic evaluation of the multiplier of what a house is worth in the average suburb. It is worth 5 - 9 times the annual average income. Thus a person who earns $50,000 should be able to buy a house valued at $250.000 to $450,000 maximum. One house, not two and not houses for investment. Those who bought for investment and not for living should not have their excess debt proportion paid. This is not a concept this is what the governments of the world will have to do. As for shares and other instrumenst they were all overpriced. They will not return to where they were and will be probably 50% of the values we have seen during the boom years. International banks are withdrawing renewal of loans to Australian businesses. Since the banks are do not have the billions to replace those funds the government will have to turn to the superannuation funds. They too have been hard hit. The rules will have to be changed to allow funds to make loans and investments. Coupled with this will have to be a series of supporting measures.
|
|
January 18, 2009: Federal parliamentarian
Joe Hockey
would be a good
Premier for NSW in 2011
or sooner, if the good labor members of NSW parliament were to
resign on mass as an altrusitic public interest gesture. ("Eventually they will not have to resign, the voters wait", Kevin Beck)
|
| |
| Australia's banks are not all that forthcoming about their status and particularly their exposure to calamity for example sub prime and securitised instruments. Not all four big banks (National Australia, Commonwealth, Wespac and Australia and New Zealand Bank are surely not all in the same rosy situation. Is one of them keeping something from us? We will know very soon which it is and what it is. Could it be the Board, and management, fear a response from consumers, or a political reaction under the Australian government deposit gaurantee? Are all of the Australian banks operating their loan books to the full capacity or is one, or more, not lending all that much? Is the economy being oiled by the Australian government and not by the banks as well? ("When labor runs out of mpney?", Kevin Beck) |
| Some years ago, Senator and federal Minister Nick Sherry went through a dark patch in his life. He recovered and went on to become a federal Minister in the Rudd Labor government. The Senator is responsible for the vital portfolio that covers superannuation. It is not clear why he is qualified to hold this portfolio since he has not demonstrated a demonstrable vision, let alone an understanding of the criticality of the role that super plays in the economic landscape of Australia beyond providing money for retirement. Nick Sherry is a member of the tribe that openly reviled, and dismissed, Paul Keating's blue print for Australia's future using superannuation as the pivotal tool. Following the defeat of the Keating labor government a spineless, and decrpeit labor party, cowered when anyone barke at them. They were, and are a sad lot. Perhaps Bill Kelty alone is the epitome of loyalty. He was, and is, like Keating, a deep critical thinker. That is abnormal in Australian politics and society in general. There is a myth that the Australian voter is sophisticated in their political assessment. That is simply rot. Barely 5% of the nation's population creates everlasting and beneficial change. There are dills earning large amounts of money on all sides of politics, business and community. They occupy positions of power, and influence, and some (like John Howard and peter Costello) do ever lasting damage, no matter how the spin doctors and acquiescent media dress up history. When John Howard broke his promise to migrate the current system above an employer required 9% contribution, Nick Sherry and his labor colleagues were mute. Not every employer contributes. The employer contribution is not only mandated in awards. All other employers put it in as part of the annual monetary (salary) package. A lot of people are funding the compulsory contribution themselves up front. As the private sector debt ballooned, Howard and Costello played the entrenched promotion of political self interest, and political bile and bastardry, ahead of the public interest. Despite their crude efforts, and the lack of will of the labor party to challenge them, industry super funds blossomed. Vested interests, ably supported by the liar spin doctors (parasites) of the public purse that inhabit Ministers offices, tried desperately to destroy the foundation of Keating and Bill Kelty's creation - compulsory contributed superannuation. When Nick Sherry was spokesperson, before the Rudd government came to power, he did little to challenge this bastardry of the power collective. He really is a poor performer hidden away in the government spin doctor machinery. One trillion dollars of investment potential was created in a little over decade. It might have been $1.5 trillion if not for the myopia of Howard and his Treasurer. As Howard and Costello trumpeted their attack on public sector debt, in the back room $A600,000,000,000 shackled the nation. Howard came to office on the back of the foolishness of the Reserve bank of Australia which put interest rates up, crippling growth. Bill Kelty, a member of the RBA, during Keating's Prime time as Prime Minister, opposed the interest rate rise. Today history may judge him as the most intelligent member of that Reserve Bank of Australia, Board. The RBA is given to much credence, and pumping up, by politicians and an unenquiring media. The sport of predicting a new rate movement has become the primary motivation of commentators. They, the RBA, totally failed to to anticipate the financial tsunami. Perhaps even more critical, for the nation, they (the RBA, the labor party, media, commentators and most of the voting population) failed to grasp, comprehend and embrace, Paul Keating's vision, just as Nick Sherry appears to have failed to grasp the importance of the level of contribution to superannuation. All that Rudd has is the surplus and that is in itself fictional too. Sherry and the labor government need to come to terms with the criticality of the balance between savings and consumption. When to save and when to spend. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may have been gullibly sucked into spending $A10 billion of the public's money on a Christmas splurge. The current (false) assumption is that the economy can be saved by spending. The second (false) assumption is that there can be constant growth. The third is that monetary policy is a panacea tool to rectifying problems and changing behaviour or at least modifying it. Altering the cash rate is tinkering and the amount of interest (monthly payments) by home buyers, and its effect on the economy, is over stated and definitely over emphasised. Treasurer Wayne Swan may yet turn out to be a hidden visionary, grasping knowledge of the more complex issues that his colleague Minister Sherry does not demonstrate. The employee contribution into superannuation must increase. It must increase in 2009 and soon. It must go to 10% immediately and then to 12% and to 15% and then 25% by end of 2010. The proposition that the nation cannot afford this is a demonstrable lack of understanding of the facets of the real economy and a failure in complex thinking and analysis. Federal Treasury, under Ken Henry, is not a shining example of critical, lateral and visionary thinking. The media and analysts have not picked up on the mediocrity of his stewardship of Treasury and the constant failure to accurately predict. Politicians, and bureaucracy, is a self interested club in which the media (press gallery) are willing and complicit players. Let us observe if the Prime Minister has the fortitude to challenge the club and break from past practice. Nick Sherry cannot be left in charge if superannuation unless he offers an intelligent vision and plan. In the near future China will revalue its currency. It must turn inward, quickly, to domestic investment and stop selling cheap (exchange manipulated) exports on the world market. If it does not then its people will suffer and many may even starve. There is growing unrest. The revaluing will cause a major problem for Australia (particularly commodities) not to mention the rest of the world. The proposition that India, and China, are the power houses of the future that can shield Australia (even the world) is another myth peddled by experts. There will be a revaluation of rents in Australia as property values fall, quite dramatically. They will not fall by 6% as some forecast but in some areas by 10% and in other areas property will plummet, in February and March 2009, by 25% perhaps, in some localities, more. A large number of real estate agents (2,000+) and financial planners (3,000+) will lose their jobs. ("Endless Growth, Delusion Leading to Austerity", Kevin Beck |
| S Connory bites Below in this web site I raised the question, what is it that Senator Conroy does, as Minister for Telecommunications and the Arts? I should have done more research and I would have discerned that the qualities of a politician to be a Minister in a government may have little to do with actually understanding the portfolio and in the case the technology. It has more to do with the underlying political skill. Stephen Conroy is a seasoned political bare knuckle labor party machine man from Victoria. He cut his teeth on the taking and givng what the pwoer brokers of the party and the apparatchiks had to deliver. By comparison Sol Trujillo, the imported CEO of Telstra, and its Board members, are pussies. For years now Telstra's management have thrived on arrogance and ignorance, adopting a thuggish aproach to customers, competitors and to government. Now, when it comes down to the wire they have played a very poor strategy. The expert panel, established by the Minister, to assess the offers to build Australia's national broadband network have notified Telstra that they are out of the bid. The CEO, Mr Trujillo says he is not worried because he can go back to the negotiating table. The media echoes this poor judgement. Mr Trujillo and his advisers seem oblivious to the probity and rules of the Australian government tendering system and processes. These are jealously guarded by public servants and there will be no coming back to the table. Instead the Board will now have to strategise completely differently and try and keep Telstra together. Senator Conroy's skill lies in the surgical reconstruction of those who may think they are players in his world. Telstra's domination of the Australian telco market has just ended. Senator Conroy is likely to dismantle their play pen taking away their national railway train sets. The transmission network they use to bludgeon everyone. It happned in electricity in Victoria so why not try it in telecommunications? Quite logical and economically and socially viable, in fact good or the country. The Board now has to look to CEO's tenure to save their political, and commercial, hides and personal reputations. I no longer need to ponder what it is that the Honourable Senator does, I now know. Senator Minchin, a former Ministe of the Howard government should keep quiet and not clamour on about rubbishing the Minister remonstrating about Telstra having to be in the future negotiatioons least the spotlight fall on his own performance as the Minister for Industry and Scinece and his failed Light Metals Strategy. When Telstra barked at the Howard government they (the Minister Helen Coonan and the Cabinet) whimped it and cringed off. Senator Conroy, on the other hand, discussed it with the cabinet and the Prime Minister, and then bit them. ("Telstra board and management sit in a poker game, without the cards", Kevin Beck) |
