After close to two years of doing next to nothing (other than not being Campbell Newman), the Palaszczuk government has been busy appearing to have a plan for the state, and more specifically a plan for north Queensland. The core of this plan has been to pretend that the Carmichael mine is: important, feasible, and a jobs bonanza. It is none of these things, and no matter how much bluster is generated by the Townsville Bulletin or the state government... the mine remains dead in the water. There are a number of good reasons (which aren't changed by giving the mine lip service) why the Adani project is unfeasible and won't actually generate any jobs. India is stockpiling Coal In India - Domestic demand for coal is weak and demand for power is down India can't burn the coal it currently has because of a drought and the shortage of water India will be producing all the coal it needs long before the first piece of coal could be dug up from the Carmichael mine. Indian demand for renewables is growing and thermal power is being scaled back The proposed Carmichael mine will be digging up thermal coal and the current blip in thermal coal prices is highly unlikely to be sustained Banks won't finance Adani. Doing a search on the histroy of the sources from which Adani have sought finance (and those who have ruled it out) covers so many nations. Europe, Australia, Asia, the US. Even the State Bank of India has cold feet. While the unwavering support of the Townsville Bulletin must be of some comfort to Adani, and the recent words uttered by the state minister for Mines are likely also encouraging... they are just words. There remains no compelling reason for proceeding with the mine. The only chance this mine has of getting up is if large amounts of this projects infrastructure are funded by the tax-payer... and the Palaszczuk government has already promised not to do that. Without a major political promise being broken (an act of political suicide), the plans for the Carmichael mine have no hope of being realised. It's important we keep reminding people of the facts, but politicians in particular. Write to your local representative (state or federal), your state senators, or even your local paper and remind them of both the facts and your sentiments surrounding the Carmichael mine. by Mark Enders
0 Comments
Donations to politicians and political parties still seem to be on the radar, and that’s a good thing. The truth is that donations do affect the political process, they do damage our democracy and they do sway policy and political decisions. What's the evidence for this... let’s start by looking at the international experience – recently released court documents from an investigation into Wisconsin governor Scott Walker don’t just reveal the indiscretions of one person, they reveal how widespread the influence of corporate cash is… on politicians, lobbyists and judges. There is the incredibly complex story of political corruption in Nauru as revealed recently on 7.30 – and the dance that continues between senior members of government, money being provided an Australian company and the Australian government’s complex relationship with the nation as a result of our asylum seeker policy. The democratic fallout affects the citizens of both Nauru and Australia and the root cause of this problem is money and a lack of transparency. It would be naïve to believe that these issues are isolated ones. We only need look at our own political history for signs of problems. Donations disclosures are available online. In 2014-15 (a non-election year when they were not in government) the ALP received $153, 000 in donations from a combination of Clubs NSW, the Australian Hotels Association, and Woolworths (the nation’s biggest owners of poker machines). In 2011 (an election year when the ALP was in government) the same group donated $156,600 while simultaneously launching a multi-million dollar ad campaign focusing on marginal seats held by Labor. At the same time the Liberal party received (from the same donors) – in 2011 - $121,000 and in 2014-15 no reported donations. It would be fair to say that the Abbott opposition was already opposing proposed changes vigorously before the clubs and hotels joined the debate because it saw relative political advantage. Over the same periods The Greens received no donations from any of these groups. Currently, The Greens are one of the few parties with a prominent pokies harm reduction policy while neither of the major parties are currently showing any interest in addressing the issue. In 2011 there was a lot of heat on pubs and clubs in relation to poker machine regulation. In 2016 there is none despite ongoing issues with gambling addiction and ongoing community concerns about the pervasiveness of poker machines. Did money and a massive political scare campaign buy a political outcome that suited donors who have a lot of skin in the poker machines game? It would appear so. This is significant because perceptions are as important as reality when we are discussing public confidence in the political process. These concerns are a likely factor in the declining confidence in democracy in Australia. Foreign donations add another layer of concern and complexity (as seen in the case of Nauru), so concerns surrounding state owned enterprises in China are both understandable and completely valid. Ideally we want to see a more level playing field that gives parties, policies and ideas an equal chance of being heard. We don’t want to see voices drowned out by big money advertising campaigns, and we don’t want to amplify individuals or interest groups based solely on their financial resources rather than the quality of their argument. And that is what we are currently getting. A more appropriate arrangement would cap donations and election campaign expenditure, ban foreign donations, improve transparency and disclosure, as well as provide a more level playing field through more equitable public funding. How that might look in practice would be a great basis for the debate we are not currently having in this area. by Mark Enders
