Archives For politics

The NSW Government has just decided to ban bottled water.

Well, for Government departments.

They’ve done so after a country town in southern NSW introduced a blanket ban. This seems dumb.

People buy water for convenience sake. Water is important to live. The town in NSW will introduce filtered water fountains into the street.

I can’t help but think that this is an ailing Premier’s cynical attempt to ride a wave created by a small corner of his constituency…

“We’re asking government departments to phase it out unless there is obvious and practical commonsense reasons not to in the event someone doesn’t have cool water in a hot environment,” he [Premier Rees] said.

The Premier says the move will save taxpayer money and help reduce the impact on the environment of producing and throwing away plastic bottles.

“Local businesses in the town of 2,500 people are proposing to replace the bottles with reusables and then offer directions to filtered water fountains that will be installed on the main street.”

“At the very least, if they don’t ban it, then at least they will reduce their usage of it and in doing so, reduce the half-a-billion dollars a year that Australians are spending on bottled water.”

That’s half-a-billion dollars worth of convenience and jobs axed for ideological reasons.

Bottled water, in some people’s minds, is a tax on stupidity. Ever held a bottle of Evian up to a mirror? It’s free from the taps.

But that’s not the point.

As friend Paul pointed out in an email discussing the country town’s ban – people are buying the bottle not the water – you’re hardly going to stick your mouth on a tap in a public place.

Benny is most unhappy. Tap water gives him ulcers. He’s the only person I know who sees fluoride as an election issue.

Stupid hippies.

Market politics

Nathan Campbell —  July 8, 2009

SMH Economics writer Ross Gittins has written a great piece on the similarities between modern politics and commerce. He touches on the status quo bias and the fact that for politics to truly work voters need to pay more attention to the details – which he says is the same for consumers in the economic sphere. This raises a question about where this theory would lead were it to be fully applied to the system – and I think non-compulsory voting would be a likely outcome – then the disenfranchised and disinterested wouldn’t have to vote, and the interested would be rewarded with a greater per capita say in the election of the government. The alternative is to see a merging of the two – which is essentially the ideology pushed by “small government” market economists who want to see the “free market” take ownership of economic development. If that ideology was taken to its extreme it’d be a “no government” ideology where the market controls everything. Corporations could take the place of political parties, taxes could be wiped out and the “head corporation” could be the one that achieved the highest level of financial support from the public/customer – this financial support essentially equals power, and power is lost if the corporation fails to develop services for the customer. It’s not that different from the current system. But it doesn’t work – because Government has to play a role in delivery of essential services that have no real market value – or that shouldn’t. Like education, health, child protection, justice, and environmental protection. Gittins makes an interesting point about why the Government doesn’t really work as well as it should… and it’s precisely because we’re largely disinterested.

“In any case, they know that, should they actually fix a problem, we’d be grateful for about a week before moving on to the next problem on our list. Because we take so little interest in the details of problems and their solutions, because we rarely follow up yesterday’s concerns, because our emotions are so easily swayed by vested interests or the media, the pollies learnt a long time ago that appearances matter more to voters than the reality of the situation.”

Malcolm Turnbull’s tenacious UteGate attacks were a serious miscalculation. It seems that it’s not a case of the public “not caring” about the issue – but rather caring that they had to continue putting up with an issue that nobody but Turnbull cared about.

He’s now a less popular leader than Costello (who has announced his retirement) and Joe Hockey. As usual, Peter Hartcher’s SMH analysis is worth a read.

Reader Poll

Nathan Campbell —  June 22, 2009

Does anybody actually care about Utegate?

K-Rudd isn’t going to resign. Swan isn’t going to resign. Turnbull isn’t going to resign. The guy from the public service is going to get fired jailed. It seems he’ll be the only one remembering this whole saga a year from now.

What I think would be awesome would be if the alchopops thing is the trigger for a double dissolution. Imagine being the Prime Minister booted out for trying to make grog more expensive. That’ll play in headlines all over the world.

I also hate the way we add “gate” to the end of every political scandal. It didn’t happen in the Watergate building so it’s not analogous.

I hope K-Rudd is learning his lesson about how it pays to be nice to your public servants and not make them work at break neck speed. They’ve claimed his Defense Minister and now they’re after him.

Political segway

Nathan Campbell —  June 17, 2009

When Dick Cheney wasn’t busy being awesome shooting his friends on hunting trips he was being awesome riding a segway.

The best Liberal Party MP never to lead the country has called time on his career (at the next election). Ending over a year of speculation and no doubt taking some pressure off Turnbull.

I like Costello. Particularly during Question Time.

Today both K-Rudd and Turnbull had some nice things to say about him – his Costelloesque* response (appropriate given that he is Costello…):

“It is just possible both sides of the dispatch box are happy with the announcement I’ve made,” he said.

“It is a very nice thing to actually come here and not be quite departed and hear the kind of speeches one hears as eulogies. In fact, I might come back tomorrow, I’m enjoying it so much.”

*the coining of a new adjective.

Premier Bligh has decided to scrap the 8c a litre fuel subsidy. I don’t really care. Anything the government is subsidising is being paid for by us (the tax payer) anyway. So it seems that I’ll get taxed less and have more money to spend on the things that go up in price. Balance. Plus, there have been a number of price hikes in recent years to cover increased fuel costs – and I haven’t noticed decreases to cover the drop in fuel prices since. So it should all just work itself out.