| As the Prime Minister took the podium and announced the carbon plan in Australia the audiuence was hushed. He stated the targt and a woman screamed hysterically. He rude tirade adequatleuy depicts why the greens and the extreme environmentalists are not taken seriously in the parliament and ultimatley in the places where decisions are made. Armed with nothing more than rampant ideology and fed oxygen by an uninformed, unenquiring media, tshe is a forerunner of what is to come. Security is being boosted around Australia's major emission generators. The Australian government plan calls for a minimum 5% reduction in greenhouse emissions within a range up to 15% by 2020. The 5% is easily achievable for Australia's energy generators including brown, and black coal, power stations. There need be no major cost increase upon consumers becaue of this scheme but they will try and use this to increase their revenue charges claimimg the ETS as a justification. The energy regulators, in the states and the National Electricity Market, will need to be well versed and also be vigilant. In Victoria Australia the largest generation base is in the brown coal laden Latrobe Valley. Here the greatest impost may occur because brown coal is one of the hardest fuels to burn. The effeciency of power stations varies but is at the low end. Economics plays a big role in decisions and one power station may opt for megawatts output, when they refurbish turbines and boilers, with trade offs against efficiency because they want to make money from the electricity market. It is efficiency that will affect the emissions. One of the oldest stations in the Valley has markedly improved its efficiency. At the other end of the scale it appears that one of the generators hardly tries to improve efficiency. Perhaps the owners are not inclined to spend money? One issue that must be addressed in the oevrall national approach is to bring the disparate state scehemes into kine or shut them down. There is much inconsistency between the states and their schemes and within this is volatility, and morbidity, of the price of credits. The NSW gas scheme has seen the value of a tonne of carbon offset drop from $A14.00 to about $A5.00 due to very poor regulatory oversight and general gaming. For example the replacement of traditional light bulbs with new incandescent globes. Working the system has enabled the price of credit to be impacted due to the timeframes allowed for the globes impact in to the market. There is low, if any, inducemnet to invest in renewables as credit unit values have declined there also. There was a rush by state government agencies, without adequate planning and understanding, to get into the trendy emisssions trading market. It was sexy and new. These failures and poor management must be avoided. The state public services cannot be relied upon to be innovative or at the cutting edge. The capping of a tonne at $A40.00 under the Australian government plan provides a valuable guide when looked at in terms of the context. Now we can wait for the bleating, misrepresentation, gaming and cries of foul and threats to emanate. ("Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd will eventually experience a climate change of his own", Kevin Beck) |
| Strategy of giving the low income earners a cool $A10 billion to spend for Christmas will fail So what will happen when the money arrives in the bank accounts of the recipients? Well they will spend, and shock horror, a thousand retail outlets will still close across Australia, a multi dozen of car dealers will still close and thousands of people will still be out of jobs in early 2009. The experts at the helm of the major enterprises and the Australian government Treasury have demonstrated the limits of their skills. Everyone is a champion in the power collective of government, and business, when all is well. Then when it all goes to hell they are still champions, and experts, to be listened to. ("labor says throw all the gold over board before we sink", Kevin Beck) |
| AND POSSESSED A MORAL COMPASS I would argue that there is no need for a code of conduct if people actualy had ethical values and possessed a moral compass. It appears that there is a decline in ethical values and an understanding of fundamental behaviours. Democracy is a double edged sword. Every citizen of age has a right to vote for a representative in their parliaments. Thus we wil have a cross section of membership. Similarly the political parties will have a cross section. Liberal party politician Joe Hockey seems to think that Mr. Bidgood is not fit for parliament and this would fly in the face of the basic proposition set out above. James Bidgood might be viewed as strange and ignorant of some fundemantals " LABOR MP James Bidgood, the first-time MP under investigation for selling pictures of a protestor attempting to set fire to himself outside Parliament House, has declared the global financial crisis an act of God. Mr Bidgood, who was carpeted by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd over his actions yesterday and apologised to Parliament, makes the new claims in a DVD. In a speech to a function held in Parliament he argues that Christian marches for Jesus in London caused the October 1987 stock market crash. He also predicts the end of the world and one world monetary system. "I believe when Christians pray, God does things. I believe what is happening today is as much to do with God in economics bringing judgement," he said.(Source: Courier Mail.com.au,December 04, 2008 02:30pm) "I believe there is God's justice in action in what is going on here. We haven't seen the end of it. The ultimate conclusion is like I say, we look at Bible prophecy, we are going towards a one world bank and a one world monetary system. And if you believe the word of God and you read Revelations...you will see clearly what is being spelt out. We are in the end times." (Source: The Australian On Line Newspaper, Samantha Maiden, Online Political Editor | December 04, 2008) Being strange does not necessarily designate someone as unfit for parliament and Mr Bidgood's views may be off the wall but there are people who probably believe what he says. Mr Bidgood no doubt causes problems for the Prime Minister. How Mr Bidgood analyses, researches facts and votes on issues may bear questioning and deep examination. Should he be denied sitting in parliament or be expelled from the labor party? The former is not an option and the liberal party's cant can be ignored. The latter would not seem an option either. To expel Bidgood would necessitate looking at the sanity, and modus operandi, of other religious believers that sit in our parliaments including the Prime Minister. As for ethical values, Mr Bidgood is not all that different to a large number of members of Australian state parliaments particularly labor party members of the NSW parliament. "A political code of conduct for Australian Parliamentary members - is there one", Kevin Beck) |
| Ms Bishop might look to another career other than politics. It is not clear why she should enjoy such senior roles in the Australian federal liberal party. Her time as Shadow Treasurer is almost up and Malcolm Turnbull, the leader must look to putting a new face on the front bench. It cannot be all that difficult to confront the Treasurer Wayne Swan, whose stmbling arguments mixed with garrulous, unenlightening and tortuous meandering, leaves great gaping holes in his credibility as an effective economic manager. The proposition that Andrew Robbis suited to the shadow Treasury role raises the assessment process used in politics and the criteria that denotes capability. Mr. Robb is a strategist who delivered the government to John Howard in the past. His performance as a Minister in the Howard government, most notably his citizenship test and generally displayed lack of compassion for refugees and people seeking a abtter life may well have equipped hom for the inner circle of John Howard, Alexander Downer, Peter Reith, Phillip Ruddock and the oike but there was little evidence of a high performance in a Ministerial role. The quality that does stand out for Treasuer Wayne Swan is his persistence in the face of rodicule and criticism. There is no doubt that he applies himself diligently and passionately to the task There is evidence that he may grow into the role. In the interim his struggle along that pathway is excruciating to watch and to listen to. The substance is yet to come. In that regard (substance) he is not alone. The Prime Minister has spruiked volumes of hollow rhetoric and motherhood. Maybe labor and liberal are not all that far apart in specific characteristics. The personal view of performance tends not to take into accountbtheir hidden and less obvious roles as representatives of which many if not all are very good. My annoyance and derisive criticism is fueled by the operation, and manipulation, of parliament. And the archaic mandate where the respective leader requires the resignation of a person from a role because they cross the floor and vote their constituent's will. This requirement smacks of an arrogant fiefdom that corrodes our parliaments. ("Keeping up appearances" Kevin Beck) . |