We all have a right to know. To know what is being done in our name. To know that those in a position of power are held accountable for their actions. We have a right to expect transparency from all our public servants, especially those whose position is as an elected official. Our democracy is made stronger by an informed and engaged populace. Our democracy depends on freedom of the press, and our democracy is being damaged every single day that we, the voting public, are kept in the dark. The Greens believe in our right to know, we believe in accountability, and transparency, we believe in a free press and a strong democracy, and we believe that the major parties are not doing enough to protect human rights, basic freedoms and the integrity of our political system. While some politicians give lip service to the things we believe in, the Greens know that actions speak louder than words. The Greens have announced that they will introduce a Private Members Bill into the Parliament, allowing media to gain access to Australian detention centres, following the election. The ‘Transparency Guarantee Bill’ would mandate a reasonable level of access for media to detention centres and amend the migration act to make it illegal for the government to fund offshore detention centres where media are not allowed regular access. Bill Shorten has conceded that the time has come to lift the lid on the secret torture camps on Manus Island and Nauru. Labor need to put their money where their mouth is and commit to legislating for transparency and genuine media access to the detention camps. We all know (the Labor party included) that these detention camps operate under a cloak of secrecy for a reason and it’s important that we get this commitment from Labor enshrined in legislation. A policy of secrecy is a dangerous one and secrecy has a long and sorry history in this country. Secrecy allowed indigenous children to be taken from their parents. Secrecy allowed the systematic abuse of children who were in the care of state and religious institutions. Secrecy protected serial offenders and allowed abuse to continue long after it should have been stopped. State sponsored secrecy has an even longer and more tragic legacy right around the world. And that is why fair minded people don’t just object to it, they are fearful of it. Even with the little information we have been allowed to know about offshore detention, it is clear that the secrecy and the ongoing media blackout has allowed an environment of abuse and neglect to fester on Manus Island and Nauru. The Greens will act to put it to an end. We ask for your support on July 2nd – stand alongside us and help us give the right to know back to every Australian. by Wendy Tubman
Far from being a one issue party, The Greens have a suite of policies that cover issues and ideas that are important to most Australians. We understand that different issues hold different levels of importance to people, we understand that time is limited, and we believe that every voter should go to the polling booth armed with good quality information in order to make the best decision for their future. To keep things clear and simple we’ve listed the Greens full range of policies (in Alphabetical order below, and have included links to all the relevant policies. All you need to do is click on the highlighted areas below that are of interest Agriculture - Protecting our Food System Soil Health Local Food Animal welfare Arts – Supporting Artsists Investing in the Arts Asylum Seekers Disability Support Economy – Banking and Finance Superannuation Education – TAFE Equality Early childhood learning University Disability Energy – Solar community owned energy Battery storage Environment – Protection Wildlife Sustainable Tourism Health – The Health System Palliative Care Dental Active communities Primary care Mental Health Indigenous issues – Closing the Gap Indigenous Rangers Empowerment Inequality Innovation – Innovation Nation R&D Agriculture Reducing harm Justice – Access Re-investment Reef – Protecting the Reef Marine Reserves Renew - Queensland Australia Republic Rural needs Social policy - Public Housing Diversity Domestic violence Inclusive communities Tax - Tax Avoidance Capital Gains Tax The Buffett Rule Negative Gearing Trade – Fair Trade, Live Exports Transport – Sustainable transport Cycling Electric vehicles Water Women’s rights There’s a lot there, and among all that policy, there’s an issue that matters to you. Remember if you dismiss the Greens as a one issue party… you’re making a very big mistake by Wendy Tubman
Accessible, affordable, quality childcare is a real issue at the moment. Working families all around the country are feeling the financial pressure of childcare costs and the government has responded by delaying their announced changes by 12 months. It’s not good enough. Families under significant pressures are expected to just hold tight for another year so the government can make the books look better for the election. But again it is not good social or economic policy. The Greens know that affordable and quality childcare is important. It’s important for the economy as it takes pressure off disposable income, makes room for increases in discretionary spending, and so supports an array of jobs and businesses. It’s an important part of ensuring healthy workforce participation rates for women. This is especially true for lower income earners, and this in turn will impact their superannuation and retirement savings. The government’s short term thinking will have longer term ramifications. It’s important for kids and their education as it provides an opportunity to set them up for greater academic achievement. It is well established that the early years are an important phase of their learning. To make quality childcare unaffordable is a form of generational theft that this government sanctions. In response the Australian