That’s what I think anyway. I wonder why all the lobby groups in the world are up in arms about increased costs when we’re still about 22c ahead of where we were six months ago. I tried to make our line on the issue consistent with my thinking – but keeping the customers (the tourism industry wants the subsidy) satisfied won the day. Oh well. More fool them.

Joyce: to the world

Nathan Campbell —  May 19, 2009

When Barnaby Joyce wasn’t making a complete turkey of himself with his stance on Student Unions today he was reinventing the conservative movement in a speech to the National Press Gallery.

Given that my political bias is in the conservative direction (who’d have thunk it…) I was interested in what he had to say. It was intelligent and articulate – unlike his education efforts.

I’ve mentioned before (I think) that I have tremendous respect for Joyce based largely on an interview I did with him in my uni student days.

Here are some highlights, it’s a long speech and worth a read.

On the nature of politics

Playing only to the centre however has its dangers. In the desire to be opaque, lukewarm, inoffensive and passionately politically tepid, there are flanks that open up to the left and to the right of the centre.

The Labor Party strategy is very adroit in that their flank is covered by their able lieutenant, the Greens, who orchestrate political pas de deuxs on issues where it is inconceivable that the right could outflank them on the far left. “

On Climate Change

Let’s look at a current issue that clearly shines a spotlight on this problem. I believe there is a paradox that the conservatives can represent a voter who in the same breath could be skeptical without ruling out the role of the Government being responsible for bringing about moral good, so coherently believes in small tax and small government, yet also believes in a social program tax, such as the emissions trading scheme to haunt us all with its battalions of bureaucratic tin gods on the quest for Australia to cool the planet.

While conservative voters will care for the environment, they may divide on how to best achieve that outcome. Many conservatives question whether an ETS, a tax, should be placed on businesses regardless of whether they are profitable or not, and regardless of whether the proposition put forward has any efficacy on what it wishes to achieve, global cooling.

On the budget/debt

I have never seen anything so peculiar as the exit strategy that was handed forth in the little orange book by Mr Swan in the last stimulus package. Basically what we had was two bullet points that said when things get better we will pay the money back. I never knew it was so easy. If I have to go back to accountancy I will try this out on sundry bank managers. I will sit on behalf of my client on the other side of the bank manager’s desk and say “you see Mr Smith of the bank, Mrs Jones will pay you back that $2m she owes you when things get better”. In the past I have always found this slightly more difficult than what was proposed to me by the Treasurer. Paying back debt should be the absolute primary motivation for this current government.

On crossing the floor

You know, it doesn’t make the news in the United States when some senator crosses the floor, but you know, you’d think the sky would fall in which case, in my case, it must have fallen 28 times.
But life goes on and I think a great sort of – you know, if we could just – the source of this problem was that the Labor Party with Fisher, decided the one-in, all-in approach so they emasculated the process of the Senate.

Barnaby Joyce is a funny guy. Most of the time. Like today. He told this seriously funny joke about the proposal to reintroduce compulsory uni fees… he’s fine with it. Provided the universities can only spend the money on sport. Because heaven forbid anybody on university campuses being politically aware. Perhaps, just perhaps, he should talk to Peter Costello and others on his side of the fence who had their political appetite’s whetted by campus activism.

Here’s his problem with the current proposal:

“There’s nothing to stop those with a political bent setting up a club or setting up an institution and using that as a mechanism of sorts for ciphering funds to themselves,” he said.

Being opposed to the “ciphering of funds” for political purposes is one thing – but his objections simply create a loophole where every politically motivated student on campus will either start, or join, a team of like minded individuals in one of these new fangled sporting teams.

The best bit about that will be when young Labor play the young libs on the football field. It’ll be like the Cripps and the Bloods all over again.

Ahh, budget night, a night that has traditionally, for me, been an excuse for some solo TV watching complete with a cold beer. But not last night. Last night I didn’t watch any of the coverage until after NCIS* and Lie to Me**. I figured forensic crime investigations and a show examining honesty would be more interesting viewing than forensic accounting and a show full of lies.

But, I have been pretty interested in the whole alcopops debacle – which would most certainly be the most trivial issue to trigger a double dissolution ever. Some alcopops companies found a loophole and started brewing pre-mix drinks with beer as the alcoholic base, circumventing the tax. So now, the Government, in Budget Papers number 2, have promised to ensure that beer remains bitter… thanks to the SMH’s Annabel Crabb for the hot tip…

“The Government will alter the taxation definitions of beer and wine to ensure that beer and wine‑based products that attempt to mimic spirit based products are taxed as a spirit product, with effect from 1 July 2009. This measure has an ongoing gain to revenue which is estimated to be $125 million over the forward estimates period.

The definition of beer will be changed to ensure that beer has a certain level of bitterness, and to clarify that the addition of sugar, artificial sweeteners and spirits may result in the resultant product being taxed as a spirit based product.

The definition of grape wine products will be changed to exclude products that add the flavour of any alcoholic beverage, other than wine. Other changes to the definition of grape wine products will act to provide certainty as to the circumstances where alcohol can be added to a grape wine product.”

* Why can’t NCIS get corpses not to breathe during their autopsy scenes?
** I am fascinated by this show and the nuanced expressions of deception and emotions, provided it’s accurate and not a complete work of fiction…