| All very admirable. The ACCC have been keen to support fuel watch, grocery watch and have cast aspersions on the integrity of some of the retailers of food and groceries in their enquiry and castigated farmers. Meanwhile the Federal Court of Australia has dais that there is nothing wrong with petrol sellers ringing around to get prices and thus the ACCC it seems is worthless against the big refiners and oil companies. So what about all of that? Well people, with jobs, can probably pay for all of the rorts and the petrol prices but what happens if they cannot work in order to get money to pay for those rorts? What happens if the second person in afamily ot the second parent cannot work because there is no childcare? They lose and they go on welfare and we lose. The ACCC allowed ABC Learning to dominate so mcuh of the child care market in Australia that when they collapsed, in November 2008, the effect is that parents may not get child care to work and thus cannot pay for the rorts. So which was the more important of the ACCC's watches? The ACCC did not get it and ABC was allowed to become the major and now ... it is broke and some of its centres are running at a loss. So who is to blame, the past or present governments? No, I would say the Chairman, the Commissioners and the Management of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. They allowed ABC to grow and swallow and did not sound a whistle. So spare me the accolades for the ACCCC and reappointment of the Chairman. The current world crisis is demonstrating the real talent and capabilities of all of the big names in industry, commerce and institutions. All of them are real flash when it is going swimmingly but when the veritable hits the fan what are they like and how do they perform for the money? They do not seem to fit the media profile do they? Then they come to government cap in hand - bail us out please, please, it is not our fault ... give us tax payer money or the whole world will end tommorrow!!!! Gee we didn't know or we did not research and get it...! The combined hymn echoes through Australia's parliamentary corridors, "We are the kings of commerce and industry, hey, but we are the experts, we know what to do, we have learnt a lesson and we can reform ... we can be really new and on top of it .... here are the solutions .... among other things we the ACCC, now know not to let a child care provider have that much of the market. Sorry about that lapse it will not happen again, promise. Let's see, hey, give us money and we will fix it? $A22Million of tax payer funds to help ABC Learning look after kids so parents can work to pay the rorts we cannot fix or have discovered . That's a good number until Christmas. Excellent.. thanks ... Is Prime Minister Kevin Rudd part of that power collective club and easily manipulated by smooth talking? I do not think he is and nor is Deputy Prime Minister and Minister Julia Gillard. ("Austarlia's regulators sleep a lot", Kevin R Beck) |
| New South Wales, Queensland and Australia Next the pool of talent occupying our businesses, governments and agencies is too narrow and lacking in the necessary skills to handle this situation. They are all stars when the going is easy. So Australia must tap its talent bank quickly and draw on a wider base of thought, ideas, skills, experiences, lateral thinking and contribution. Kevin Rudd's creation of a new web site to establish dialogue, will not do that. Nor will having a wet behind the ears Chief of Staff with the exeperiences, and hard to determine capabilities. The Prime Minister's office is as exciting as a cold cup of tea. If you have had anything to do with any of the recruitment agencies and the policy meanderings of the governments of Australia you will be aware that this is a mammoth task since they are oblivious to this need. They act as if there is a choice of candidates and a wide pool of talent to draw upon. The humna resource industry in Australia lacks credibility, vision and capacity. The companies are suffering in the hands of people who are incapable of managing and leading. The nation wil suffer dramatically for failing to value its human assets. The older generation, across a wider sector of the nation, must be called back to arms. Infrastructure spending should proceed a pace by all governments. John Brumby, Premier of Victoria, should carry his own weight instead of bleating for a contribution from the federal government. The lieks of Minister Tim Holding should get a grip on reality and think about his statement that if people want new beaut water systems then they have to pay. The reason there are no adequate water systems in Victoria, and in Melbourne, can be sheeted home squarely to the labor state government and his colleagues. Now he lectures in his new portfolio, his last one was not a record of high achievement. Why not dam the flooding rivers of East Gippsland, like the Mitchell River? That seems all too easy. The government refuses to engage in a debate about that, so typical of the nature of our governments and bureaucracies. Instead they want to take water from a parched area of the state. Is this stupidity or do they know something that is not obvious to others? The government, and the utility, prefer to engage in thuggery, allowing people to be arrested for asserting their voices and protesting. What a flakey lot the labor state government Ministers of Victoria, NSW and the nation generally have turned out to be. Western Australia's new liberal government are emulating the model. ("Get a grip", monitoring voter perceptions in Australia, Kevin Beck) |
| The Prime Minister rises, and fluffs himself up like a bantom rooster. he looks accusingly at the leader of the oppsoition and demands to know if he is impugning the reputation of the head of Treasury. This man is now one of the most well known mandarins in the nation, Dr. Ken Henry. he himself has been prone to becoming ruffled and precious when questioned vigorously and impugned in the Senate. The thing is that Ken Henry gets a lot of money and he is not openly acountable and able to be examined except by the club. The club is the public service secretaries and the head of Prime Minister and Cabinet. He heads a department renowned for poor research and analysis. This is not remarkable, or exceptional, since the Australian Public Service's research, knowledge and intelligence gathering analytical capacity has declined and is now, in my view, sub standard. There are too many contract experts employed who are not expert. They are paid millions. For example research Booz Allen and KPMG payments for their work on the Australian government Access Card which was abandoned by labor becaus ethey thought the analysis was suspect. Labor Ministers and advisers would not actually know becaus ethe labor party itself has no high quality research and analysis other than polling opinions. They employ spin doctors in lieu of anlaysts and quality practitioners. The payments total, how muc? Fourty million, more? For no outcome. Treasury has failed to get remotely close to the annual estimate of actual revenue, failed to even remotely predict any aspect of the current world financial fiasco (2008). They have a growth rate predicted for 2% for Australia as at November 2008, when it should be about 1% or 0.9% negative for the first half of 2009. They are, overall, a department that cannot be relied upon for accuracy and prescience. So why should the parliamentary members not question the information and performance, the capacity and even the integrity of their work and tat of the Secretary. Treasury's most recent reserach, and analysis, effort is the Climate Change economic modelling. The paper is an execercise in pure fiction. It predicts situations some fifty years into the future, some ten years, some five and probably even tommorrow. It is laughable but also dangerous. Very dangerous. Treasury has no credibility in predicting how much revenue the government will get from year to year, what the growth rate and inflation rates will be from day to day. It is a costly department that no doubt does other things than crystal ball, and palm, reading. Perhaps they should concentrate on the real world and the process services they undertake regarding machinery of government and leave deeper research, and analysis, to others, who may have a better record. It seems that government has at last cuaght up with my analysis. Now given Treasury's record one might think that politicians, namely Ministers, would be wary? But not Ministers Penny Wong and Peter Garrett. They are creating policy frameworks and spruiking the story, waving the Tresaury report. They are as credible as Treasury and I think both should be ignored. They have not yet figured out how, and who to engage, in the debate. They are two dangerous people, in Ministerial roles, creating a speculative future. The bantom rooster is right behind them. ("Be careful if you want to participate, in Australia's governments and public services, they do not like that. They can be mean in response", Kevin Beck) |
| So what will the Climate Change and Water Minister, Ms Penny Wong, and the Cabinet Ministers do in rleation to carbon trading the EMS and limiting their own swarms? Will they confront the ever growing monolith of the APS sever farms and the embedded infornmation technology giants and demand that the public service, and the parasites on the public purse, cut back on the impost within the government and reduce their footprint? Or will the public service be exempt in the public interest? I think the Minister and Cabinet will whimp it and the big corporates and internal interests will prevail. Ministers Lindsay Tanner and Senator John Faulkner have already had a look at the cost of information technology and they know that it is fruaaght with self interest and the maintenance of the status quo plus some. The growth of information technology in the public srvice is an exercise in manipulation without being corrupt. It is a sweet thing. Cream for the big corporates. Bad luck for the tax payer. But have the Ministers, and the Prime Minister, and State Premiers, and Chief Ministers of the territories, considered that federal and state governments, and their agencies and the big information technology companies, within and without the public service, (web service providers like Microsoft, Google, Telstra and Optus etc, and the big corporate computer installations in private and public corporations, universities, are all among the great polluters of the Australian economy |