Greens have announced a policy of ‘Universal Access’ childcare, with a guaranteed minimum of 24 hours of subsidised care offered to every Australian family each week. The Greens policy creates a single, means tested payment model with access guaranteed for all Australian families. Whoever wins government will need to get their proposed childcare legislation through the Senate. The Greens would push for this policy to be implemented from the 1st of July 2017. Families earning under $65,000 per year would have 85% of the cost of their care covered, with that amount tapering off until families who earn over $340,000 have 20% of their costs covered. The Greens have also announced that they will create a $200 million ‘Reducing Waiting Lists Fund’, that centres could apply to access for either capital works, increasing staff or the expansion of specific programs to free up more places in high need areas. Implementing the Greens’ policy of ‘Universal Access’ would add $370 million per year to the cost of the government’s proposed childcare overhaul. This would be funded through the Greens fully costed platform. Again the Greens are offering a real point of difference. All the details on the policy are available here. by Wendy Tubman
This far in to the longest election in living memory, you'd be forgiven for thinking there is nothing good about an election, other than it being over. Elections are interesting times. We starts to see more of our local representatives, whether we want to or not. On one side we are reminded how well we are being served by our government, and on the other we are reminded of how we are being failed by those same people. Interest groups become more vocal, and those who are given the biggest megaphone can leave us wondering why. And in among all that, we start to have the kind of conversations we need to have… about the present and the future. The Conversation website is always a great source of information and inspiration. During this election period they have provided some great stories. Below are a few worth checking out. The storm system along the East coast has done a great deal of damage, led to a number of tragedies, and has got people asking great questions… like - Is climate change playing a role in these events? It also has people considering the unseen damage occurring from water run-off and the associated pollution of our waterways caused by the way our cities are designed. There is clearly more we should do, and you’ll find some suggestions in the article by Katherine Dafforn and Emma Johnston from UNSW. Innovation has been a word that Malcolm Turnbull has been using frequently, without well-defining what he is talking about, or even proposing where our innovation investment should be focussed. Perhaps he doesn’t know, or perhaps he just needs a distraction from the record of his government. Either way, there are people who are making real and concrete suggestions about where our potential lies. Peter Fisher from RMIT asks what a smart modern city looks like. This includes digital entanglement, densification and managing the risks of climate change. The Greens see these same risks and are addressing them through its policy on the NBN, protecting the envirnoment, addressing the reef's challenges, meeting our future transport needs, supporting and investing in innovation and research. Professor Peter Doherty suggests that we play to our strengths and take advantage of our abundant renewable resources and our ability in medical and scientific research. And what about the issues facing rural and regional Australia? According to Stewart Lockie from JCU they are: Infrastructure, Unemployment, Diversification and New economy jobs, ATSI participation, Health, Education and Social services, Climate change, Natural resource management, and Agriculture. You can read more of his views here. The Greens understand this and have policies which include supporting our clean energy future, community owned energy, getting the community into active transport, investing in health, closing the gap, and empowering ATSI peoples. Part of the process of being clear about the facts and the truth, is the ability to identify the lies, the exaggerations, and the popular myths. Again The Conversation and their fact checking unit is a great source of information. While most rational people would take anything Pauline Hanson said with a grain of salt.. fact check has debunked her claims that crime is getting worse in Australia. And while Pauline relied on anecdotes, sensationalist news reports and her own gut feeling, fact check looked at the official data. So rather than feel like you are being let down by politicians or news services who want to sell you the idea that all we need is a big new dam, or a new football stadium and all our problems will be solved for the next three years… feel encouraged that you can always search out other, more reliable sources of information, advice and opinion. The Greens want people to be informed, they embrace a diversity of ideas and opinions, they support the research and the science, and they want people to make their own informed decisions. And the Greens have a full suite of policies which supports and integrates all the outcomes it believes in. We might be in the middle of an election campaign but we will keep telling the truth, we will keep the hyperbole under control, and we will continue to highlight the kind of ideas that will serve the interests of all Australians. In our opinion The Conversation website is such a reliable source. When you get the chance, check it out. by Wendy Tubman
