Throw Howard Out

Australians, finally able to rejoice at the demise of the hated Howard government, can count themselves lucky that the Queensland Labor Government's undemocratic local government amalgamations program enacted at the behest of the Property Council of Australia did not fatally undermine Federal Labor's election campaign in Queensland as had been feared earlier earlier by Margo Kingston amongst others.

In the early stages federal Labor Leader Kevin Rudd did publicly oppose the forced amalgamations and correctly supported Prime Minister John Howard's Federal legislation₁ to over-ride the now infamous Queensland Government's legislation under which councils which attempted to consult their communities about the amalgamations through ballots could have been dismissed and under which any councillor who even voted in favour of any motions enabling such ballots could have been fined.

In spite of Rudd's support public distancing of himself from the Queensland Government the "Friends of Noosa", opposed to the forcible amalagamation of the Noosa Shire Council into the Greater Sunshine Coast council, launched a "Dump Labor" campaign in early September 2007 which featured demonstrations in which effigies of Rudd, as well as Beattie, were put in a bin. A large hoarding on a major road on the northern approach to Brisbane also featured the "Dump Labor" slogan.

Had they succeeded and returned a Howard Government this could have paradoxically, been counterproductive to their stated goals. State Labor governments, including the Queensland Beattie Labor Government have been notorious for their undermining the electoral prospects of Federal Labor in order to serve their own cynical survival strategies₂. This is because the state parliament election dates have tended to occur near the middle of the three year Federal parliamentary election cycle, when the Howard Government had felt most immune from popular opposition. At these moments, when the Howard had chosen to inflict his nastiest policies upon the Australian public, state Labour governments have been able to exploit the resultant public backlashes in order to be able to cling to office themselves. Thus, former Victorian Premier Steve Bracks was re-elected in 2006 in spite of breaking a 2002 election promise to build a freeway, instead deciding to have a privately operated tollway built. The unpopular New South Wales state Labor Government of Morris Iemma was re-elected in March 2007 largely as a result of a backlash against Howard Government's "Work Choices", even though the Government in which he was a minister under the leadership of former Premier Bob Carr helped bring about "Work Choices" by undermining Mark Latham's election chances in 2004.

Given all of this there would have been little reason to suppose that either Premier Peter Beattie or his successor Anna Bligh would have been concerned in the least by the "Dump Labor" campaign.

As the election date drew closer other leaders of the anti-amalgamation movement appealed to Kevin Rudd for his public support. Had he done so, there would have been every reason to expect that the Queensland Government would have have been forced to abandon the amalgamations. However, he did not, even ignoring appeals for him to do so contained in full paid advertisements from the "Local Democracy" group (one partially in Chinese in which Rudd is fluent) published in the Courier Mail prior to the elections. Predictably, at least two large advertisements which called on Queenslanders to vote against Federal Labor were published in the Courier Mail in the last week before the election.

However, Rudd's gamble appears not to have backfired against Federal Labor and the appeals of the anti-amalagamation movement to vote against Labor went largely unheeded by Queenslanders, most fortunately for both Queensland and the rest of Australia. There was a 8.31% swing against the coalition in Queensland (as of 3.45pm AEDST) giving Labor 51.22% of the vote on a two-party preferred basis.

Whatever the reason for the high vote for Federal Labor may be, Queenslanders, opposed to the Howard Government, who may have objected to the anti-Labor campaign, would be ill-advised to turn their backs on their rural cousins. If the undemocratic amalgamations are not stopped it will eventually harm the interests of ordinary Queenslanders to the benefit of land speculators, property developers₃ and other powerful vested interests, who at the moment have at least the Queensland Government in their collective pocket, if not the now defunct Federal Liberal Government.

It is important that people vote in the areas living in council areas affected by the amalgamations use Australian Electoral Commissions plebiscites, scheduled to begin on 26 November with the mail-out of postal ballots, to make their opposition to amalgamations emphatically clear.

Furthermore, if the democracy is to have any real content in this state the Queensland Government must be made to accept the outcomes of these plebiscites and, if necessary reverse the amalagamations now underway.

Footnotes

1. Howard's support for democracy in Queensland stands in stark contrast to his own record in Government and to his own attitude to forced amalagamations in New South Wales and Victoria. See, for example, Media releases by the Indepenendent NSW Federal MP Peter Andren (since deceased) Howard's paper thin hypocrisy on amalgamations and my article Dictatorial Conduct published in Online Opinion on 21 Sep 07.

2. This was revealed in the Latham Diaries, with examples of how the Victorian, New South Wales and Tasmanian state Labor governments had acted to harm his own election prospects. Sadly, Mark Latham has, himself, more recently emulated this behaviour which he had so rightly exposed in his own diaries, by turning on Federal Labor in two articles published in the Australian Financial Review (see article Mark Latham's Political Gift to John Howard dated on 19 Nov 2007 on Margo Kingston's web diary).

3. See Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia, 7 Sep 2007

Links

Peter Beattie bent on destruction of Rudd's chances Margo Kingston, 18 Aug 2007

Online Opinion discussion forum: Don't let Peter Beattie save John Howard's political hide 8 Aug 2007

Dictatorial conduct by James Sinnamon, 21 Aug 2007

Queensland's burning - local government amalgamations Beattie-style by Scott Prasser, 27 Sep 2007

/NoForcedAmalgamations

www.localdemocracy.com.au

www.friendsofnoosa.org

This article was originally published in Online Opinion on 21 November 2007 and on Margo Kingston's webdiary. Comments can be posted below, to Online Opinion or to webdiary

The same opinion polls which predict that John Howard will lose the election on 24 November, nevertheless, also consistently show that Australians still perceive his Government to be competent at handling Australia's defence, or at least more capable than the Labor Opposition. The figures given in the 23 October NewsPoll were 43 per cent to 39 per cent in Howard's favour.

However, this perception is not borne out by the evidence. Although Australia was once governed by leaders who capably managed our defence, this is no longer the case.