| "The Honourable Gentleman should not generate more indignation than he can conviently contain." (Winston Churchill) So it was in the Australian federal parliament in the week of the 19 October 2008 when the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd responded to the leader of the Opposition's question regarding Dr. Ken Henry (head of the Treasury) and his advice to cabinet, with indignation. Was it contrived, feigned or real? Who can tell? Politics is such a dishonest profession. The Prime Minister does not have the stature, or eloquent turn of phrase, to carry off contrived indignation. If he was truly enraged then he needs to work on the presentation for it was lamentable and shallow. He, the Treasurer Mr Swan and Doctor Henry had decided to gaurantee all bank deposits. If these three did not know the outcome of that decision and its full impact then they are deficit in their knowledge of the financial market and lateral thinking, or they re poorly advised and maybe Treasury is inept. The latter, based on Treasury's past record of analysis and predictions, is a high likelihood. There was a run on investment institutions. Now the government is thinkng about imposing a fee for the gaurantee. This still does not rectify the problem. The message from the government is that investment accounts are different to bank deposits, but "we understand your pain". Truly? Politicians are members of the elite. They are not battlers. The Prime Minister, Mr Swan and Treasurer Ken Henry enjoy substantial salaries and careers. Such people are disingenuous when they say bthey understand the plight of pensioners. Swan's first response was a usual limp one. This man still has me wondering why he is thought to be qualified to be Treasurer? He stated that he was seeking ugent advice from the regulators. There are a growing number of people who think the Treasurer, Mr Swan, is not up to the task. It is interesting how people in positions of power will claim full expertise when everything is going well. In the preelection campaigning Rudd made it unambigupous that he thought he was the best man to perform miracles, keeping a lid on grocery and petrol prices, handling the coming diffocult times. Even though he was unable to articulate what thos times might be. They will also say that if things become diffocult only they can make the hard cecisions and will know what to do. Really? They all now seem to have been found to be severely wanting when the abnormal hits the fan. Government Ministers, regulators, commentators, chiefs of industry and so on. The politicians, the advisers, the public servants and the experts bleat that this is a unique set of events. That no one could have predicted the events of the end of 2008. This is not so. They simply did not, others did and wrote to the Ministers and the bureaucrats, and/or the media and/or published articles. They were ignored. The external no bodies are always ignored. We are now seeing the full extent of their lack of competencies and in some cases their bluster and arrogance used to mask their failures. Empty rhetoric flows like the cow dung it is. Now adays senior public servants like to give interviews and speeches but are incensed if they are challenged in the political arena. Theye are incensed if they are questioned too robustly in the Senate. They like it both ways. They play politics but are a - political. They hide behind a contrived code of conduct and a set of agreements and protocols. This is pure theatre for the gullible and uninitiated. Observing Dr. Henry in the Senate Estimates was an nothing more than an exhibition in body language and human behaviour. What are you implying Senator? Dr Henry lunged forward in his seat. The Senator had said that the response had not rung true? Was the Senator casting aspersions on Dr Henry? He seemed very precious as to his position. One could be forgiven for forming the view that senior bureaucrats, particularly the mandarins of the public service, have little regard for the process and the participants. There always to my mind is a veiled air of arrogance and even contempt displayed by senior federal public servants, not only for politicians but for those they perceive as beneath their attention or not worthy of a meeting or even a reply. "All political parties die at last from swallowing their own lies." John Arbuthnot, Scotland). Thus we see the decline of the liebrals first, at the federa;l level, and then labor across the states and territories. The problem for Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan is that events are bringing their credibility decline forward at a rapid rate. The opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull, is doing what all oppositions do. He is "devoting his chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule, and both commonly succeed, and are right." (Mort sahl, US comedian). British Actor, Patrick Murray, said "politicaisn are like nappies. They should be changed regularly". Unfortunately it is difficult to change the incumbents of Australia's politics since democracy has been stolen from the people by the two major parties. As for wayne Swan's clarifications, and responses, they are an exercise in tunnel digging. John Quintan a British political commentator said that when politicians see light at the end of the tunnel, they order more tunnel." There appear to be no lights on in Mr Swan's tunnel systems. Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance (H.L Mencken, US political commentator) and the ignorance is on display this week in Austra;lian federal politics and bureaucracy. When there is an expectation fo some momentuous statement, at the Press Club or in the parliament, we wait with baited breath. We expect the ocean, we expect something big, something colossal, but we are served instead with some agitated water in a sucer (French criric Louise Schneider) and it is tepid water. Now we wait for the brilliant policy response to the problems created by the government, for the private investment funds and the convoluted parroting of the spin lines. ("She can be Wong", Kevin Beck) |
| With predictable regularity they will trot out their myopic education policies. Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister for Education, Employment and some other huge portfolios, Ms Julia Gillard has resported to labor's hackneyed proposition that training is a salve, and solution, for people who become unemployed. According to this theory the unemployed person accesses one of the many vocational education, and training (light weight - quick fix, mediocre based) programmes which will somehow provide them (miraculously) with new skills to get a job in a completely different field of endeavour. This has been labor's ideological dream for some twenty years now. It has, among other things, produced a nation of under educated, semi skilled workers who continue to be at risk of loss of employment every time there is a down turn. It has helped fuel a growth in casual and part time employment. It has exacerbated Australia's decline in quality education and curriculum. Comptency baseed learning does not challenge the development of deep critical skills and learning needed for career and sustainable employment options but still Ms Gillard and the ideologs persist. This is not an education revolution. |
Bank Preys Upon Consumers with New Credit Card Perhaps the most striking of all the ignorance, or disregard, of the coming events is the issuance of new cred crads by Woolworths and the National Australia Bank. Woolworths is offering no interest charges on its card until February 2009. The NAB is offering a National Australia Bank and Qantas(advertised October 18, 2008) frequent flyer linked card. Already Australians are amongst the highest users of credit cards in the world with up to 14.4% of many peoples' net incomes devoted to paying the interest on these merchants of avarice. The banks make a fortune on credit card fees and charges. They are viewed as being engaged in usery by those who know the effects of this rampant issuance. They prey upon the weak and the desire for consumption. Even as Kevin Rudd uses $A10 billion of public funds, and garantees deposits, in all banks the NAB sends its message of disregard and ignorance. It wants Australians to binge even more. People want to get free travel and goodies and they spend. The card gives minimal reward points to lure. Kevin Rudd should withdraw the gaurantee from the National Australia Bank if this is their attitude. But we know this cannot happen. They are simply an ignorant lot to be publicly condemned. Maybe they are just unaware and silly. It is very difficult for those who have ever lived through a recession to comprehend what is coming. The youth of today have grown up with a paternalistic government that has told them that life was meant to be comfortable. This has been reinforced by the advertising of consumption. Spend, spend, spend. Today, for our economy to function, everyone must spend and to reach the required level they must enter into debt. Debt is made to cheap to entice them. If they pay down their debts and do not spend then we slide into calamity. We have created a monster that controls our government and our daily lives. What alternative is there? Is it necessary to have growth of 2% year after year? The government largesses has delivered a wonderful surprise to many people who would not have had the resources to brighten their lives at Christmas. This money must be spent. Fortunately a large number of Australians have been trained to cosnume without a thought of tommorrow. Still there are those who either do not get it or are prepared to punt. On a Saturday in October 2008 a woman, and her husband, bid for a house in melbourne. They pay $A30,000 above thye vendor's hope. They made the decision to sepnd an additional thirty grand because the Reserve Bank had reduced interest rates by 1% and they had heard there would be more cuts. They made a bad call. Real estate agents across the countrty are still clinging to a dream past that the prices people have paid for houses in Australia reflect value and are the benchmark upon which to go forward as if noothing bad is, or will be, happening. The houses sold in the past two to three years, are over[priced between 25% and 560%. The single young worker is also oblivious to a great degree. Some in casual work or in unskilled employment are very worried. However the young professional thinks that there is a blue sky all the way. Unemployment will rise towards 10% and forecolsures on houses will rise by 5% to 6%. Even if people who bought the houses survive the loan storm their house will be valued below what they borrowed. Not some of them all of them. Those who renovated will find that they have over capitalised. Rents will fall. Mobile phone companies, and elecronics manuafcturers, game machine makers and the home entertainment sellers all think that their sales will be maintained. The end of the love affair with technology is nigh. People will not be able to afford them. Telstra's income will fall dramatically along with Optus and a phone company (probably 3G) will disappear from Australia. There is no saviour asthe days of Keynes are upon us. ("Be comfy it is all okay says Swanny", Kevin Beck |