Following on from the previous blog on primary health care... Secondary prevention is a smart and essential part of health care also. Secondary prevention is about early detection, early treatment and effective long term management. It saves patients a great deal of money and suffering, not to mention saving them from premature death. Early detection occurs in part through education – the Cancer council has recently been running ads that encourage people to keep an eye out for suspicious signs. Doctors surgeries have their walls covered with posters encouraging people to keep an eye on their weight (by looking at which hole on their belt buckle that they are using), and encouraging men in particular to have regular checks. There are the screening services like those provided by Breastscreen, endoscopy procedures that look for early danger signs, and simpler and less invasive procedures like the blood pressure and blood sugar checks we should all have after the age of 50. The reason why we have these education and screening services is that early detection means simpler, less expensive treatment and better outcomes. It helps us detect a problem before we experience symptoms (like bleeding, pain, or even lumps), which can be critical. And it helps us overcome our natural complacency… if we feel well, we assume there is nothing wrong, when sometimes there is. Screening gives us the peace of mind we are well, and just in case we aren’t it puts on the road to early treatment and recovery… keeping us well. It promotes wellness, it keeps us happy and healthy, and it is relatively inexpensive. At the same time, it is the kind of service that governments can cut without people noticing too much. And sadly, that is what short sighted governments who focus on election cycle time frames do. The Abbott/Turnbull government’s move to introduce GP co-payments undermines secondary health care because it discourages people going to the doctor early and getting screening done. The freezing of the Medicare rebate (slowly) undermines secondary health care in the same way. Limiting people’s access to affordable medications through undermining the PBS has the same effect. And even providing funding windows for specific and emerging health problems undermines long term secondary prevention. Because when the special funding runs out… the service stops, regardless of its effectiveness. In contrast, the Green believe that secondary prevention is exactly where we need to invest our health dollars. Greens leader Dr Richard Di Natale has today announced a proposal to expand the cover Medicare provides for a significant and growing health problem for Australia in general and Townsville in particular … better treatment for diabetes. And of course, there are other emerging health risks which we need to address now… mental health, oral health, dementia and aged care. The Greens have the major parties worried because they understand the issues that matter to most Australians and they have workable solutions. But it is not just about spending, it is also about saving. Medicare currently funds many procedures for which there is limited clinical evidence that they are best practice. Last year Four Corners highlighted many areas of waste in health funding. You can watch that episode of Four Corners by clicking this link. But despite that, the government has not sought to address wasteful spending, just to restrict access to health for people who can’t afford to pay. The Greens support a great deal more spending on primary and secondary health care, and believe that in turn good health will be affordable for all. We also believe that good health for us all is tied to managing the health of both our built and our natural environment. When we draw all those threads together... our nation and our citizens will prosper as a result. by Wendy Tubman
While it is risky to generalise, it would be uncontroversial to say that all Australians believe in a decent standard of health care for all. Not many would suggest that if people want good health care they should pay for it, especially if their circumstances make it unaffordable. We do believe in looking after each other, and going the extra mile to help the less fortunate among us. Yet we are seeing increasing levels of obesity, more and more people developing chronic diseases and suffering from chronic illnesses, and we are facing emerging mental health epidemics across all demographics. Despite the huge amounts we are spending.. our health is getting worse. We are all concerned about the ever increasing cost of health care, to us as individuals, and to the society more broadly. And we are right to ask if money is being wasted. The truth is that it is. Not because we are employing too many doctors, nurses and allied health professionals. Not because more people aren't taking out private health insurance. And not because we don't have 'price signals' in the system. It is being wasted because spending is prioritised on the wrong things. There is a solution to both problems, and we've known the answer for a very long time. Primary health care is the business of preventing illness and maintaining wellness. It leads to better health outcomes and it is far less expensive. But when governments talk about 'health' they are largely talking about treating illness. We know this based on how governments measure success. There is an old saying 'What gets measured gets done'. Its roots go back to the 1500's, and the reason that it has survived is that it retains a kernel of truth. When governments report on the state of the health system they typically quote only two measures... waiting time in Emergency, and elective surgery waiting times. The truth is emergency surgical procedures are almost always performed in a timely fashion, and emergency presentations at Emergency are almost always seen immediately. And that is the service working as it should. In contrast... People requiring elective surgery are in most part evidence of the health system failing them. If they require joint replacement, the question should be asked 'could their joints have been protected through all manner of preventative measures' (like diet, exercise, better shoes, better work conditions)? If they require gastric banding, the question should be asked 'could a better, conservative management approach have prevented their obesity and the accompanying health issues' (like