Andrew Ross's meticulously researched book Armed and Ready published in 1995 conclusively shows, contrary to the widely promoted myth, that Australia was ready to face a Japanese invasion in 1942 thanks to the visionary work of a number of far-sighted politicians, both conservative and Labor, public servants and industrialists.  Since the 1920's they worked hard to make Australia capable of defending itself without any need for the supply of military equipment from elsewhere as had been the case in the First World War.  The policy goal was to become known as "self containment".

As a consequence, after war was declared in Europe in September 1939, Australia was able to rapidly convert its peace-time economy so that by June 1942, which is the earliest date before which Japan could possibly have launched an invasion, Australia had eight fully equipped Army divisions and an air force that was at least capable of denying them total air supremacy. Supplies for this defending force would have been maintained by one of the world's most advanced industrialised economies of the time using local raw materials. What little Australia could not have supplied itself could have been obtained from overseas as the invading Japanese would not have been able to maintain an effective naval blockade without having first captured a port the size of Sydney or Melbourne.

Short of the United States reaching a separate peace with Japan, there was no realistic prospect that an invasion could have succeeded. It is for this reason that the Japanese Army vetoed a plan by the Japanese Navy to invade Australia before the US victory at the Battle of the Coral Sea in March 1942.

After the Japanese advance was stopped Australia played the major role until 1943 supplying the manpower and military hardware which drove back the Japanese on land. Of Australia's contribution to the Allied war effort, US President Truman was to say in 1946:

"On balance, the contribution made by Australia, a country having a population of about seven millions, approximately equalled the United States". (Report to congress on Lend Lease, 27 Dec 1946, cited in Armed and Ready)

Moving forward 65 years to 2007, how does the Howard Government's record stand against the proud record of its ideological predecessors?

Informed Australians understand that in the broader sense of looking after Australia's defence needs by pre-empting likely causes of armed conflict, the Howard Government is a dismal failure. Its role in starting the Iraq war, having previously allowed AU$296 (all dollar figures are Australian dollars unless stated otherwise stated) in bribes to be paid to the regime of Saddam Hussein, has undoubtedly made the world a more dangerous place and raised Australia's own profile in the eyes of terrorist organisations. Furthermore, John Howard's sabotage of international efforts to confront the problem of global warming has exacerbated a threat which even the Pentagon considers greater than that of terrorism.

However, many Australians may be surprised to also learn that the militarily aggressive Howard Government has, paradoxically, been no more competent in safeguarding Australia's security  even in the more narrow sense of managing its defence forces.

This has been shown categorically in the groundbreaking book National Insecurity - The Howard Government's betrayal of Australia published earlier this year and, more recently by the Four Corners documentary Flying Blind, which screened on Australian TV on October 29.

F111 and air supremacy

Flying Blind showed how Prime Minister Howard and his Defence Minister Brendan Nelson have scandalously mismanaged the procurement of replacements for Royal Australian Air Force's (RAAF) ageing, but still capable, fleet of F111 fighter bombers.

The F111's are due to be replaced by the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), but the original decision to purchase the JSF was made counter to all well-established defence force equipment procurement procedures. In June 2002 during a visit to the US, aircraft manufacturer Lockheed Martin made a presentation to the Prime Minister in his hotel room. During the presentation John Howard suddenly agreed to purchase the fighter that was still on the drawing board at a projected cost of $16 billion. According to National Insecurity, he agreed so quickly that even senior Lockheed Martin executives were 'flabbergasted'. "That was just amazing, it stopped everything in the room at the time", said Lockheed's international programs director for the JSF, Mike Consentino, about Australia's surprise announcement. "This was our first international customer so it was a memorable day".

The JSF, however, may not be ready until 2018, and it appeared that the service lives of the F111's and FA18 Hornets were to have been extended with modifications and the use of an abundant supply of cheap spare parts.

This ran counter to the plans of another aircraft manufacturer Boeing, who had seen an opportunity to sell its Super Hornet, for which it was having difficulty finding customers.

At first, the Air Force was not interested in the Super Hornet, but after an F111 wing had cracked during a maintenance test, the new Defence Minister Brendan Nelson seized upon this to convince Cabinet that the Super Hornet was necessary, at a cost of $6.6 billion. It was subsequently found that the crack in the F111 wing had only been caused as a result of a fault in the test design. Professor Hugh White (Deputy Secretary of Defence, 1995-2000) told Four Corners that he could not "recall in Australia decisions of this magnitude ... being made so quickly on such a slender basis of advice".

The Hornet is markedly inferior to its likely adversaries in the region which would include the new Russian built Sukhoi 30's with which the air forces of Indonesia, Malaysia, China and India are soon to be equipped. Retired Air Vice Marshall Peter Criss said to Four Corners, "I cannot believe that we would waste $6.6 billion of the taxpayer's money on an aeroplane that has no practical use against any modern, new generation fighter coming into our arc of interest to our north".

As a consequence of these decisions, Australia stands to lose the regional air supremacy that allowed it to safeguard the independence of East Timor from Indonesia in 1999.

The decisions to buy the JSF and the Super Hornet are not the only questionable defence equipment procurement decisions made by the Howard Government in recent years.  Others include:

The M1 Abrams tank

In 2004 Australia agreed at a cost of $539 million to purchase 59 second-hand Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks to replace Australia's current fleet of 100 German-built Leopard tanks purchased by the Whitlam Government in 1974. Due to the necessity having US contractors service the Abrams, rather than domestic contractors, only around 30 are expected to be operational at any one time. In contrast to the life expectancy of the Leopard, which have so far been operational for 25 years, they are expected to last only 10 years.

The Abrams is too heavy for use on Australian bridges and roads. It cannot be airlifted by any of the ADF's transport planes and cannot even be loaded onto any of the Navy's six heavy landing craft, let alone its smaller LCM8 landing craft, so they are entirely unsuited to the defence of the Australian continent and could only conceivably be used as part of joint combat operations with the US.

The Abrams' reputation for indestructibility has been laid to rest by the experience of Iraq where its armour has been penetrated with surprising ease by low-tech bombs and rocket propelled grenades used by Iraqi insurgents.  At least 80 have so far been destroyed.