|
|
|
|
But so what! Alternative opinion falls on deaf ears. Every year that the Rudd government does not introduce a smart card for social payments adds $A200 to everyone's financial bills not to mention the fraud and the possible savinmgs of tens of millions of dollars on the cost of aged and anachronous information systems. The Access card tender of 2007 - 2008 cost industry tens of millions but the publics ervice and politicians dismiss this stupidity and waste as irrelevant. There is no onus on banks, and other enterprises, to introduce smart cards whilst the government uses low level insecure methodologies which fail to protect public funds expenditure with the best available yechnology. The government has swallowed a public service line that fraud can be reduced by tweaking internal paperwork and cumbersome information technology systems. Smaret cards would attack the power base (control) of internal information technology divisions and incumbent external companies operating serviuces under contract on government agency premises. Banks themselves maintain their internal credit card checking systems, again under the control of information technology divisions, that are costly. They are charging these activities to customers. Perhps the Minister does do not see the link between sound policy forcing innovation, and efficiency, across the nation on institutions that maintain the status quo for their exclusive benefits. The labor policy is both myopic and retarded in lateral thinking analysis. ("Wasting a cool $A60,000,000 plus" Kevin Beck) |
| There has been extensive, and prolonged criticism, of the Prime Minister and his stytle of going about government. The hallmark of his tenureship up to October 2008 was to arrange an enquiry and to proffer arduous convoluted expolanations with little substance action. Then it all changed. In a decisiove show of leadership the Prime Minister moved to gaurantee all deposits in Australia's banking, building society and credit unions, for three years. To also gaurantee insurance claims. No doubt spurred on by the calamity he made it quite unequivocal and clear. The Treasury should have argued strongly that the original gaurantee of $20,000 was fraught with problems. Perhaps they did, who knows? In any event the Prime Minister did not prevaricate unlike his international counterparts who stumble around listening to, and taking advice from, the collective that put the world in the current predicament. In the United States the greed and avaraice of the Wall Street banker and trader has been submerged. Yet they still participate salivating at the proposition of getting their hands on billions. ("The economic engineers stay in charge of things", Kevin Beck) |
| A Government and bureaucracy out of touch with reality, lacking in awareness The Rudd labor government seems to approach policy actions with a minimalist effort going for the least risky or half hearted attempt to alleviate angst. This can be seen in their response to the inadequate pension rate having admitted they could not live on the weekly pension. They come across as half baked. For example take the bank deposit gaurantee. Mr Rudd announced that the government would gaurantee deposits for each person up to $A20,000. Then he had tio call a cabinet crisis meeting to discuss not only world events as the Treasurer is overeas, but also discuss raising the gaurantee even before the legislation was dry on paper. The government, Ministers and senior bureaucrats are somewhat out of touch miscalculating the outcomes of such a proposition. Those with more than $A20,000 would split the deposits between institutions. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) and Climate Change policies will have to be revised and shelved for the time being. Water policy, is a patch work quilt of disjointed approaches, where states cannot agree, and is likely to fail in solving the crisis in the short. medium and longer term. Build a dam on the Mitchell River, in Gippsland, stopping the flooding that ravishes the community, and pipe water to Melbourne and into the Murray system. The Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard talks of unemployment below 5% in the near future when in fact it will rise dramatically in 2009. It will go to about 7% or 8% perhaps higher. There is an education revolution without the revolution. Hyperbole, rhetoric and gobbly gook statements based on out of date information, poor modelling, assessment, and analysis, by people with no experience of the world we are now seeing and or the one that they want to create. It is not just the labor government, it is the Opposition also, under Malcolm Turnbull. It is a political system of government where the parliament is neutered. It is focused on point scoring, and self grandiosement, for poll results and game playing, sport for the media. The spin doctors', and advisers', traditional methods are worthless now. Controlling the news cycle is passe'. WHAT TO DO? What if the government created an investment strategy to attract deposits into banks and other approved funds, and allowed tax free status on the earnings? Why is interest on bank savings taxed? Why are earnings on superannuation taxed? Get rid of these taxes. Australia has an aging population and yet the policies of Austrlia's governments are predicated on the middle aged and working classes. These policies have fuelled delusion and excessive debt and a dependancy on government. There are too many talented people excluded from participation in government, democracy and community. The government could undertake a stock take of Australia's talent, not in the anonynmous sense but with targeted real information gathering, seeking our the hidden human capacities. The census can be modified to incorporate a separate qualifications, resume, skills, and experience, section with an optional identity provision. This information can be fed into a database and indexed with keywords that enable governments and agencies rto seek out the hidden expertise and draw upon a wider talent base. This may break down the stranglehold of limited participation and same old, same old, appointments and representatives on committees and studies. Widen the Senate and House Standing and Enquiry Committees to include citizens. ("Reality check and voter behaviour", Kevin Beck |
| The Honourable Senator refuses to accept that the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will not be starting in 2010. In a lame response to the proposition that the current global financial crisis decalres an ETS dead in that timeframe she says that the conditions and impacts of the crisis will be "factored in". How, using what methodology and approach. It is an easy throw away line that may demonstrate a lack of awareness, and grasp, of the ramifications. Climate Change policies may be scientifically grounded, and driven, noble and altruistic but they are also ideological and dangerous when taken in isolation. Many of the strident voices have been clamouring in the background for decades unheard and ignored. Then suddenly they are given credence and coverage by the media and governments. Would they not use every tactic at their disposal to ensure that their glory road is achieved? The Greens particularly, and the academics, trodden down under the Howard era of denigration are now loosed upon society. Are we to assume that the Prime Minister is going to use his exceptional diplomatic skills to bring the world's major polluters, political and business interests on board? Or will he, and his Ministers, ride over the abyss along with the nation? Both Prime Minister Rudd, and Minister Wong, must be aware of the up front, out in the open opposition, and the covert over the horizon forces of resistance being marshalled to frustrate. That these impacts, when they are not dfeined, or known, will be "factored in" is quite simply rubbish. The Minister has to realise that she can dictate her position and even mandate, and move along the pathway to, an ETS all she likes but if the support is not there then she is in dire straits. There wil be no ETS in 2010 and the forces opposing her objectives are far more powerful than a Minister of a government. The proposition of a $A20.00 per tonne carbon tax, within a manufactured bureaucratic model, is an act of sabotage of the Australian economy. The track record of prefabricated theoretical models created out of the mind of bureaucrats is not good. One only has to examine the privatisation claims for benefits flwoing to the Latrobe Valley and the citizens of Victoria from sale of their electricity assets, and the semi demi national electricity management model, to see this criticism played out. The privatisation of public transport in Victoria and the general performance of the NSW bureaucracy reinforce the proposition that Australian bureaucracy is a dangerous entity. |