diet, exercise, education, making better nutrition information available, a sugar tax, subsidising fresh food). If they require organ transplantation, could better lifestyle choices (like not smoking, drinking in moderation, better diet and exercise choices) have negated the need? In many cases the answer is yes. But by not measuring physical and mental outcomes.. like body fat percentage, blood sugars and lipids, cardiac and respiratory output, the self reporting of wellness and happiness.. we are not measuring the real effect of our society on our health, and we are not seeking good health outcomes for all. By measuring the treatment of illness we are in effect ensuring there are more illness to be treated. With activity based funding (which encourages hospitals to perform more and more surgeries) we are making surgery the most likely outcome for patients when often the research suggests surgical outcomes are not the best option. Performing arthroscopies for osteoarthritis of the knee is a good example. By measuring waiting times for non-urgent ED presentations and elective surgeries... we are making health more expensive and we are accepting poorer health outcomes for all. A first step to fixing our health system, is to start measuring (or perhaps reporting) on the right things. Things like the percentage of the population who are in a healthy weight range. These things are measured reported in the background but are never held up primary evidence about the effectiveness of our health system. Most of us would believe that if health ministers were held accountable for societal obesity levels, we would see a bigger focus on primary health care. And with that changed focus we will quickly a slowing in the rate at which people are getting heavier and more unhealthy. But instead we have MP like Ewen Jones telling fat jokes. But I'm not going to leave you with questions... or Ewen's terrible jokes. There are ways we can reform the health system, and this can be led Federally. More about that in upcoming blogs by Wendy Tubman
Across the world we are seeing increasing levels of inequality – between developed and under-developed economies, and within national boundaries.
In Australia the gap between rich and poor has been rising for over 30 years, and that has accelerated in the last decade and a half as we have moved away from a progressive tax regime and the means-testing of government financial support.
But is this a problem? According to those on the Right it isn’t. Their arguments include: our duty is to reward success and ‘lifters’ rather than ‘leaners’; that wealth accruing to the rich ‘trickles down’ to the poor; that income inequality is healthy because it inspires lower income earners to work The arguments may, at first hearing sound plausible, but do they really stack up? It has long been accepted, following the Whitehall studies, that your position within a large organisation, and within society as a whole, has a significant impact on your life expectancy and other health outcomes. Those higher on ‘the ladder’ clearly experience much better outcomes. In 2010, the Marmot review in Britain found that people living in poorer areas die on average seven years sooner, but also spend more of their lives with disability – an average total difference of 17 years. These health inequalities are not just limited to life expectancy but also include infant mortality, mental health, physical health and so on. This is not a localised effect, the results having been largely replicated in a study that looked across 50 countries. In their 2009 book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better, Wilkinson and Pickett found a clear relationship between income inequality and health and social outcomes. See below. Looking at all these indicators separately, the effect of income inequality is quite stark. (Note, a score of zero means no correlation, and a score of 1 or -1 means a perfect positive or perfect negative correlation.) So we can see that income inequality has a significant impact on increased teenage births, higher imprisonment levels, mental illness, reduced levels of social trust and higher levels of obesity. There is also a notable effect on increased rates of homicide, reduced educational performance, and increased infant mortality. Recent studies have investigated whether or not income inequality causes health and social problems, independent of other factors, and some rigorous studies have provided evidence of a relationship. Kondo, et al (2009) estimated that about 1.5 million deaths (9.6 per cent of total adult mortality in the 15–60 age group) could be averted in 30 OECD countries by reducing income equality below current levels. Another study suggested that the loss of life from income inequality in the US in 1990 was the equivalent of the combined loss of life due to lung cancer, diabetes, motor-vehicle accidents, HIV-related causes, suicide and homicide. As an indication of where Australia sits in relation to the rest of the world, see the chart below. We're being outperformed by both Spain and Italy who both have much bigger domestic financial headwinds than us. Significantly, the most (over) used argument by the Right –that income inequality may have positive effects on economic growth by providing incentives to work – while it may sound good at an LNP conference, in an IPA position paper, during budget speeches (that launch an election campaign), or during a doorstop interview, the evidence to support this is weak. The relevant research unambiguously points towards positive and important society-wide outcomes being achieved through reducing the rich-poor divide. Even from a purely economic perspective, the very thorough work of Thomas Piketty has demonstrated that significant income inequality damages economic growth – the one strategy the government is relying on to return the economy to surplus. Given that inequality is a major problem for us all, both economically and socially, this suggests that a return to more means-testing of government financial support programs, and a return to a more progressive taxation regime and a crack down on tax minimization by the wealthy, is needed . If the government were serious about fiscal repair they would commit to the funding guidelines in Gonski, they would properly fund health, they would address the excesses of superannuation and cut back aggressively on negative gearing concessions, they would build a proper and effective social safety net, and they would make big business pay the appropriate amount of tax. Whether or not the government is representing the interests of all Australians, present and future, will be partly revealed on budget night by Wendy Tubman