The Collins class submarine combat system

In 2001 the tendering rules for the contract to supply a combat system for the Collins class submarine were changed to make the prime criterion 'interoperability' with the US.

Additionally, in a number of smaller acquisitions, domestic Australian suppliers have been systematically discriminated against.

The Government refused the Army's request to purchase the Australian manufactured Aerosonde Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) used successfully for surveillance in the Solomons in July 2003. Instead of purchasing this proven and relatively cheap technology, the Government opened a tendering process for the supply of a more expensive high-tech version, then cut short the tendering process, instead opting only to field test two systems - both from the US.

According to a report "Auditor lashes $2.1bn frigate upgrade" in The Australian newspaper of 1 Nov 2007, the privatisation of the Australian Defence Industries in 1999 appears to have led to a delay, so far, of four and a half years in the upgrade of six frigates and a $275 million cost blowout. In spite of the blowout, the navy will only be getting four frigate upgrades instead of six. Other projects which have incurred cost blowouts include the navy's Seasprite helicopter, the army's M113 personnel carrier upgrade, the RAAF's Wedgetail surveillance planes and the Tiger reconaissance helicopter. Total cost blowouts for Australia's Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) are running at $13 billion according to Labor's defence spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon.

An earlier and tragic consequence of outsourcing of defence force responsibilities to private companies was the HMAS Westralia disaster in 1998 in which four sailors were killed in a fire caused by the faulty installation of hoses by poorly trained private contractors.

Australian taxpayers have also yet to learn the costs of the Howard Government's propensity to sell defence force buildings, including housing for defence personnel, to private investors and then to lease them back.

These decisions show a record that compares very unfavourably to that of  those previous governments which led the country prior to, and during, the Second World War.

The corporate newsmedia such as Rupert Murdoch's News Limited does nothing to make this fact apparent to its readership. As an example, the scandalous mismanagement of the procurement of  the replacement for the F111 reported by Four Corners was not pursued by News Limited or any other of the newsmedia.  Instead, it repeatedly reports without comment, NewsPoll results favourable to the Howard Government in this area.

In past elections this perception has helped unravel Labor's election winning lead and even at this late stage a recurrence of this cannot be entirely ruled out. If, as a result, Howard should win a fifth term of office, then the health of Australia's democracy will have been shown, once again, to have been wanting.

This article is largely based upon the following resources:

Linda Weiss, Elizabeth Thurbon and John Mathews, National Insecurity - The Howard Government's betrayal of Australia, 2007, Allen and Unwin, pages 133-173.

The Four Corners episode "Flying Blind", which screened on ABC Television on 29 October, 2007.  The transcript is available at: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2007/s2073943.htm.

Andrew T Ross, Armed and Ready - The Industrial Development and Defence of Australia 1900-1945, 1995, Turton and Armstrong.

Other useful links

Transcript of of the National Interest's "Fighter jets stalk Nelson" December 2007 of 9 Dec 2007.

Transcript of the National Interest's "Joint Strike Fighter: enough bang for our billions?" of 15 April 2007.

"The Latham Diaries" published in 2005 reveal how figures within the Labor Party and the trade union movement undermined the election prospects of Federal Labor Party in recent years and have prolonged the misrule of the Howard Government. State Labor Premiers, the Forestry division of the Construction Forestry and Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU), in league with the woodchippers who are destroying Tasmania's old-growth forests, and even members of the Federal Labor caucus acted as if they found the prospect of Howard ruling after 2004 elections preferable to the prospect of a Latham-led government.

Now in 2007, many who had admired and supported Latham in the past will be dismayed to have read "Latham: Beware the Polls and The Swinging Voter" the second of two articles for the Australian Financial Review published on Saturday 17 November. Just as he had shown that people within the Labor Party had acted to undermine Federal Labor when he was its leader in 2004, Latham now appears, himself, to be acting to undermine Federal Labor's chances in 2007.

Furthermore, if as he says in his article, that the outcome of the Federal election is still undecided, then the anti-Labor views propagated in that article may yet make the necessary difference that would deliver Howard a fifth term in office.

The article contains a surprisingly one-sided blinkered pronouncements against the union movement's "Rights to Work" campaign against the Howard Government's "Work Choices" legislation, which Latham implies is the one factor which would prematurely end the rule of a Government which is capably managing the national economy. As Latham put it:

Throughout this year most commentators have been surprised by the Howard Government's poor showing in the polls. Conventional wisdom says a government presiding over a strong economy, with no reputation for corruption (my emphasis) should be safely re-elected.

I would have thought that many others would perhaps have expressed even greater surprise that a Government such as Howard's could enjoy even that much support, given its record.

Evidently, the rorting of the regional partnerships grant scheme against Latham's own bid to become Prime Minister in 2004, the AWB bribery scandal in which $296 million (all dollar figures given are in AU$ unless otherwise stated) was paid to the regime of Saddam Hussein and the spending of an unprecedented $1 billion on saturation-level Government self-promotional advertising since the 2004 elections, the abuse of the Government's absolute Senate majority do not technically amount to 'corruption' so should not concern Australian electors.

If not for the trade union movement's campaign against "Work Choices" which Latham labels a 'scare campaign', the Howard Government in which Latham finds surprisingly little fault would easily win on 24 November:

The breakthrough has been the labour movement's capacity to run a long-term scare campaign on an issue affecting the hip pocket nerve - Work Choices. This has been the most expensive and sustained television advertising campaign in Australian political history. Since 2005 the trade unions have raised large amounts of money, selling off assets and raiding their slush funds, in one last push to get rid of the coalition and return to the patronage of a Labor government, and the campaign has worked, creating fear and misunderstanding (my emphasis) in the community about the industrial relations laws and hostility to the Howard Government

It's notable the language Latham uses. He now apparently disputes the right of unions to organise effectively and to engage in politics for the benefit of their memberships. Union funds have become 'slush funds'. The union movement's aspiration to bring about the election of a government more sympathetic to its wellbeing than the current government is denigrated as seeking 'patronage' as if somehow the relationship between the Howard Government and the big business interests that it serves is not 'patronage'. This paragraph sadly demonstrates how the line between legitimately criticising the anti-democratic practices of some trade unions as he did in "The Latham Diaries" and simply being opposed to unions outright is an easy one to cross.