PRIME MINISTER IMPACTED BY THE MOSAIC COMPLEXITY THERE WILL BE NO EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME OPERATING IN AUSTRALIA BY 2010 October 1, 2008, the world economy has plunged into crisis. This event was foreseen by this commentator over a year ago. However in the modern age one has to have the appropriate job title to be recognised as a person to be believed or listened to. I have no such title. I am just a representative of a number of companies plying the halls of politics and bureaucracy. There are more prestigious card carriers in this domain. Kevin Rudd's style of managing significant issues is indeed interesting and contrasts that of the previous Prime Minister, John Howard. There is much debate in the media, and among commentators, around the rumours of bureucratic control, chaos and lack of experience in the Prime Minister's office and in cabinet generally. There seems to be a majority of state based machine men, and women, being parachuted into the key positoons of government. I have already commented on the proposition that state politics, and government, is nothing like federal. The Commonwealth is more sophisticated, and professional, but the skill in the public services is diminished. There are too many contractors of questionable skill and experience and a lack of broad awareness and experience of the world beyond the corridors of policy. When one goes to meet these people they have rarely if ever done their homweork. It is not necessary for them because the meeting is a courtesy, a talk fest. They serve the Minister. The proposition that you may be there to warn of consequences, propose knew ideas or even frustrate them seems beyond their thinking and perhaps comprehension. Individuals are generally dismissed unless they are multi millionaires ro carry a big business card. To understand the underlying themes of this web site and the motivation and thinking of its owner (Kevin R Beck) and the conclusions and statements made herein, one has to look at a number of other web sites within the Mosaic Portal Network. Kevin Rudd and labor are hostage to events past and future, and manipulations, set out in my predictions web site This site in turn is linked to the wider Mosaic Portal Network which contains a number of sites dealing with politics, strategy and vested interest. It tracks significant public issues and provides in depth commentary and source information on major public idsues and the performances of Australia's governments and corporate sectors. The problem that labor, and all modern governments, and political parties, face is the ever evolving vested interests that work to counter the policies and actions of governments. We will seee them in action in the climate and ETS debates. The predictions site looks at climate change, investment and finance, economy and such forces as a cross pollinating mosaic. The question may well be: Are Kevin Rudd, his staff, the labor cabinet members and political members of the house of parliaments, and their hand picked strategists and advisers equipped to deal with this complexity? The yoiung turks in his office will be eatn alive. This is not a question for the labor paryy alone. In 2008 the new members of the Senate arrive. Labor must negotiate with them. The prospect of the Greens exercising the balance of power is frightening. They have limited resources, a lack of experience and knowledge and much of their perceptions about energy are fiction and fantasy. The two independent members (Fielding and Xenophon) are similarly under resourced and inexperienced. What if external parties, beyond the parliament, were already negotiating with the minority Senators? What form would those negotiations take, what would be the trade, for what purpose and under what motivations? Is this fantasy, fiction or fact? |
MAJOR SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ISSUES FOCUS   |
Click Here |
With the release of the green paper today you will no doubt pursue recalcitrants who back the doom philosophy of that evil element – carbon. The reference I gave you this morning presents a better approach to reducing the carbon excesses, viz. Ibbotson’s “Newcastle Protocol” instead of “Emissions Trading”, if in fact this is what you may want to do. You will also realise now, (after reading selected parts of Ibbotson), that anthropogenic CO2 is not even significant in global warming, particularly when you put water vapour into the equation. The experts do not want to talk about this because it is uncontrollable, (non-anthropogenic), and there are no easily available government funds to support the academics and scientists in R&D in this field. To give you a snapshot of the specious nature and uselessness of this whole exercise I suggest you read some of the papers of Gary Novack. Click Here The public is really being hoodwinked and the pollies are sure to strut their stuff in their inimitable and puerile fashion. Do your homework and your platform will be technically unassailable.... Keith |
| The shadow treasurer, Julie Bishop, constantly demonstrates a lack of attention to detail that makes her look a dill. She should be offering ideas and solutions instead of wasting our money trying to score worthless political points. Malcolm Turnbull devotes his energies to claiming that he put pressure on Australia's banks to pass on the bulk of the interest rate decrease (0.8% of 1.0%) made by the Reserve Bank (October 7, 2008). The Treasurer Wayne Swan talks of Malcolm's ego. What is not clear is: do either of these two have any ideas what to do? Do they have propositioons and solutions? Are they engaging in a dialogue with the nation (asuming that a few people take the time to lisen) as to what to do? No. They are consumed with their self interest - winning points. Malcolm wants to make Rudd's term a once in a life time experience and Wayne wants to stop Malcolm. Malcom Turnbull has the experience, and the intellect, to undersatnd the economy and the business and banking financial systems. What are Wayne Swan's qualifications? Mr Swan appears to struggle. First he was all gung ho about inflation, He did not see any of this coming. Neither did his advisers and public servants. Why not? Could it be that they are not undertaking comprehensive analysis using insightful tools and intuitions? They are from Treasury, Finance and other departments and other places. The government has access to so many experts. What is the definition of an expert? Experts are everywhere. Governments and corporations use them, the media, public and private entities. They inhabit universities. They inhabit disciplines. Philip Tetlock, a psychologist with a Phd from Yale has spent much of his time at the Universities of California, Berkely and Ohio. What makes him unique in the world of academic research is that he produced a seminal and intensive study of the world of experts of all types, and assessed whether they are any better at their activity than a novice such as me (KEVINRBECK). Philip has published his research in "Expert Political Judgement: How good is it? How can we know? (Princeton University Press). His research translates to any society and this case I have compared it to how things work in Australia. The Australian Financial Review published an excellent synopsis (Friday 25 November, 2005, Review 3) of his research in an article written by Paul Monk, who is co-founder of Austhink Consulting and author of "Thunder from the silent zone: rethinking China". Tetlock's work can be applied to the unflinching claims of the Howard government for its Workplace Relations Reforms, justification of war in Iraq, economic policy, investment in R&D and other pet projects and its ideological pursuit of dross. Similarly it can be used to debunk economic forecasts, political analysis and a host of other "crystal ball" style pronouncements that are used to sell services, dress up stories and drive home points. The research exposes the human tendency to rely on an expert, particularly one with a job that suits and a title to go without. The history of their performance and other traits are never considered nor remembered. He says that "experts are attempting to do with confidence what they demonstrably cannot do very well at all. They make lots of money and kudos from dubious forecasts without ultimate accountability. They are well suited to being politicians particularly Ministers in Australia's governments and consultants and advisers in Australia's top tier companies and public sector enterprises. They are partisan, rarely admit error or they will give a dozen explanations as to how they got it wrong. Governments, shareholders and businesses lose billions year after year but continue to draw on their services. Monk quotes Tetlock, "we keep running into ideological impasses rooted in each side insisting on being the only judge of its own beliefs and forecasts". Does that have resonance, or sound familiar, in your workplace, communities, in political rhetoric and justification, on television and everywhere? Tetlock found that experts on their home turf made neither better-calibrated nor more discriminating forecasts than did dilettante trespassers. Monk says that Telock found that it made virtually no difference whether participants had doctorates, whether they were economists, political scientists, journalists or historians, whether they had policy experience or access to classified information, or whether they had logged many or few years of experience in their chosen line of work. There was no correlation between ideology and accuracy of judgement or precision of forecasting. The experts tended not to adjust their beliefs when the evidence came in but to rationalise or outright deny their errors. Is that familiar too? Seems our politicians have this gene. The dominant danger he concluded was hubris closed mindedness, dismissing dissonant possibilities too quickly. Resistance is fierce particularly from those with grand reputations but humble track records. Tetlock did find that exacting research using scientific and other proven techniques based on solid empirical evidence and statistical analysis and checking, using large volumes of data and input over time did impact on the accuracy and quality. This is the intrinsic objective of the design of the Mosaic Portal. |
|
|
|
|