As mentioned in the last blog, $300m is a low-ball projection for the cost of the proposed stadium (or is that a stadium/convention centre mongrel?) in the CBD. More recent estimates put the price tag at $380m for this poorly conceived idea. But this is not necessarily the full pot of investment funds that could be found... matching it up with funds from the Commonwealth's Northern Australia Infrastructure Facility could double it to $760m. If we are serious about spending about $760m (or even $380m) in Townsville there are smarter and more productive ways to use that money than on a new football stadium. People are already coming up with better ideas. Many are supportive of some serious industry-scale renewable energy projects, and others look at value-added agriculture developing export opportunities, education, tourism and health. All of them incorporate a mix of benefits and on-going clean jobs for Townsville. Think about, for example, an ‘urban cooling’ project that makes our suburbs more appealing and healthier places, a solar power station supplying the city, a renewable-energy-powered business hub, an upgraded and better integrated cycle network with more end of trip facilities, investment in kick-starting a local film industry, a start on Townsville joining the growing number of transition towns in Australia, a new entertainment, convention and learning centre that could bring big acts and events to Townsville year-round, more sustainable water initiative, flexible learning centres for disenfranchised youth, a sophisticated, interactive information centre about Townsville and the region for visitors. The list goes on and there are more out there. Share your ideas with us in the comments section or on our facebook page. We'll run with all the great ideas that could improve the lives of North Queenslanders far more than a new football stadium in the CBD ever could. by Wendy Tubman
Life is complex – socially as well as biologically. The current, devastating, coral bleaching event Is primarily the result of ongoing warm seawater associated with the climate change happening around us. But climate change also increases the acidity of the ocean, another problem for the coral. Then again, stresses like nutrient-rich run-off and coastal development, also decrease the extent to which the coral is able to cope with the warm water And the bleaching isn't just an issue for the coral itself but for everything that depends on it. These dependents are not only fish and other sea creatures which depend on the coral reefs for food and protection, but also many groups of people, including commercial and recreational fishers and those who sell and consume fish, fishing rods and boats; the tens of thousands working in reef-related tourism; those who travel to the reef and experience transformative joy at seeing its beauty, and those who fly them there; those who research the coral looking for things with medical benefits; and those who live on the coast and depend (whether they know it or not) on the coral reef to protect the coastline from cyclones and tsunamis. To make matters even more complex, the impacts of climate change stretch further than to the reefs around the world and the issues linked to that. It is estimated that, as a result of the adverse effects of climate change, 400,000 people die every year
The Climate and Health Alliance in their latest report has described climate change as both the “defining health issue” and the “greatest global health threat” of the 21st century.
Worsening levels of health impose financial burdens on individuals, the community and the economy. For example, there are limited funds for health care and, as more funds need to be allocated to dealing with the direct fallout from climate change, less can be spent on the most efficient form of health care: preventative health. Reduced health has productivity outcomes – from reduced output at work, to chronic illness and work absences, and on to early death, which means skill sets are lost forever. Poor health also leads to poorer educational outcomes – for children as well as adults.
Lower levels of education not only mean reduced productivity, less innovation, and a reduction in high value work, it also leads to poorer health choices, which in turn mean poorer health outcomes.
As you can see, environmental outcomes affect economic outcomes, they affect health outcomes, which affect educational outcomes, which in turn affect economic and health outcomes. And as we live in the global village, this all has an effect on foreign affairs, and immigration. Everything is co-dependent and interconnected. What this should mean is that policy frameworks are likewise interconnected. As we develop educational policy, we must have an eye to economic policy and health policy; as we develop health policy we should be mindful of how this might affect or be affected by environmental policy, education policy, economic policy, foreign policy. Etc, etc. You get the picture... interconnectedness.
But does government policy take this into account? When the health minister announces policy changes (like the $7 co-payment) do they mention the impact this will have on workplace productivity, educational outcomes, or economic outcomes (outside of the direct savings they believe this change will drive).