If it is, in fact, true that unions have been forced, by the introduction of "Work Choices" legislation for which this government had no mandate and the subsequent lavish spending of taxpayers' funds on blatantly misleading partisan political advertising, to sell of their own assets in order to be able to counter the government misinformation, then a massive injustice has been perpetrated against many unions and their memberships, and they should be entitled to seek reparations from the Liberal Party, but this obvious point appears to have been lost on Mark Latham.

Latham continues:

For two years, the union ads have stirred emotions and hip pocket nerves, with powerful images of single mothers forced to work at weekends, young people coerced into signing contracts and middle-aged couples sacked for no reason after years of loyal service.

Here, Latham seems to be implying, without actually stating it explicitly, that the claims of the "Rights at Work" campaign are either false or a beat-up. He makes no acknowledgment of the fact that the claims have been borne out by numerous independent academic studies, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, as well as copious anecdotal evidence. He does not acknowledge that in "John Winston Howard: The Biography" by Wayne Errington and Peter Van Onselen it has been revealed that Howard knew perfectly well, contrary to undertakings he made and contrary to the claims of the initial saturation level $55 million "Work Choices" advertising campaign, that workers would be worse off as a result of his industrial relations legislation.

Having thus established that "Work Choices" as it now stands is of no great concern to Australian workers, Latham goes on to dismiss any suggestion that a re-elected Howard Government might take "Work Choices" further:

During the campaign, Labor's advertisement have added a new dimension of fear, that a re-elected Howard/Costello government would take Work Choices further.

Latham claims:

No-one on the Labor side honestly believes that the coalition would take Work Choices further, just as in 2004, no-one in the coalition believed that would keep interests rates down.

How Labor Party insiders can know this and how Latham can know that they know this is not explained.

The Australian public were never told by John Howard of "Work Choices" during the 2004 election campaign. Peter Costello, for his part, has said that the removal of protection against unfair dismissal should be extended to all employees and not just restricted to those working for companies employing less than 100 employees. Finance Minister Nick Minchin told a meeting to the HR Nicholls Society on 8 March 2006, "we do need to seek a mandate from the Australian people at the next election for another wave of industrial relations reform". Industrial Relations Minister Joe Hockey told ABC Radio's AM program on 18 October that the role of unions in Australian society is "essentially over"

As some employers are already loudly complaining of the complexity of the "fairness test" amendments to the "Work Choices" laws. Whatever might be said before the election, we can expect that once Howard is returned to office the campaign to remove or else water down the "fairness test" will be intensified.

For Latham to expect Australian workers to trust a re-elected Howard Government not to further reduce the rights of workers given all this and given its past record of deceit, lies, 'core' and 'non-core' promises and contrived excuses to dishonour pledges such as the "Beazley black hole", on the basis of his supposed insider information, not from the Government, but from the Labor Party is an extreme test of the credulity of the electorate.

Latham's article contain within it some pertinent observations about the health of Australian democracy. He makes a good case for making voting voluntary as far too much effort seems to be expended by both a major parties in order to win the support of apathetic people, whilst those who really care have relatively little impact. If voting were not compulsory this could change.

However, Mark Latham appears to have completely missed a far more basic question in regard to the operation of democracy.

We have in power a Government which has taken the practice of government to levels which would have previously been unimaginable. This includes, notwithstanding Latham's own attempt to belittle its impact, the introduction of the "Work Choices"legislation which had not even been put to the Australian public in the previous election which has changed the very fabric of our society. Had Howard been forthright about his plans in 2004, he would not be Prime Minister today. Having announced in 2005 his intention to introduce legislation, which he knew perfectly well would harm at least hundreds of thousands of ordinary Australians Howard used taxpayers' money to indoctrinate the public into acceptance of this legislation. The initial campaign had a massive budget of $55-million and inflicted a an unprecedented degree of saturation level advertising on the public. The claims made in the campaign that various workers' entitlements were "protected by law" were later shown to have been false, when the Government subsequently, under the threat of losing office made the "fairness test" amendments to the legislation. A further saturation-level advertising blitz, ostensibly to 'inform' Australian workers of rights supposedly safeguarded by the "fairness test" that they all had enjoyed back in October 2004 and which most had assumed were not at risk when Howard was re-elected, was then launched. Even at that the second advertising campaign still misled, because, amongst other things it neglected to point out that if a worker does not have protection against unfair dismissal, then no other right is worth anything anyway. If a worker does not agree that a proposed AWA is fair what is to stop his/her employer from sacking him/her one month down the track for any concocted reason, anyway?

The all up cost of the Work Choices propaganda stands at over $120 million of taxpayers' dollars. Total taxpayer dollars spent since Howard was re-elected in 2004 stands at $1 billion.

Whilst being prepared to spend copious amount of taxpayer dollars in order to 'inform' the public about "Work Choices" John Howard has refused to publicly debate the legislation, firstly with Beazley and then with Rudd. Only finally, during the course of the election campaign in the limited debate of 21 October did Howard openly confront Rudd and lost the debate. Had he agreed to when he first announced the laws, their harmful effects would have been far too obvious for anyone to deny and the unions would have been spared the necessity for much of the expense entailed in their rights in order to win the public.

Somehow, none of this has any bearing on the health of Australian democracy in Latham's eyes. The article concludes:

Next Saturday, people will be contemplating a change of government when what Australia when when what Australia needs is a change to its democracy

What Latham fails to point out is that if the Australian people fail on 24 November to take advantage of the opportunity before them to throw from office the worst Government by far that this country has had since federation, then a very dangerous precedent will have been set.

If the amount of time energy and money spent by opposition parties, trade unions and grass roots political movements cannot this time bring about the defeat of such a government, then when can they ever hope to succeed?