| LABOR PARTY BRANDS SUCCESS AS QUESTIONABLE IN CHARACTER If we take Premier Rann from South Australia and Treasurer Wayne Swan literally then we should be suspicious of people who are succesful financially. According to their thesis wealthy people should not be senior party leaders (e.g Malcolm Turnbull) and the wealthy have no right to representation. Parliamentary leaders, according to the labor party, must be of the hair shirt variety. This does little to explain Kevin Rudd's ascendancy but hypocrisy in politics is a given. According to Swan true politicians must be battlers having risen up hating anyone who is not of their ilk. The best candidate for the labor party appears to be one that has ridden on the back of union members' fees or the public's money. Having lived of a basic wage, or having one's snout in the union membre, or public, trouogh, is a heartening and valid experience. The most important qualification is not skill and ability it is the etherial, even romantic notion, of relating to the battlers and people on struggle street. According to the rhetoric of the senior practitioners, of the Australian labor party there are no others of consideration inn the electorate than the nebulous working families. In Wayne Swan's perspective there are no pensioners, no single parents, no self made men and women. If there are they are not worthy of having a representative. There are only the people with house mortgages, the under educated, or uneducated, the lazy and gratuitous, the hangers on who feed off others. Those who have extensive credit card, and other debts, and who live in the suburbs and work for the man. They are the ones that are most affected when the local (should not be operating) busines like car manufacturing falls over. Mr Swan lauds the battlers who cannot be bothered undertaking life long learning, who want to live in the same place, refuse to move to work anywhere or to chase a job or who bleat loudly when bad times are upon them. These are the people who take out exorbitant loans to keep up with the Joneses and who want it all regardless of circumstance. The rugged, and sweaty, souls who, having created their own plight and circumstance, must be assisted at every turn by government using the money taken from people who have the temerity or the luck to have made something. The labor party takes from those who do not need government assistance and having done so ridicules and denigrates. For decades I have had a leaning towards the labor party having worked in the public sector, in utilities (power and mining), in government schools and tertiary institutions and health and telecommunications, manufacturing and other sectors. The labor party at state, and federal level, has had a number of parliamentary members across Australia whose statements, and attitudes, have alienated me to the point that I find them overly obnoxious and boring. Wayne Swan is one of them. This is not to say that the conservaitives do not have their own similar types. I cannot imagine what qualified Kevin Andrews to be an Immigration Minister or Andrew Robb who invented the citizen questionnaire test. There are so many questionable characters on the consrevative side of politics. I have little time for Mr. Howard and Mr. Costello based on the previous government history regarding refugees and immigration. There was no real reform of the economy other than a GST. The Green Senator Kerry Nettle rants, and raves, about the Garnaut report and the recommended 5% reduction in emissions within the governments policy for climate change This Senator demonstrates that she may have little understanding of the impact of her fantasies. According to the hard line environmentalists we face destruction, must live hard to cater for future generatoons and lower our standards of living and income based on a theory and crystal ball predictions. Still these latter members of the federal parliament are not in government and are not the policy creators and implementers in 2008. If Wayne Swan applied himself to demonstrating that he is meticulously learning his portfolio, and honing his negotiation skills, required to deal with a hostile Senate and capricious set of independent members, Australia would be better served than his listening to his cant about the wealth Malcolm Turnbull may have. |
| Wayne Swan, the Treasurer in the Australian government ridiculed Brendan Nelson the leader of the Opposition, who has a proposal to put a private member's bill before the House, for a $30.00 weekly rise in the aged pension. The issue of the adequacy, or rather gross inadequcy, of the government pension has been a hot political issue now for weeks. Like the retailers who think that every woman is a size 8, to 12, in terms of clothing and ignore the wider growing market of bigger sizes, so too does Wayne Swan not appear to realise that he is playing to a small audience. Is he playing to his parliamentary colleagues, to the politics of the occasion and/or the press gallery. If he is then he is headed for a fall. Does he think that playing hard ball on the budget garners brownie points against starving pensioners? As his key argument in the parliament Mr. Swan gloats that Brendan Nelson is not in government, mocking the proposal with the line that Nelson cannot deliver because he is not the government. Kevin Rudd, and Wayne Swan, are the government and the pensioners can eat cake. What a piece of work this very average Minister of government is. The struggling pensioners have a majority of support from business, institutions, a few thinking and caring politicians, and the community at large. Mr Swan does not. The aged are a growing segment, there are an ever increasing number of relatives, young and old who will remeber this clown of a politician who, instea of governing with care, engages in pompous shows of demeaning rant and irony. Brendan Nelson at least has one idea. What does Swan have? A taxation review that will report in February 2009. Apart from the annoyance of his antics and drivel I wnder if he has a sense of reading the future or just trundles along oblivious to the proposition that he will have to recant and face humiliation. |
| The most senior members of the Rudd labor government, are either disengaged, and detached, or simlpy politically naive. Stupid might be a rude overstatement. They are among others, Kevin Rudd, Julia Gillard and wayne Swan. They have each stated, in various ways, that they could not live on the age pension that is paid to Australia's senior citizens by the government. Why would these clowns on their million dollar pensions make such idiotic observations to the media? There is a salient fact that everyone should remember. Most Ministers in governments do not make decisions out of the norm, and outside, of the bubble they create in their own policy self interest and processes. Kevin Rudd has a review (of course) in progress and that review is to report back in February 2009. That is the bureaucratic approach to decision making. Use someone else as the scape goat for justification. This is yet another example of government from the man who is fast becoming Mr. "all talk and little action." He, and the other twits, are happy to make such observations while people go hungry and struggle through life. Mr. Rudd, and his cronies, along with many parasites of the major political parties have made an art form of "snout in trough". Not for them the life of an ordinary pensioner. However in this modern age, ridicule and public anger, makes the politician reconsider their arrogance, and obstinate, rhetoric. Thus Mr. Rudd will make a gesture. It will at first be limp and then more stronger as the spin meisters in his department, and the party pollsters, tell him that he is being ridiculed everywhere. Heartless, uncaring, mean, and maybe just a little dumb? So how many people will starve today on the Rudd labor government's inadequate pension? Of course he cannot simpy raise the level of the pension. There are predators out there who make a living off housing pensioners for a set percentage of their income. Any rise in the pension and the accommodation providers will take their cut. So Mr. Swan will have to innovate. That is a real worry. I am glad I am not on a pension. |
| The Minister for Transport, Anthony Albanese, recently blocked increased competition on the Pacific arline route, dominated by Qantas. This is the decison of a Minister in the government of Kevin Rudd, where the Prime Minister has on every available occasion stated that he is modern day fan of competition and economic growth. Words, word and more words. So what was the basis of Minister Albanese's decision? Was it Qantas's claims on their exposure and the national interest? Was it his department's stellar research and compelling advice? A kid can make a fool of a lot of grown ups who are paid to know better. What is the value of Qantas' domination of this market to the nation, or rather what mighht be the cost? What about $A150,000,000? Am I and others being ripped off by Qantas assisted by a government Minister (Source of extract below is "Geoff Easdown, September 11, 2008 12:00am, Herald Sun Newspaper Melbourne<)br> QANTAS ticket sales on the Pacific route defy claims by the carrier its share of the international passenger market has fallen, a study has found. Canberra's aviation bureaucrats have been told the national carrier charges passengers more to fly to Los Angeles and that its dominance of the market has strengthened. Data produced by aviation whiz kid Khoa Huynh, presented to the Federal Government task force on national aviation policy, argues that a 6.3 per cent fall in market share since privatisation was more than offset by Qantas' success in taking advantage of a growing market... Long-distance ambush: Aviation whiz-kid Khoa Huynh, 22, says the Qantas stranglehold on the Australia-US route is costing up to $150 million a year." Would Qantas mislead, spoin slightly or put their gloss on the real situation? "Qantas, in its submission, says the Australian industry risks being marginalised if the nation's carriers are unable to capture a healthy share of international market growth. It says the industry will then find it increasingly difficult to invest, create jobs, operate marginal routes, serve regional destinations and support tourism. " (Source: 08 July, 2008, Pressure builds to give SIA Pacific access: http://www.travelmole.com/stories/1129837.php?mpnlog=1" Regardless of who may be telling what, with such compelling impact, the Minister has been made to look like a goose, by the inadequacy of his department. However having been involved in dealing with federal governments, and other agencies, and the Ministers of Australia's governments, and working within the public sector, at state and federal level, for the past 18 years it is not surprising that the Minister would be stranded like this by his department. When you go to meet them, public servants, Ministers and advisers, there has been no research, and no preparation, by them. Former federal member Carmen Lawrence once told me that I was expecting too much of the labor party to engage in deep analysis and research because it had no sophisticated intelligence gathering system or research base in place. The public servants, the politicians and obviously the Minister, simply rely on the person who seems most credible. In most cases this is the business card carrying, senior executive of the brand corporation. That is unless they are from Telstra, then everyone is suspicious. Actually the embarrassment, to my mind, could not have happend to a more deserving member of Australia's federal parliament and Minister of the Rudd labor government. |