They don't. Not just because they don't know (the modeling is never that robust) but because it hasn't been a consideration in the policy development process. Instead, policy has been developed by adhering to particular philosophies – like 'living within our means'; 'small government'; 'only doing for people what they can't do themselves'. You hear the philosophies repeated again and again... which is symptomatic of the problem with the major parties. The budget will be delivered soon. It will outline where the spending priorities lie. It will present all the expected benefits of addressing those priorities. But will it be a coherent statement that highlights the interconnectedness of our everyday lives? It may, but the signs aren't good. Ewen Jones appeared on Q&A on Monday. Ewen can be relied upon to repeat the governments talking points, push their key themes, and, at the same time, say as little as possible. On Monday Ewen was asked about youth unemployment and the future for North Queensland. You can watch his answer by clicking on the video below
Basically... mining, coal, coal fired power, poles and wires, dams... if you build them the jobs will come (including for youth), and the country towns will thrive.
Very narrow. Possibly it represents where the government's thinking is. But don't take my word for it. Decide for yourself when the budget is released
by Wendy Tubman
We have been told for many years that the Coalition are better economic managers, without being provided with any evidence to support this bold claim. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and distance gives you the perspective and the ability to take a more dispassionate assessment of many things, but that is especially true of government performance. The Howard government is now far enough behind us to take a look at their economic record and that of the former Treasurer Peter Costello. And in recent months a great many experts and commentators have been doing this According to Crispin Hull in the Canberra Times the structural deficit we currently have in the budget belongs wholly to Peter Costello and his hopeless performance as Treasurer. An excellent article by Mike Seccombe highlights the fact that a number of very wealthy Australians essentially pay no tax – surely that’s revenue problem (as well as a problem of equity). Mike also goes on to outline how many Howard-era policies shifted the tax burden from the big end of town to those at the bottom of the economic pile… the exact template Abbott spectacularly failed to implement in 2014. Despite the assertions of Scott Morrison, our latest non-performing Coalition Treasurer, that the only problem we have is a spending problem, analysis by the ABC suggests we have a revenue problem also. And despite recent claims by the budget office that we do have a spending problem, Greg Jericho demonstrates things are more complex than that. Howard himself was treasurer, appointed following the removal of Phillip Lynch for dodgy land deals while in the Fraser government. During this stint many consider Howard to have been inept. In 1982-83 Howard personally oversaw the worst recession since the Great Depression. All damning stuff, and a long history of blunders and ineptitude. In addition to all the poor report cards on so many Howard and Costello policies, it is worth looking at additional spending (the baby bonus) and revenue (fuel excise) initiatives. Spending The Baby bonus was largesse at the height of the mining boom, introduced by Costello, but poorly targeted and always completely unsustainable. It took a Labor government to pare it back and better target it to actual need rather than middle and upper class pork barrelling. The change introduced in 2013 by the Gillard government is projected to save $2.4B over 4 years. Given that the bonus was introduced in 2002, and based on these numbers the wastage as a result of poor Coalition policy and loose economic management around this issue alone is likely over $6B. Revenue Fuel excise was cut and frozen in March 2001 – at a time (in an election year) when the Howard govt was deeply unpopular. As Bernard Keane explains it worked a treat politically by turning Howard’s political fortunes around, but has been something of an economic disaster. The Australia institute found that up to June 2015, this desperate move by Howard cost $46B in lost revenue. Keeping Howard and Costello in their jobs was very expensive for us all. Malcolm Turnbull came to the top job by promising better economic leadership. At the time anyone looked better than Hockey and Abbott. Things moved slowly because everything was on the table and was being considered carefully by the government. But that was a lie. Malcolm Turnbull had already decided to keep the baby bonus unchanged (in order to get the National’s support for his Coup) -this will cost $1.4B over the next 10 years.. Clearly a spending problem. When negative gearing and superannuation entered the public conversation Turnbull insisted he wanted to have, Malcolm and the Coalition tried to shut it down by suggesting house prices would both rise and fall in the same 24 hour period as well as rents going through the roof. Economist Saul Eslake believes there is no evidence to support the claims of those running the scare campaign. It seems yet again that the Coalition is willing to sacrifice economic improvement for political gain. Further evidence of the Coalition’s economic credentials - there has in fact been a turnaround since the Coalition took charge of the Treasury benches. Australia has gone from the stand-out economy through the global financial crisis (GFC) to the worst performer in terms of growth trajectories among the world’s wealthiest nations, according to new OECD data from the last quarter of 2015. The Turnbull government is currently sinking like a stone for many reasons – infighting and division, poor leadership and communication, a continued haphazard approach to government, and significantly… economic mismanagement. But to be fair the Turnbull government is no different than the Abbott, Howard and Fraser governments… they were all terrible economic managers. by Mark Enders