If Howard gets back in, there will be almost no limit to how much harm it will be capable of inflicting upon the public interest from now on, and their will be almost no limit as to how much an incumbent government can abuse its position of incumbency in order or cling to power.

In covering up this basic reality, Latham is, himself, undermining the very democracy he claims he wants to see rejuvenated.

Sleeping uneasily Tonight ..

.

This letter was sent to a number of newspapers on 23 October

PM Howard continuously extols the Howard-Costello partnership; a vote for Howard - a vote for the Liberals - is effectively a vote for Costello as the next PM.

Costello, who cannot show proper decorum in a public debate ... "making faces" during "the entire leaders' debate"; Costello being "reprimanded" on-air for inappropriate behaviour. [The Australian, 23 October]

Costello, who knowingly made/makes false assertions about Labor front benchers; obstinately refusing to accept objective evidence; arrogantly, rudely shouting over the interviewer; arguing that there's no big difference between 70% and 60%.

10% - that's the difference between 70% and 60%.

According to my calculations, 10% is enough of a swing to defeat the Liberals, including Howard (4% needed) and Costello (8.8% needed). [Mackerras Pendulum]

But ... what's give-or-take 10% to a Treasurer and PM-wannabe?

Judy Bamberger,
O'Connor ACT

Peter Andren media release 9 October 2007

Orange City Council has reaped the benefit of the government's desperate pork barrelling in this phoney election campaign with $10M to complete the Orange Bypass' northern distributor, according to Peter Andren Member for Calare.

"Funding for vital national infrastructure such as this should never be tailored to meet the electoral needs of any government and should be distributed according to the greatest need and priority of that need," Mr Andren said.

"I was pleased to support Council, along with other members and candidates such as local independent Gavin Priestley.

"The Member for Parkes continues to operate outside his electorate and I wonder how his constituents in Dubbo feel about his taking credit for all the federal money being showered on Orange.

"It is imperative that the actual money is received by council before, and not after, the election and that it is not bound to Mr Cobb or any other candidate being elected member for Calare. This is a much needed infrastructure project that should not be tied to political goals.

"I am concerned that the government may be bringing forward a lot of money budgeted for future years under AUSLINK II and that this might undermine the long term strategic planning of the program for short term electoral gain.

"This is a good result for road safety in Orange and again I congratulate Council for making its case so strongly," Mr Andren said.

For further information: 02 6332 6229 or 0427 480 825, www.peterandren.com

Original letter

Like every thinking compassionate person in this country I desperately want to see the end of both Howard and Costello, but I am dismayed to have learnt that the Federal Labor Party is, yet again, poised to pour millions of their hard-earned advertising dollars in an attempt to, once again, focus voter attention on the Liberal Party leadership succession issue ("Costello and Howard side by side", 14 Sep). This strategy has been employed twice before and has failed twice before.

Logically, at some point, John Howard must make way to a successor. If the Labor Party objects to the timing and method, then perhaps it should suggest a better time and a better method.

The fact that key Labor strategists see this non-issue, rather than global warming, 'WorkChoices", the AWB scandal, the Iraq War, privatisation and almost innumerable other examples of Howard's and Costello's misgovernment, as the key to victory, suggests to me that the Labor Party urgently needs to find new election strategists.

Published letter

Like most compassionate people in this country I desperately want to see the end of both Howard and Costello, but I am dismayed to have learnt that the Federal Labor Party is, yet again, poised to pour millions of their hard-earned advertising dollars in an attempt to, once again, focus voter attention on the Liberal Party leadership succession issue ("Costello and Howard side by side", 14 Sep).

This strategy has been employed twice before and has failed twice before.

Logically, at some point, John Howard must make way to a successor.

The fact that key Labor strategists see this non-issue, rather than global warming, 'WorkChoices", the AWB scandal, the Iraq War, privatisation and almost innumerable other examples of Howard's and Costello's misgovernment, as the key to victory, suggests to me that the Labor Party urgently needs to find new election strategists.

Dear editor,

If the leaders of the "Friends of Noosa" coalition had learnt anything from recent history, they would understand that their "Dump Labor" campaign ("It's war on Labor", 6 Sep), aimed at the Federal Labor Party, which has opposed
forced amalgamations from the outset and has fully supported John Howard's legislation to allow Queenslanders to express their views on this issue at the ballot box, will have almost the precise opposite effect to that intended.

In 2003, the then Victorian Labor Premier Steve Bracks broke an election promise of 2002 to build the Scoresby Freeway, instead building the Eastlink tollway in partnership with a private consortium.

Mark Latham, leader of the Federal Labor Party at the time, recognised the threat that the justifed backlash by Victorian voters posed to Federal Labor's election prospects and urged Bracks, at a meeting in 2004, to change that decision.

Bracks refused.

It is a matter of record that Federal Labor paid the price at the 2004 polls for Bracks' actions, whilst Bracks, himself, was re-elected in 2006 as a consequence of voter revulsion against "WorkChoices" and other policies of the same Howard Government that he had helped to get re-elected.

Of course, it could be argued that Kevin Rudd should be more outspoken on this issue. Nevertheless, the leaders of the "Save Noosa" coalition are punishing the wrong people.

I urge them to cease forthwith their campaign against Federal Labor and, in particular, to remove their "Save Noosa - Dump Labor" hoarding which is now prominently displayed on the northern Bruce Highway approach to Brisbane. Instead, they should focus their energies on encouraging a high turnout to the planned plebiscite on amalgamations and on demanding that the Premier and his local Government Minister Andrew Fraser respect its outcome.

They should not assume that city-dwelling Labor voters are necessarily their enemies.

James Sinnamon

War on Labor a bridge too far

Like many others, I am appalled by Peter Beattie's forced amalgamation of our local council.

However, I feel extremely uneasy when I see a front page image representing a fellow human being - no matter what their failings - dumped into a rubbish bin while people stand around applauding (The Noosa Journal, September 6).