| The ETS will not happen The Prime Minister stated in a recent speech (August 2008) that he wanted to have a debate with the Australian people about climate change. What does that mean? Through the media, which is slanted and incompetent, captive to the thrall of the spin and carefully chosen science? Does it mean that he will go to town halls and face questions? Does it mean that the public service secretaries will change their (perhaps) arrogant isolationism (where they only deign to meet whom they consider to be of equal status) mannerisms and meet with critics who are ordinary people, not from business, with a senior position? I would hazard that the senior managers of the public servuces in Australia have no intelligence gathering units within their departments. They have a communications (spin and public relations) section but collectively they do not have a group who undertake real research about what is being marshalled, actioned, or implemented, to oppose any of the government's policies or even their own departmental objectives. They subscribe to media cutting, and monitoring, services. It is clear that the state and federal bureaucracies are not going to assist the facilitation of information, or access, to consultation in any meaningful or comprehensive way. The Department Secretaries will have their communications sections load highly censored reports, and materials, on the web. That is their idea of consultation and maybe there will be a committee or two. Senator Penny Wong, Minister for water and Climate, has demonstrated that the government will hide information, and reports, in relation to water issues, and stifle debate, when she defied a senate direction to hand over such material (September 2, 2008). The Government's Green Paper on Pollution Reduction, of about 600 pages, has no figures and no modelling within its covers. It is largely useless, and nothing more than a methodology - desk research paper. Public submissions close mid September 2008. The modelling on impact will be available in October 2008. Treasury modelling may be available in November 2008. I doubt that it will be published until it is massaged, and polished, to suit. It may not be published at all. This is not an exception for the public service, or a government in Australia. One comes to expect such anomalies and disregard for the quality of governance and integrity in office. Kevin Rudd wants us to agree to an Emissions trading scheme as the major solution to addressing climate change. How is a trading scheme a solution to reduce carbon pollution? "Not so fast. Carbon offsets — and emissions-trading schemes, their industrial-scale siblings — are the environmental version of subprime mortgages. They both started from some admirable premises. Developing countries like China and India need to be recruited into the fight against greenhouse gases. And markets are a better mechanism for change than command and control. But when those big ideas collide with the real world, the result is hand-waving at best, outright scams at worst. Moreover, they give the illusion that something constructive is being done. A few fun facts: All the so-called clean development mechanisms authorized by the Kyoto Protocol, designed to keep 175 million tons of CO2 out of the atmosphere by 2012, will slow the rise of carbon emissions by ... 6.5 days. (That's according to Roger Pielke at the University of Colorado.) Depressed yet? Kyoto also forces companies in developed countries to pay China for destroying HFC-23 gas, even though Western manufacturers have been scrubbing this industrial byproduct for years without compensation. And where's the guarantee that the tree planted in Bolivia to offset $10 worth of air travel, for instance, won't be chopped down long before it absorbs the requisite carbon? " (Source fo extract: Carbon Credits Were a Great Idea, But the Benefits Are Illusory, By Spencer Reiss, Wired Magazine "Cap and trade is not the answer: an open letter To the global warming committee of the Sierra Club: 31 January 2007 The Sierra Club is one of the few large environmental organizations that traditionally has been skeptical of pollution trading. That sound policy, we understand, is now under debate. In addition to concerns outlined below, the proposed new trading policy which the Global Warming Committee is debating would conflict with a number of already established Club policies: the policy on polluter pays, the policy on environmental justice, the policy on community right-to-know, and the policy on corporate accountability issues. The Sierra Club has played a critical role in the negotiations of a bill in California, AB 32, which set the most ambitious targets for greenhouse gas reductions in the country; the debate over pollution trading was a pivotal part of the measure. The outcome of that debate is clear: all feasible measures should be taken to reduce emissions prior to implementing any market mechanisms, and in the implementation of those measures environmental justice communities must be included in the decision making process and protected. Because cap and trade programs enrich industry, industry wants to perpetuate the myth that cap and trade is the only way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In reality, many things are being done to reduce greenhouse gases in the U.S. and so far, cap-and-trade has been among the least used mechanisms adopted to get the emissions reductions needed. And where it has been used, experience suggests it will fail to effectively achieve emission reductions." ... Trading Programs Benefit Existing Polluters in the Developing World .." (source of extract: Transnational Institute...click here The government Ministers in charge of this rushed, and reckless, proposal obviously have not studied the national Elecetricity Market (that is not) and the practice known as "gaming". When electricity trading came into vogue many commercial entities, who did not own power stations, electricity or energy assets of any type set up trading desks. They began to gamble the price of electricity buying and selling generation and retail supply packages, hedging and trading for the sake of money (profit). They were not interested in the outcome for consumers and the nation. Similarly many are waiting to enter Kevin Rudd's carbon trading market to make money. They are there in market to earn profits, not reduce pollution. A market that is contrived, and isolated, limited to Australia. The Opposition in the parliament, under Mr. Brendan Nelson, managed to blunder on the response and the leader became the story rather than the missing figures and modelling in the Green Paper. No media have canvassed the proposition that a trading scheme will not reduce pollution or that it might fail. Thus we have a policy and action plan being developed without any ckluea sto what it might cost or what the impact might be. The policy, like much of Kevin Rudd's policies, is about bending and shaping, punishing energy intensive industries on an upward slide effect. We can perhaps expect the disappearance of manufacturing base industries - paper, chemicals, cement, smelting, steel, power generation and mining. Investment in industry and personal assets will be devalued. wayne Swan's own swan song, repeated time and time again, along with Mr Rudd's, of taming inflation will be rendered hollow rhetoric as inflation dragon breathes real fire in a dyig economy. For what? A degree or two in temperature change if the world got on board with climate change reactionary policies. Public ignorance is rife. This is the greatest impacting policy ever proposed by a government of Australia. It is being rushed through to a 2010 start up date. In charge of this is Senator Penny Wong, a person with no background in prodyction, enregy, economics and business of the type that will be destroyed. She, with selected cabinet memebers, under the iron rule of the Prime Minister, will make arbitrary decisions about who gets a permit within their industry classification. There will ne winners and losers. The losers will be the small to medium businesses. There are a plethora of taxation subsidies and schemes across Australia designed to reduce pollution and Emissions. These apparently are failures in the eyes of the benders and shapers who will go forward though they may be blind to the consequences and outcomes. The ETS will reduce demadn and stymy spending. The ETS is limited to large enterprise and it is these that will fail under the burden of the ETS tax. This will cause the pain to the small to medium services that rely on them and the employees who earn wages through them. Petrol and diesel suppliers will have to bear the brunt of individual use of motor vehicles by each and every person who drives. The Australian government, under labor and Kevin Rudd, is gaming Australia on the international stage. |
THE MOSAIC PORTAL NETWORK ..click
 CONCEPTED, DESIGNED, AND OWNED, BY Kevin Beck Melbourne, Australia It is not about how many people visit my sites it is about how many communications are going out and to where.
|