Some words (even if they are made up) you just know what they mean when you hear them. Econobabble is one of those words which needs no definition. We know what it means because we have heard Econobabble for years every time someone tries to push their own political point or their own vested interest. It encompasses the supposed statements of fact that just sound like bullshit but we can't prove it, and we don't know how to fight it. Until now. I have been reading an excellent book with that exact title... by the economist Richard Denniss. While I'd recommend you read it for yourself, I thought I'd share a few of the more engaging passages to give you a taste for Richard's writing and the message of the book. One of the staples of Econobabble is to refer to the Markets as if they have feelings, and to ascribe to them some kind of higher and ultimate wisdom. Richard illustrates how opaque economic language is used to conceal the truth with some excellent examples. The following two passages say the same thing: Markets reacted angrily today to news the government is considering tightening thin capitalisation provisions, which have provided foreign investors with strong incentives to expand their Australian operations. And Rich foreigners reacted angrily today at news that they might have to pay tax on the profits they earn in Australia. After the government announced that it was considering clamping down on some of the most lucrative forms of multinational profit-shifting, some very wealthy Americans threatened to take their businesses away from Australia if they were forced to pay tax. The first statement suggests a proposed policy is not in our best interests, while the second demonstrates it clearly is. Econobabble sells us up the river to the rich mates of some politicians and lobbyists. Richard also provides some excellent advice on how to wade through it to find something more closely resembling the truth:
It's a great book, essentially reading with a Federal election just around the corner... when we will be inundated with Econobabble. by Mark Enders
You know how the saying goes. Today's post is a number of images from which you can draw your own conclusions Our economy is transitioning... even Scott Morrison is saying so. But it is not transitioning in a way that he and the Turnbull government have foreseen, or even supported. It is transitioning toward the new economy, powered by renewable energy. It is difficult to say what was the tipping point for dirty power sources like coal (which is undoubtedly in structural decline). Solar panels have become both more efficient and cheaper to produce. This in large part due to the large scale production that has been occurring in China. But it seems future efficiency gains are around the corner with Australian companies like Dyesol making huge leaps forward with its Perovskite product coming in at just over 21% efficiency late last year, and French company Sunpower's product recently coming in at 22.8% efficiency. Solar-thermal is also reportedly coming to our shores with US company SolarReserve reportedly planning a 110MW facility near Port Augusta which can supply power over a 24 hr period... essentially baseload power which completely negates the final argument as to why we 'need coal'. Battery storage is fast becoming the technology that will smooth out the lumpiness of generation from wind and solar. The big name in this space has been Elon Musk and Tesla, with batteries already being sold and installed in Australia and with reportedly many more lining up. One of the great Australian energy storage stories comes from AllGrid energy - an indigenous Australian owned company which is using older technology (lead acid batteries) to provide cheaper battery storage to remote communities where power from diesel generators is expensive, dirty and can be unreliable. The answer for remote communities will be solar and battery, and an Indigenous corporation will be doing its bit to close the gap for people in those areas. Wind is moving ahead in leaps and bounds. In addition to the high penetration in places like South Australia, the technology is changing and improving rapidly - with larger blades (meaning more capacity to generate power at low wind speeds), as well as blades that fold in high winds (for greater safety in stormy and cyclonic conditions). Proactive governments like the ACT are fast-tracking battery capacity building, and South Australia has set a path towards 100% renewables. Sadly there is no leadership Federally despite us having the World's Best Minister in this space. Luckily ARENA is an independent body and is doing the investment heavy lifting in this area. Interesting new technology projects include - Solar air turbine systems (a project between CSIRO and Mitsubishi), Wave energy projects (in WA and Victoria), and the Kidston Pumped storage project near Ingham, and more. It's hard not to agree with Malcolm Turnbull - these are exciting times - but not for major sponsors of the Liberal party. by Mark Enders
|
Authors
The Townsville Greens will publish blogs considered to be of merit. The opinions expressed are those of the Author. Archives
October 2016
Categories
All
|