Blaming, scapegoating and declaring war on an enemy group may feel like a good way to vent frustrations, but history shows us that politically motivated polarisation rarely resolves problems. More often (especially when carried to extremes) it contributes tohuman suffering.

Personally, I can't see how "declaring war" on Labor - or for that matter declaring war on anyone - is going to fix the amalgamation mess. Aren't there enough wars on the planet already?

Humanity has a proud history of fighting against injustice. Let's not confuse that history with the phoney heroics of those (on all sides) whose self-serving political agendas make them willing to exploit an issue for electioneering purposes.

After all, who is to say a State Liberal government wouldn't have forced amalgamation? They did it in Victoria, despite massive protest.

Beach protest was simply shocking

I am a member of the silent majority and a normal, ratepaying citizen of Noosa, concerned as everyone regarding its future. However, I was disgusted with the behaviour depicted on the front page of your September 6 edition.

The antics of destroying effigies of people is more in line with the frenzied endeavours of a mob on the streets of Mumbai, not the streets of Noosa.

It has become blatantly obvious that the so-called Friends of Noosa - and I use the term with scepticism - are being led around by the nose and manipulated by people with their own agenda.

I recently heard Glen Elmes speak at a function and was impressed by his knowledge and enthusiasm. It would be most disappointing to learn that he condoned this disgrace against his contemporaries, albeit from the opposite
side of the political spectrum.

The myth of the Howard Government's superior ability to manage the Australian economy may prove in this election as in the last to be the Achilles heel of an otherwise damning case against Howard. The indicators that purportedly confirm this myth are incessantly drummed into our collective consciousness by a news-media sympathetic to the Howard Government. These are low (but no longer quite so low) interest rates, low inflation, low unemployment, the elimination of Labor's debt, economic growth and 'real wages' growth.

These claims of economic management superiority have not only been left largely unchallenged, but have sometimes even been propagated, by people who ostensibly oppose the Howard Government. Perversely, even former Labor Prime Minister Paul Keating has endorsed Treasurer Peter Costello's management of the economy on at least two occasions.

For this reason we have the strange situation where opinion polls show low public support for the Government but favorable support for its economic policies.

Unless this situation changes we may find the same dynamic that got Howard over the line in 2004 will play out again this time. Past experience should have taught Howard's opponents that simply exposing Howard as deceitful and heartless will not win the day.

As the elections draw closer, the newspapers will try to further downplay public concern over the Iraq War, the AWB scandal, the Medicare shambles, cuts to spending on education, privatisation, health, research, social welfare, industrial relations, record high immigration and the Government's failure to act in a more timely and decisive fashion against the threat of global warming. Instead, the news media will seek to focus public attention very narrowly on its depiction of the Australian economy and what's supposedly in it for us.

The issues of concern may still hold the attention of some voters but many are likely once again to swallow the notion of a necessary trade-off between dealing with those issues of concern or ensuring their personal material wellbeing by opting for Howard's allegedly superb economic management.

Uncertainty about the economic prospects under the alternative Labor Government or narrow short-term self-interest may again convince sufficient numbers to vote for the return of Howard's Government.

So just how valid are those claims of the Government's impeccable economic credentials?

The GDP is a poor measure of prosperity and economic performance.

The measures of inflation, from which real wage figures are calculated, as well as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which supposedly measures our national prosperity, are seriously flawed. Even the GDP measure originator, Simon Kuznets of the United States, warned in 1934 that: "the welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measure of national income as defined (from the GDP)".(1). The vast economist herd has ignored this warning, but thinking economists have not.

In his article "How Far Will the Crash Go, and What Do we Do Now?" published in the Atlantic Free Press on 20 August, Richard Cook tells us that although "the U.S. producing economy has been in a recession for the last year," this has been masked by factors which include "the government's phony GDP numbers, where the 'churning' of financial transactions masquerades as production".

As people are increasingly aware, the GDP measure interprets all economic activity as adding to national prosperity, including that generated by debt, natural disasters and man-made ills.

In spite of these glaring shortcomings economists persistently use the GDP to depict the economic performance of right-wing pro-big-business governments such as John Howard's in a far more favourable light than is warranted.

Poorly performing measures of inflation and real wages.

Inflation figures, upon which claims of real wages growth are based, do not accurately measure many increases in the cost of living for ordinary people. The most scandalous example is the omission of the cost of land from the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Consumer Price Index. Given the galloping inflation in costs of housing, of which land is by far the greatest component, the Government's claimed 20 per cent increases in average real wages bear little relation to the reality that many Australians face when struggling to pay off mortgages or rent.

The average distance involved in commuting to and from work has steadily climbed for increasing numbers of people obliged to live in new outer suburbs. These suburbs don't have adequate public transport and the public transport that there is, in any case, is increasingly neglected. A reliable car has become a necessity.

In the past many people still had a large yard and a shed in which they could repair their own car. Even in the outer suburbs now, garden, yard and shed space is shrinking and this affects garage and workshop activity. When people lived closer to work and had good public transport there was less urgency associated with having a vehicle available. The car owner could take their time doing their own repairs or shop around for a reasonably priced and reliable mechanic.

An added complication is that newer cars also have complex computerised parts that cannot be repaired by non-specialists. The upshot is that most people now have little choice but to pay whatever it takes to have the car fixed quickly by the first available mechanic.

For many, mobile phones and the Internet are not just a convenience, they are an expensive necessity for employment and business. They entail substantial costs for equipment and subscriptions.

It is easy to come up with many other examples of newer overheads of work and daily life which are not measured by inflation figures. These overheads are necessary to deal with the ever escalating complexity of our lives.

Amongst other factors, this complexity is the result of:

1. ever greater crowding of our cities due to enforced population growth,
2. delegation by government to the less efficient private sector of the responsibility for providing services that the government itself had previously provided, and
3. the government's own propensity to increase the amount of red tape that citizens need to comply with.

Many things that were once either free or very cheap are now out of reach for ordinary people. In the 1950s and 1960s it was possible for my late grandfather to take his family to a holiday by the beach at Maroochydore on Queensland's Sunshine Coast each year for the entire six weeks of the summer holidays all on the single wage of a primary school teacher. Today, such a holiday is completely beyond the means of ordinary Australians.

Many Australians work longer hours, often as unpaid overtime, often involuntarily, for low wages. Then there are a lot of people who have low hourly rates and are unable to find enough hours of work to make up a decent wage.

The hours worked are often organised in shorter stretches for employer convenience. Thus the unfortunate employee has to make more commuting trips consequently spending more time and money travelling. In all cases the average overall intensity of work during the hours of workday has increased. This means that people who cannot continuously keep up the pace are not able to participate in the workforce as they would like or need to.

If the ABS inflation figures were to comprehensively measure these costs, and attach monetary values to the various ways in which the quality of life for many has declined, the "real wages" figures would probably reveal a substantial drop in the actual standard of living of most Australians and a massive drop for many on the lower end of the income spectrum.

To be sure, a significant number of Australians employed in areas like the mining industry, where some skills are in high demand, do enjoy more material prosperity. If, however, they were to ponder the above factors they might realise that this prosperity is not nearly as great as it superficially appears to be.

The material prosperity we do have, moreover, depends upon high consumption of material goods manufactured mostly in countries like China and India in highly polluting processes which increase the greenhouse effect.

Objectively our natural capital is being destroyed, so we are moving backwards and not forwards.

Footnotes

1. Quoted in "Economia", 2004, by Geoff Davies.

2. See" How Far Will the Crash Go, and What Do we Do Now?" by Richard C. Cook published in the Atlintc Free Press of 20August 2006 at www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/2212/1.

More on this topic on this site

For another discussion of the problems in media-popularised measures of economic performance, see on this site, Australian ERA Economist, John Hermann's "Five myths about the economic performance of the Howard Government". "Five myths" identifies and destroys those myths used dishonestly to depict the Howard Government as a brilliant economic manager.

The myths, also referred to above, are lower interest rates, lower inflation than under Labor, low unemployment, the fallacy of the government's economic growth promoting policies and lower government debt. So there are many reasons why the constantly chanted claims of rising living standards and Howard and Treasurer Costello's brilliant economic management can be challenged head on.

The myth of superior economic competency/performance, which has been flogged by the conservative Coalition from the time it first assumed office, involves the following assertions:

Myth 1: Interest rates are characteristically lower under federal Coalition governments than under federal Labor governments.

Reality: The fact is that interest rates were very high (12-15%) when John Howard was Treasurer under Malcolm Fraser. And interest rates are not under the control of any government - the Reserve Bank determines interest rates according to its perception of inflationary pressures, and does not take kindly to attempts by politicians to influence its decisions.

Myth 2: Inflation is lower under the Coalition.

Reality: This is obviously wrong to the extent that myth no 1 is wrong. One of the current criticisms of PM Howard is that he has a reputation for being an irresponsible big-spender during election years, and that this behaviour has contributed in no small way to current inflationary pressures [which have recently forced the RBA to raise interest rates, with a further increase anticipated in November 2007].

Myth 3: Unemployment is lower under the Coalition.

Reality: Part of the problem with this claim is that the definition of employment keeps changing. Governments seem determined to keep changing the goal posts and massaging the figures. Currently in Australia, one hour of paid work per week suffices to classify a person as "employed".

In spite of the statistical fiddle, unemployment may be lower in a relative sense, but for reasons which have little to do with the Howard Government's economic capabilities. The main reasons for lower unemployment are the ecologically unsustainable booms in mineral exports and property development and the retirement of the 'baby boom' generation from the workforce.

Also, skilled workers and professionals are expected to accept unskilled jobs, so many who would be otherwise unemployed are employed in low-paying jobs.

Myth 4: Economic growth is greater under the Coalition government, which helps to explains their substantial budget surpluses.

Reality: This claim begs a number of questions, including whether economic growth is always beneficial to human welfare and the state of the environment. It simply ignores the issue of whether it is desirable or healthy for modern economies to be driven by a financial growth imperative. The entire business community now expects and demands that the economy will grow every year, and that average investment returns will exceed 8 percent per annum, irrespective of the long-term consequences.

Moreover it is widely recognised that the recent strong growth of the Australian economy can be mostly attributed to the mining boom, in harness with China's need for the various raw materials that Australia possesses in abundance. The accession of the conservative parties to office has (from their standpoint) fortuitously overlapped with this boom. It has been cogently argued that in such circumstances any stable government could expect to enjoy a strong budget surplus. It may also be argued that substantial budget surpluses imply that many Australians are being overtaxed, and that regressive taxes like the GST should be either phased out or replaced with more progressive forms of taxation.

In any case, any budget surpluses that happen to occur could be more wisely utilised in public infrastructure investment than in pre-election hand-outs and pork-barrelling within marginal electorates. The record of the federal Coalition government on infrastructure spending is actually very poor, and everyone is suffering in one way or another from their neglect.

Myth 5: The federal Coalition is more responsible than the opposition because it has paid off "Labor's debt".

Reality: Even if there happened to be some truth in this claim, the fact is that the bulk of public debt in Australia has always resided at the state and local government levels, and that over the years this debt has accumulated under both Labor and Coalition governments. Moreover, the overall level of Australian debt and other liabilities, both public and private, has escalated out of control during the past decade. During the period of the Howard government's watch, the ratio of total liabilities to GDP has increased exponentially at a rate never before experienced. This feature of our economy is utterly unsustainable, and the consequences will hit the average Australian very hard whenever any significant global economic contraction occurs. This problem has been elaborated by David Keane, and a good summary of the situation along with the relevant statistics may be found on the Economic Reform Australia (ERA) web site era.org.au.

Liberal Party Workplace Relations

Senator FAULKNER (New South Wales) (1.38 pm)-There is a long and disturbing story in Australian public life, a tale with its origins in a political and economic framework that ignores longstanding Australian values of fairness and opportunity. It is a tale that has unfolded more rapidly since the 2004 election, and the most recent chapter in this story is now before us.

The 2004 federal election saw the Prime Minister's party gain control of this chamber. That was the same election when the Prime Minister promised Australian families that he would keep interest rates at record lows but made no mention of an extreme agenda of stripping away the take-home pay and conditions of hardworking Australians. But, once Mr Howard had control of the parliament after the 2004 election, he used that control to force through the unfair industrial relations laws that later became known as Work Choices. With those laws, the Howard government also introduced two extraordinary programs of promotion: the promotion of these unfair laws and the promotion of the Howard government's re-election hopes.

The first Work Choices advertising program, the one that ran at the time of the introduction of the Work Choices laws, was a monolithic $55 million promotion exercise. It was impossible to turn on a television without seeing the Work Choices ads, and they were brought to the TV screen by the Liberal Party's own ad man, Ted Horton. But their spending program did not end there. In early January 2006, employer organisations were slamming the advertising campaign. The then Chief Executive of Australian Business Ltd, Mr Mark Bethwaite, said:

TV advertisements have not worked ... What we need is practical, solution focused materials which allow employersto apply Work Choices to their workplace.

Within days, in late January 2006, the then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations announced:

The WorkChoices Employer Advisor Programme (EAP) is only one element of a wider information and education campaign that will ensure all workers, their families and employers are aware of the changes and receive information about how WorkChoices may affect them.

He went on to say:

The aim of the EAP is to ensure that there are advisors around Australia, including rural and regional areas, able to educate and assist employers to implement the reforms on an industry basis.

The two initial stages of the Employer Advisor Program were provided with funding of more than $20 million throughout the 2006 calendar year. A subsequent fund of $20 million has been provided for a further round of the EAP in the 2007 calendar year.

Then we came to another chapter in the Howard government's shameless self-promotion rort. That chapter started in April, when the Ministerial Committee on Government Communications approved the Open Mind Research Group to undertake workplace relations research. These reports were received in late April and have formed the strategy of the government's repositioning in industrial relations over the past four months. Thanks to leaked research detailed in the Australian, we know this research drove the dropping of the title 'Work Choices' from the government's lexicon, the renaming of its IR institutions, the establishment of the so-called 'fairness test' and the use of an 'appropriate figurehead' of the Workplace Authority in advertising.

It also lead to a new blitz of advertising - advertising that started before the full drafting instructions for the legislation had been sent to Parliamentary Counsel. And the cost for this round of advertising is $23 million, and still counting. At that time, a detailed research report by Crosby Textor was leaked to the media. In that research report, the Liberal Party's campaign directors noted:

The arrival of Kevin Rudd into the Labor leadership has also given voters renewed confidence ...to express their reservations about WorkChoices; and especially in the absence of counter claims or information to the anti-IR messages being disseminated by the unions.

But in June, when the Liberal apparatchiks down at Crosby Textor were preparing this report, they were also preparing a second research report for the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry pro-Work Choices campaign. In their research report for the business campaign, they proposed advertising that would be 'a counterpoint to the one-sided ads of the unions' as well as being 'immediate countering of Labor's and the unions' scare campaign'. Sounds familiar? Well, just yesterday, The Age newspaper detailed the fact that VECCI president Richard Holyman wrote to his board supporting the business campaign. The article read:

Holyman tried to convince fellow board members to support the advertisements. He linked the call for a donation to the fact that the Government had given grants to VECCI under the Employer Assistance Program to run Work Choices seminars.

[Holyman wrote] "It is apparent that the key contributors are not wanting a blatant political campaign, but believe that so much effort went into supporting the Work Choices package, we have to help defend it now ... we have had in excess of $600K in grants to help implement Work Choices."

This brings us to the most recent chapter in this story. This chapter concerns the advertising being undertaken by the self-styled Business Coalition for Workplace Reform. This is the group of employer organisations, led by the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, supporting a campaign of television advertising. It is important to acknowledge that only one part of the business community supports this campaign. In fact, many employers and employer organisations do not support this campaign. Many employers and employer organisations present their views in a more mature and appropriate manner. But the Business Coalition for Workplace Reform have a different agenda. They are not running advertisements advocating a specific policy position or providing important information. They are political ads. They use the partisan and pre-election messages, imageries and strategies of the Liberal Party. These organisations have received millions of dollars to promote Work Choices, and now the government calls on them to cough up money for advertising.

We now have media reports of a link between the Employer Advisor Program and the business advertising campaign. We have the role of Crosby Textor - the firm of the Liberal Party and Mr Howard's personal pollster, Mark Textor, and former Liberal Party Federal Director Lynton Crosby. They are the election strategists for the Liberal-National coalition and the advertising campaign strategists for the business coalition, and they advocate the same communication and electoral strategy for both of their clients. This is on top of a $120 million - that is $120 million, and counting - Work Choices campaign by the government, spending the tax dollars of hard-working Australian families.

This is a deeply disturbing development. It is disturbing that the BCA and ACCI have chosen to behave in this way. It is disturbing to suspect that the membership of the BCA and ACCI does not have the full story of what is being done in the name of these organisations. It is disturbing that all three campaigns - the campaigns of the government, of the Liberal Party and of the business coalition - look like they are actually just one campaign. And it is deeply disturbing that this political, partisan advertising campaign is designed to promote and argue for laws that hurt working Australians and their families.

This is just one more example of the Howard government's shameless exploitation of taxpayer funds and resources in a desperate attempt to cling on to office; one more example of shameless rorting by the Howard government; one more aspect of a taxpayer-funded reelection advertising splurge that, between the last election and the upcoming election, will come to between $800 million and $1 billion on advertising alone. Unsurprisingly, Mr Howard will not reveal just how much he will reach into the wallets and pockets and purses of taxpayers - of ordinary working Australians - to fund his re-election epic campaign. That is because after 11 years in office, I think Mr Howard actually believes that taxpayers' money is his own. It has been 11 long years of arrogance and incompetence from the Howard government, and I say again that it is time - it is long past time - that it is brought to an end.